_____ _ 7 7 ,

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman this chockom from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or befor- dato duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

ri-‘I‘: tinny:
<d|-.‘”r '

 

       

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I. An Affirmative MoniEquul Oppommly Institution
W

 

THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGH SCHOOL
SOFTBALL TEAM

By
Linda D. Lyman

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science
1996

ABSTRACT

THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGH SCHOOL
SOFTBALL TEAM

By
Linda D. Lyman

To date, research within the area of coaching has viewed communication as the act
of the coach sending messages to a player or players. The players are viewed as passive
receivers of the coach’s intended message. The basic assumption from this perspective is
that communication is successful when the players receive the coach’s message. Very little
time and effort has been spent on understanding what constitutes communication within the
competitive sport setting. More importantly, we have no idea if the information that coaches
intend to convey to their players is what players ham and see. In order to address some of
these issues, I became a participant observer on a high school varsity softball team. I
conducted over 155 hours of observations, approximately 35 hours of taped interviews,
and countless hours of informal discussions with the players and the coach. Through the
continual analysis of the interview transcriptions, the descriptive fieldnotes, and team
handouts, evidence emerged that supports the overarching assertion that communication
within the team setting is an mgoing interpretive process that is strongly influenced by
one’s past experiences in sport and reference group or groups within the team setting

(benchwarmer, position, newcomer, starter, returning, etc.).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to give a special thanks to my dissertation advisor, Doug Campbell. I
may never have made it this far if he had not provided me with his unselfish support and
guidance over the years. When no one else in my field seemed to find value in the “whys”
and “hows,” Doug encouraged me to choose my own path. Without that encouragement, I
would never have gone beyond my Masters program. Thanks to Doug, I am comfortable
with my place in aeademia as a researcher and a teacher.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the participants of this study for
allowing me into their world These people should be commended for the courage that they
showed by carrying on as a team without noticeable concern for how I would portray them
within the body of this thesis. As far as I can tell, I was witness to some of the most
volatile and most intimate moments in the lives of these people as members of “the team.”
By opening their minds to the value of such research, they have provided us with important
information about the role of communieation in coaching and team development.

I would also like to thank my committee members Jayne Schuitemann, Yvonne
Smith and Deb Feltz for their valuable input and support. Finally, I would like to thank Deb
for the respect and support that she has shown me over the years. Our battles convinced me
that I could thrive in academia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................................... 1

Research on Coaches ........................................................................ 4

Traditional Approach ....................................................................... 4

Leadership Models ........................................................................... 9

Organizational Culture ..................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH PROCESS ........................................................................... l6

Selection of Coach and Sport ............................................................. l6

Choices ............................................................................. 16

Behind Closed Doors ............................................................. 18

The Coach. ....................................................................... 21

Donna’s Selection of Players ............................................................. 23

Tryouts ............................................................................. 23

Players’ Assent, Parents’ Consent ............................................. 28

The Familiar But Strange World ................................................ 31

Negotiation of Access. .................................................................... 32

Inside ............................................................................... 32

Outside ............................................................................. 34

Games .............................................................................. 36

Bus Rides .......................................................................... 37

Tournament ....................................................................... 37

Data Collection Procedures .............................................................. 38

Observations ...................................................................... 38

Interviews ......................................................................... 40

Data Analysis ............................................................................... 44

“The Team” ................................................................................. 46
CHAPTER 3

COACH, THEM, US .............................................................................. 58

Donna/Coach .............................................................................. 59

Call Me Coach .................................................................... 60

Respect as a Right ............................................................... 63

Noisy Chatter as Sign of Support and Involvement .......................... 65

Donna’s Perceptions of a Ballplayer ............................................ 67

Expectations Meeting ............................................................. 68

Leather Ritual ...................................................................... 72

Yelling out of intensity ........................................................... 74

Perceptions of Anger ............................................................. 76

Them ......................................................................................... 79

Role of the Returning Players .................................................... 80

iv

Their Perceived Relationship with Donna ..................................... 81

Relaxed Compared to Last Year ................................................. 82
Ramifieations of Making Game Errors ........................................ 84
Us ........................................................................................... 86
Initial Interactions with Donna .................................................. 87
Past Experiences with Other Coaches .......................................... 90
Intimidation Factor ............................................................... 93
Summary of Chapter ...................................................................... 97
CHAPTER 4
YELLING OUT OF INTENSITY, NUT ANGER ............................................. 99
Getting Accustomed to Each Other ..................................................... 101
Importance of Team ...................................................................... 105
First Day on Varsity Field ............................................................... 106
Sign Day ................................................................................... 113
Aeademics vs Athletics ................................................................... 121
Busting a Sag .............................................................................. 123
First Game as a Team .................................................................... 124
Practices: A Time for Renegotiation .................................................... 138
Casper ...................................................................................... 145
First League Games, We Won .......................................................... 148
The Day after Winning ................................................................... 149
The Bicknell Game ....................................................................... 151
Bicknell Incident .......................................................................... 154
The Day after Bicknell .................................................................... 161
Jiles Tournament .......................................................................... 162
Summary of Chapter ..................................................................... 164
CHAPTER 5
KELSEY ’8 STORY: THE EMERGENCE OF EXPECT ANCY EFFECTS IN THE
SELECTION OF A CATCHER ................................................................ 176
Kelsy’s Interpretation of Donna’s Communieation Behaviors .................... 187
Her Teammates Views on the Catcher Controversy ................................. 193
Donna’s Perceptions of the “Catcher Contorversy” ................................. 199
Summary of Chapter ..................................................................... 202
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 205
Team Building Research ................................................................. 212
Approach-Avoidance ..................................................................... 213
Fear of Being Labeled ........................................................... 213
Leadership Styles ................................................................ 216
In Conclusion ............................................................................. 217
APPENDIX A: COACH’S INFORMED CONSENT ......................................... 218
APPENDIX B: PARENT LETTER ............................................................. 219
APPENDIX C: ATHLETE INFORMED CONSENT ......................................... 220
APPENDIX D: CREDO .......................................................................... 221
APPENDIX E; CREDO WITH MY NOTES ................................................... 222

APPENDIX F: CAPT AIN’S RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................... 224

APPENDIX G: THE PARTICIPANTS ........................................................ 225
APPENDIX H: TIMELINE ..................................................................... 226
LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................................................... 227

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1- Gym Diagram ............................................................................ 25
Figure 2- Sociogram (March 8) ................................................................... 59
Figure 3- Sociogram (March 25) ................................................................. 100

vii

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Coaching is a task/profession that seems to be more clearly defined by the visions
the word “coach” conjures up in our minds than an analysis of coaches’ backgrounds or
listed job requirements. The visions elicited by the word “coac ” exist on a continuum that
ranges from a earing, charismatic, leader/teacher to a ranting, raving authoritarian. The
charismatic leader seems to be our vision of the ideal coach, a good coach. The impatient,
negative authoritarian is the stereotypical coach that has evolved through repeated
observations of coaches on the sidelines at youth sport, high school, college and
professional games. Although a wide range of descriptive responses are associated with the
word “coach,” there is a fairly standard concept associated with the term “successful
coach,” a coach with more wins than losses. This operationalization of a coach
marginalizes the coach with a losing record who is successful at improving the skills of the
players, at providing an enjoyable experience, and at developing a sense of self and pride in
each player. In either ease, the major determinant for being successful is how well the
coach coordinates the mental, physieal, and emotional characteristics of the individuals into
a functional unit, a team. We know that a coach must be an effective communieator to
accomplish this feat. Yet as this chapter will show we know very little about the process
through which a coach effectively coordinates the individuals into a team or creates an
environment of disenchantment.

For that reason, I have chosen to conduct an ethnographic study of a varsity high
school softball coach in an effort to understand the role a coach’s communieation behaviors
play in integrating the individual athletes into a competitive sport team. Moreover, by

entering into the world of the participants (coaches and athletes), I may be able to provide
1

2
an understanding of the processes involved in coaching and team development. Our

difficulty in defining a good coach lies in our lack of understanding of how and why
coaches do what they do. This study can provide us with descriptions of the behavior of a
coach in a variety of team and informal settings (games, practices, team meetings, bus
rides, pre-practice interactions, etc.). This information may help us understand the
relationship between factors such as context, past experiences, coach-athlete interactions,
and the coach’s observed behaviors.

Coaches are responsible for the social, psychologieal, emotioml, and physical well
being of their players. Coaches are not only expected to sculpt our young people into
skillful athletes, but also into moral, responsible, productive members of society. They are
responsible for teaching skills, strategies, norms, rules, and values related to life as well as
to the competitive sport setting. Coaches must develop a plan to shape the mental and
physieal sport skills cf each individual as well as mold the individuals into a productive
team. Coaches must be administrators, teachers, counselors, friends, pseudo-parents,
budget directors and managers. In order to accomplish this task, coaches must convey their
teachings, directives, needs and goals to players at different cognitive, social, and
emotional developmental levels. This study will provide us with a description of how a
coach attempts to communicate with her athletes. More importantly, this study will provide
us with a conceptualization of communication that allows us to understand the impact
factors such as years of experience, position, past experiences, and starter or sub have on
the interpretation of verbal and nonverbal messages.

Coaches must be able to effectively communicate with other coaches, officials,
parents, boosters, the media, administrators, and other people associated with the
competitive sport setting. Moreover, we expect coaches to create an environment where
each and every player has the opportunity to develop to his/her potential as an individual
while working toward the group goal of winning. Yet, the demands of groups such as

parents, administrators, boosters, the media, and teachers may force coaches to sacrifice

3
individual betterment for the good of the coach, the team, the school, or the community.

Our knowledge base concerning the impact that structural constraints such as these have on
a coach are limited. Thus a study of this sort may provide us with valuable information on
how factors such as schedule, administrators, parents, weather, and academics influence
the coach, the players, and “the team.”

One would expect that someone that has such a prominent position in the lives of
our children, adolescents, and young adults would have a degree/certification, like teachers
or social workers. To date, there are not any universally accepted guidelines stipulating the
competencies necessary to coach. For now, the primary requirement for the position is
having some sport related experience, sometimes not even in the sport one is coaching. The
assumption seems to be that if you want to coach, you can. After all, it is just a game, for
fun. With little or no formal training at all, we hire professionals or assign volunteers to
coach young people from the ages of six to twenty-two.

At the high school level, there are approximately 5 million students participating in
interscholastic sport programs. High school coaches spend more time with the student-
athletes than any teacher. They must design and implement a program that nurtures both the
student and the athlete roles of the adolescents in their eare. Like individual definitions of
“coach,” the requirements to become a coach differ from district to district, county to
cormty, and state to state. Approximately 13 states require minimal certifieation standards
(Martens, 1988). Due to the time commitments of teaching and coaching, fewer and fewer
teachers are electing to coach (Freeman, 1995). Consequently the trend will be for
interscholastic coaches to have little, if any, formal coaching education or teaching
experience. The lack of standards at the high school level parallels the coaching dilemma at
the college and youth sport levels.

College coaches spend upwards of 20 to 30 hours a week training their athletes for
the physical and mental aspects of competition. Most colleges require coaches to have a

college degree (any major) with sport experience. The assumption is that their sport

4
experience as an athlete will prepare them to formulate training sessions that incorporate

principles of sport pedagogy. Furthermore it is assumed that coaches are capable of
applying principles from psychology and sociology to bring a diverse group of athletes
together as a team. The absurdity of such an assumption is only surpassed by our
assignment of untrained volunteers to coach children as young as four.

These children are at their most vulnerable stages of physical, emotional, social,
and psychological growth and development. Nonetheless, we bestow the title of coach on a
person who may or may not have a high school degree or sport experience. Yet, we require
teachers to spend a minimum of four years to get a teaching certificate to work with the
minds of our youth. At all levels of competition, coaches make decisions that have the
potential to negatively impact the physieal, psychologieal and social development of our
youth. This fact, along with the apparent disparity between the sophistieated skills required
for the position of coach and the qualities possessed by many coaches, have not gone
unnoticed by sport researchers.

Research on Coaches

T 'ti A to S 'n Coaches

The work done by sport researchers examining the behaviors and decisions of
coaches utilizes the traditional theoretieal framework within the field of organizational
communication, that is the structural-functional perspective. The goal of researchers in the
field of organizational communication is to investigate the relationship between the use of
communication to facilitate the coordination of groups of people to achieve individual and
group goals. The general assumption within the field of organizational communieation is
that communication is a message- gathering, message-sending, and message-interpreting
process that enables people to create and share information in their quest to organize
(Krebs, 1990). The most frequently used perspective to examine the role of communication
within organizau'ons is the structural-functional perspective. Although there is a variety of
schools of thought under the umbrella of the structural—functional theoretical framework,

5
the basic tenet of structural-functionalism is that an organization has four basic

characteristics (Farace, Monge, & Russell, 1977). First, an organization is composed of a
group of peOple. Second, the organization normally lasts longer than the members. Third,
the organization consists of rules, regulations, and goals that provide structure for the
group. Four, a hierarchy of power exists that creates a unidirectional line of
communieation. More specifically, communication is viewed as a tangible object that flows
through the preexisting organizational structure to promote and maintain the values and
norms needed to keep the organization structure together.

A team is viewed as a rational, efficient, system where the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts (coach and athletes). The performance and survival of a team depends on
the amount of conformity to the values and norms of the team. A team is considered
functional when the athletes and the coach subordinate their goals and needs for the good of
the teamin order to Win (Coakley, 1994). When a group or individual within the
organization exhibit behaviors that seem contrary to the homeostasis of conformity their
behavior is deemed dysfunctional. The system is deemed f unctional/efficient again when all
of the interrelated parts have subordinated their will to the geod of the team.

From this perspective, the pre-existing structure determines the channels, the
direction, and the type of communication within the organization. People act within this
preexisting reality, not react. Moreover, organizations, social institutions, teams, schools,
etc., exist outside the minds of the human interactants that create and participate in them
(Louis, 1981). Organizations are viewed as universal realities that have meaning
independent of context or human interactions outside of or within the organization. From
this perspective, culture, climate, communication and structure are major determinants of
the behaviors of members of the organization (Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1982;
Weick, 1987). Researchers in industry use the results from these studies to provide
managers and bosses with recipes to create strong organizational climates and cultures in an

effort to boost production and worker satisfaction.

6
Sport researchers make similar postulates about the competitive team setting. The

coaches’ communication behaviors are treated as concrete objects to be studied as they flow
down the preexisting structures of a team. Based on the over reliance on instruments that
code coaches’ communication acts, not their interactions, one can assume that these
researchers view communieation as something the team has, the coach does (superior) ,
and the players’ (subordinates) receive, as do many in the field of organizational
communieation (Weick, 1969). Very little attention is paid to the group or dyadic
interactions within the setting or factors that may mediate one’s interpretation of the
intended or unintended message. The athletes are viewed as the receivers of communication
with little, if any, influence on the coach and the development of the team. Team structure
(i.e., team), climate, coach-athlete communication, and culture are viewed as set features of
the group and major determinants of the behaviors exhibited by members, interactions
within the setting (Carron & Bennett, 1977; Sidentop, 1978; Smith & Smoll, 1978).
Similar to their structural-functional counterparts in organizational communication, sport
researchers have used the results from studies reducing communication to codable acts to
provide coaches with recipes to communicate effectively with their players to enhance
performance and player satisfaction.

As the following section will illustrate, the information gathered from research from
the structural-functional perspective has brought to the forefront the powerful impact a
coach’s communieation behaviors can have on individual players and the team. The only
systematic line of research in the area of coaching has provided convincing evidence that
there is a strong relationship between coaching behaviors (operationalized on the Coaching
Behavior Assessment System) and the perceptions and attitudes of the players (Smith,
Smoll, & Hunt 1977; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis 1978, 1979; Smoll & Smith 1980).
Throughout this specific line of research in the youth sport area, three critical pieces of

information have consistently emerged.

7
First, untrained coaches exhibit more negative than positive types of communieation

behaviors with an emphasis on outcome rather than individual effort and individual mastery
(process). Researchers throughout the field have expressed concern that coaches’ behaviors
and attitudes are more outcome than process oriented, exposing the youngest of participants
to a professionalized sport experience (Berlage, 1982; Gould & Martens, 1979; Sage,
1973; Yiannakis, 1982). Second, the children’s self -esteem and satisfaction with the coach
and sport was affected by the amount of social support coaches provided their players.
Third, there were distinct differences between how the athletes and the coaches perceive the
type and frequency of behaviors exhibited by the coach, with the athletes’ assessment being
more accurate.

Results from single studies using the CBAS or similar systematic coding
instruments designed to observe, code, quantify, and analyze coaches’ behaviors suggest
that coaches’ behaviors/decisions influence the team climate (Fisher, Mancini, Hirsch,
Proulx, & Staurowsky, 1982); the players’ satisfaction with the coach and their sport
experience (Chelladurai, 1984; Spark, 1988; Rushall & Smith, 1979); the players’ self-
esteem (Kenow, & Williams, 1992; Smoll, Smith, & Barnett, 1993); and team
performance (Dubois, 1981). These studies provide us with valuable information about
what coaches are doing and that their behaviors have a tremendous amount of influence on
the experiences of the players, confimring the assertion that coaches play a prominent role
in the lives of our children, adolescents, and young adults. However, none of these studies
describes or provides any explanations for coaches’ behaviors within a particular sport, at a
particular competitive level (high school, recreation, etc.), by team event (practices, games,
meetings, etc.), or by gender. Nor do they provide any explanation for why coaches are
doing what they are doing or if the social facts constructed by the researcher match the
social definitions of either the players or the coaches.

Two recurrent findings in the literature make an excellent ease for attempting to

understand how coaches and athletes interpret their experiences within the team setting.

8
First, coaches differentially reinforce athletes based on their expectations of the athletes’

abilities (Horn, 1984, 1985; Rejeski, Dariacott, & Hutslar, 1979; Sinclair & Vealy, 1988).
Results from these studies found that coaches provided more instructional feedback to the
low expectancy athletes. The coaches in Hom’s (1984) study provided the low expectancy
players with more reinforcement than the high expectancy players. The results from these
studies only partially support Martinek’s (1981) model for the study of expectancy effects
in sport and physical education. The basic assumptions of this model are that (a) coaches
develop expectations of athletes skill potential, (b) those expectations influence the quantity
and quality of coach-athlete interactions, (c) the differences in feedback the players receive
influences self-perceptions, and motivation, and (d) over time the athletes’ performance
may conform to the coach’s expectancies. In Sinclair and Vealy (1988), the high
expectancy players received more frequent and positive reinforcement. However, in all
cases, the low expectancy players received more instructional feedback

Horn (1984, 1985) suggests that the differences in results can be attributed to a
number of methodological factors. First, the dynamics within the competitive sport setting
are qualitatively different than in the classroom. Consequently, there may be a different set
of expectancy principles that apply to the sport setting. Second, studies using general
coding behaviors cannot eapture the coach-athlete dyads that could explain the within-team
variations of coaching behaviors directed at individual players. Within-team and group
variations in each study could account for differences. Third, different populations were
investigated in each study. The level of competition, contextual factors (practices, games,
point in season), and player maturity may be responsible for the differences in results from
study to study. There are two valuable pieces of information missing from our knowledge
base on the subject of expectancy effects in the sport setting. We do not have any
understanding as to what cues coaches use to develop their expectations of a players’
potential. Nor do we have any understanding of how the players’ interpret coded and
uncoded coaching behaviors that may impact their self confidence and self -esteem. Our

9
lack of understanding about the processes underlying expectancy effects in sport and

physical edueation is as troubling as our inability to understand the incongruence in the
perceptions of coaches and athletes about factors such as team climate, preferred leadership
styles, and player satisfaction.

This leads us to the second recurrent finding in the sport literature. Coaches’ and
athletes’ perceptions of what coaches do are distinctly different. This assertion is supported
by the findings of studies examining leadership styles. Every study has shown that there
are very distinct differences in leadership style preferences between coaches and players
(Carron & Bennett, 1977; Chelladurai, 1984; Chelladurai & Canon, 1983; Chelladurai,
Haggerty, & Baxter, 1989) and differences in how coaches perceive their behaviors and/or
team climates and how athletes perceive them (Fisher et. al., 1982; Home & Carron, 1985;
Percival, 1971; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978). The amount of difference between the
perceptions of coaches and players was mediated by factors such as sport, level of
competition, and gender. Throughout this line of research, the incompatibilities in coach-
athlete perceptions affected the cohesiveness of teams, team climate, and player satisfaction
with the team, the sport, and the coach The vast amount of information gathered from the
reviewed literature has led to the development of two sport leadership models that provide a
structural-functional theoretieal framework to study leadership in sport (Chelladurai, 1980;
Smoll & Smith, 1989).

Leadership Models

Chelladurai and Carron (1978) proposed a situational-behavioral leadership model
that claimed a player’s performance and satisfaction are determined by a coach’s behaviors,
characteristies, and the social and situational aspects of the setting. In 1980, Chelladurai
refined his earlier model to include factors such as players’ preferences for leadership style
and coaches’ perceptions of their leadership. The basic assumption of this model is that
performance outcome and player satisfaction are positively related to the amount of

congruence between leader behavior, players’ preferences for leadership style, and required

10
leader behaviors. This model neglects the processes underlying the similarities in the

perceptions of the players and discrepancies between the coaches and players’ perceptions.
Furthermore, this model does not take into consideration the difference between players’
interpretations of the coach’s behaviors and the actual behaviors and factors that mediate the
players’ interpretations of the coach’s leadership style.

Smoll and Smith’s (1989) model acknowledges the existence of the players’
perceptions as a factor involved in the development of coach-athlete relations. The basic
tenet of this model is that the coach behaves in a particular fashion and the players perceive
the behaviors and react based on their evaluation of the coaches behaviors. However, this
model does not address the interactive nature of the setting. Coaches are viewed as the
actors and the players’ as the reactors. Consequently the coaching behaviors that are
affected by the mediating variables (variables related to individual coach and athlete
differences, situational factors, and athlete perceptions) are not identified. It appears that
understanding the communication process within the competitive sport setting would
provide us with the key ingredient for an award winning recipe in the development of a
cohesive, satisfied team.

Although the leadership models and results from traditional sport research have
provided us with valuable information about the relationship between coaching behaviors
and player satisfaction, self esteem, and perception, we have a limited understanding about
the attitudes and perceptions that motivate coaches’ behaviors. These studies have
consistently found that coaches exhibit patterns of differential reinforcement in relation to
their expectations of a player’s ability; there are distinct differences between coaches and
athletes’ perceptions about “team” factors; and coaches exhibit more negative than positive
reinforcement. In order to understand the processes underlying these consistent findings,
we must follow the lead of researchers utilizing the organimtional culture perspective to
study organizations and acknowledge the significance of social interactions within the
setting, of one’s past experiences, and of the context (Pettigrew, 1979). Our

l 1
conceptualization of communication must embrace the symbolic-interactionists’ postulate

that communication involves the interplay between the repeated social interactions within
the setting and the preexisting team structure as well as the participants’ past experiences.
We must move beyond the theoretical world of those who have examined communieation
as a concrete observable variable and investigate the process involved in communieating as
the main ingredient in the recipe for a cohesive team, a collective “we.”

Organizational Culture

From the symbolic interaction perspective, communication is the hub of an
organization. Communication is viewed as an ongoing process, not a concrete feature of
the organimtion. The organization evolves from interactions amongst and between the
members. A basic assumption of this perspective is that communication and culture are
something the organization is, not has (Smircich, 1985). Culture is the mutually
understood ways that members of an organization make sense of situations, events, and
objects. These shared meanings and understandings, norms, and values develop through
social interactions and ongoing communieation within the organization.

This approach views culture as a social construction that becomes an objectified
reality for the interactors within the group (Berger & Luckman, 1967). Culture is learned.
Culture is shared. There is a sense of collective “we” that develops through the social
interactions within the organization (Schall, 1983; Schein, 1985). The basic assumption of
the symbolic interaction perspective is that organizational culture is socially defined by the
members, as a collective interpretation of the team events and activities. It is not an
objective social fact that exists independent of the social interactions between the members
(McMurray, 1994). Individual perceptions of the socioemotional climate of an organization
evolve from the shared assumptions of the “organimtion.”

Communication is the key to a strong, cohesive organization, with the coaches of
the teams being in a position to exert the most influence on the direction, amount, and

quality of information that flows within the organization Coaches play a key role in the

12
development of the team culture, which in turn influences the players’ perceptions of the

coach and the experience (Shein, 1983; Shockley-Zalabah & Morely, 1994). The previous
section demonstrated that coaches are unable accurately to assess the team climate, their
own behaviors, and/or the players’ satisfaction with the experience. In order to help
coaches become more effective at positively influencing the development of the individuals
into a cohesive group, we must understand the role communication plays in the
evolutionary process of team development.

In an effort to understand the relationship between communication and effective
leadership, we must adopt the perspective of those who believe that meaning is dynamic
(Berger & Luckman, 1967; Blumer, 1969; Labov, 1980). From this perspective, our
perceptions, meanings, and behaviors are constantly being negotiated and renegotiated
through social interaction. Our interpretations of an event or object within a group are
shaped by our perceptions of self in relation to others in the group (Goffman, 1959; Mead,
1927-1982). In other words, the meanings one attaches to a team may change over time
and as they move from one team to another. Through social interactions within the setting,
members develop a collective understanding of the rights, responsibilities, roles, and
positions of team members. From this perspective, participants take an active role in
creating and shaping the team. This is quite a contrast to our traditional conceptualization
that the preexisting structure of team determines how participants act within the setting.

From the symbolic interactionist perspective, “the team” is the shared understanding
by the members of the collective “we.” As Charon (1979) most aptly stated, there is a
“truth” or individual reality as well as shared meanings that are constructed and
reconstructed through social interaction. Our profession is an excellent example of this
postulate. The academic department reduced to a social fact by researchers is different than
the social definition of the department by the faculty, staff, and students. Moreover, the
social definition of the department changes over time. Like a team, an aeademic department

is an ongoing, dynamic process.

13
Research from this perspective, provides evidence to support the assertions that

culture is constructed and reconstructed through repeated face to face interactions within an
organization (Fine, 1984; Harris, 1983; Hollingsworth, 1989; Sage, 1989b); there are
multiple sites of culture in organizations (Gregory, 1983; Sackmann, 1992); rituals and
stories are significant in the construction and reconstruction of organizations (Riley, 1983);
and it is important to understand the perspective of the insider (Cutforth, 1995;
Pettigrew,l979; Singelis & Brown, 1995). Roles, norms, and values are seen as socially
constructed classifieations used by group members to make sense of events within the
culture of the team (Foley, 1990).

A cultural analysis of a team should focus on the similarities and differences in the
social signifieance of events, objects, and interactions within and between teams. We
should examine the intraorganizational loci of culture (bench, starters, fielders, etc.) and the
transorganizational loci of culture (schedule, philosophy of program, societal views of
sport) to understand the organization. The potential benefits of adopting the organizational
culture approach to study the team setting are innumerable.

First, examining sport teams from an organizational culture approach may be
useful in explaining the “whys” behind the behaviors described by the traditional research
within the physieal edueation and sport settings. Second, we may begin to develop an
understanding of the relationship between the preexisting realities and the socially
constructed “truths” of coaches and athletes as individuals and members of the group.
Third, the triangulation of the results from traditional sport research and symbolic
interactionism may help us in the development of sport specific organimtional theory.

Dewar and Horn (1992) address this issue in their challenge to sport psychologists
to step back and examine the way they come to know what they know. Dewar and Horn
question the positivists’ basic assumption that there is an objective reality that ean be
discovered and presented in unbiased and non-judgmental manner. Their argument is that

all knowledge is socially constructed. Therefore we must move beyond the positivist stance

14
of an objective reality, one way of knowing, and acknowledge the significance of how we,

as well as our subjects, come to know. Their contention parallels the basic assumption of
the symbolic interaction perspective: communieation is the process through which we
organize and define our “realities.” The competitive sport setting and theoretical “reality”
eannot be reduced to universal “truths” independent of the interactions and beliefs of those
who construct the knowledge, of those who participate in the settings.

Similarly, the underlying assumption of my study is that communication is the
process through which the coach and players evolve into a collective we. Consequently the
overarching question to be answered was, “What is the role of communication in the
development of the team? More specifically, I focused on the following questions:

1) What role does the coach’s communication behaviors play in the evolution of the

team?

2) How are the coach’s communication behaviors influenced by the players?

3) What types of factors influence the interpretation of communication behaviors

within the setting (erg, position, years of experience, starter/bench, race, past

experiences, etc.)?

4) How does the organizational structurelculture of the school influence the players,

the coach, and the team?

5) What role does nonverbal behavior play in communication within the team

setting?

In order to understand the role of communication in the development of the team, I
entered into the world of the coach and players. I went beyond the positivist “reality” of the
coach and players by becoming a participant observer where I could have access to any and
all team activities as well as conduct in-depth interviews. These methodologies were best
suited for understanding “why” the coach did what she did and “how” her communieation
behaviors influenced the team culture (Erickson, 1986; Fine, 1986; Gallmeier, 1989; Sage,
1989a).

15
As a participant observer, I became aware of the parallels between the process

involved in conducting the study and how the players and Donna became a collective “we.”
That awareness made me cognizant of the importance of acknowledging how the continual
negotiation and regneotiation of “team” affected my relationships within the participants
influencing my observations, interviews, and focus of this report. For that reason, I have
chosen a narrative style for the body of the paper that acknowledges the existence of the
multiple realities and voices within the setting, including mine (Foley, 1992).

Chapter 2
THE RESEARCH PROCESS

This chapter contains a narrative description of the investigative methods used in the
study. I have chosen this style of reporting to demonstrate the importance of not separating
the process of doing the study from the researcher being a part of the study. This reflects
the position that the personal, as well as professional, experiences of the researcher are
important in understanding the methodology and documenting the results of the study
(VanMaanen, 1988). This style of writing allowed me to bring to the forefront my middle
class background and past experiences as a coach, and to illustrate to the reader how those
factors along with my experiences as a woman, might have influenced my relationships
with the participants and the methods used in conducting this study. Through disclosure
and analysis of these potential sources of bias, I feel I have been able to present a more
objective report of the subjectivity of the participants.

I spent 155 hours observing the members of the Torrey West high school varsity
softball team. During that time, I made the transition from a complete observer to a
participant observer. The process of negotiation and renegotiation of access
correspondedwith the evolution through which 13 players and a coach became a team.
Therefore, one eannot make judgment on the methodology used to conduct the study
without understanding the process of being a participant observer in this setting.

Selection of the Coach and the Sport
M

Fast-pitch softball season was almost upon us and I was getting ready to name the

coach who would be the main participant in the impending study. The selection process had

been slow and frustrating. For over a year I had been investigating the plausibility
16

17
of conducting ethnographic research on how a coach's communieation behaviors

influenced the culture of a team.

My preference for this type of study was to do the research in a sport that I knew
well enough that I could spend more time with the participants and less time learning the
game. I had coached, played, and been an official in both basketball and softball.
Basketball season was ending, while softball season was two months in the future.
Consequently, time constraints influenced my decision to find a high school softball coach
to join me in my research study. I say “join me” in the sense that just as I needed to become
a participant observer, the coach needed to become my research partner, not merely
someone to be studied. In a team situation involving the rights and privacy of both the
coach and his/her players’ personal space, the day to day negotiation of access would
involve an incredible amount of collaboration on the part of the coach and myself.

I had decided that because the focus of the study was the role of communieation in
the development of the team, I wanted a school site that would reflect cultural diversity.
Consequently, I selected an urban school district with three high schools. However, the
softball program lacked the racial diversity that existed within the school. Of the 35
members of the three teams, only one player, a freshman, belonged to a minority group.
She was Samoan. There were not any minorities on the varsity or junior varsity baseball
teams. Where were all of the minority students? One day, the track team practiced in the
gym with us. From that one observation, I would guess that the racial makeup of the track
team was 70% minority (mostly African-American) and 30% Caucasian.

I actively pursued the varsity softball coaches at each school. The initial contact
with two of the coaches was relatively simple. Both coaches were employed as teachers at
the schools where they coached. The athletic directors at each school gave me permission to
contact the coaches I contacted both coaches at their respective schools. During the initial

phone conversations, I engaged the coaches in discussions about their coaching

18
background, their teams, and the purpose of the study. Both coaches provided me with

their home phone numbers and schedules for future discussions.

I preferred to select a coaching situation that would appear typical to the persons
who would read this dissertation. Therefore, in my mind, I had already discounted the
feasibility of these two coaches participating in the study. The first coach contacted had
been co-coaching with a friend from his childhood for years. They had been friends since
their early school days. I had accepted that I would have to take into consideration the
influence an assistant coach would have on the team. However, I did not feel that the
typical high school program has co-coaches and assistants. It was obvious from the record
of this program that this arrangement was successful from a competitive standpoint. Yet I
did not feel comfortable with the arrangement for the purposes of this study.

The second coach seemed arrogant and more interested in the boys' freshmen
baseball team than the girls' softball team that he was coaching. My first impression was
that I could not enter into a working relationship with this coach. However, there were
times when I wondered whether I had made a rash decision based on one phone
conversation. Those fears were later alleviated when the team I was studying played this
particular coach's team. I was relieved to find that my instincts had been correct. This
gentleman created a scene that suggested that his arrogance definitely superseded his
concern for his players. As I sat on the opposing bench, I congratulated myself for not
engaging this gentleman in another conversation. By eliminating these two coaches, I
realized that I needed to contact the third immediately and to begin checking for other urban
sites.

W

Making contact with the third coach was not quite as simple. The coach taught in
another school district. Hence, during the preseason her time at Torrey West was limited.
The athletic director had been very helpful in providing me with times that I might contact
the coach. The coach had organized workouts for the pitchers and eatchers, but these

19
workouts were irregular. Each time that I called the school, workout times had been

changed or canceled. Finally, I decided to go to the school and find the coach. I got
directions from the athletic director and made my way to Torrey West to make contact with
the softball coach in person.

As I turned the comer, my first droughts were that I had gotten the wrong
directions. The building I was approaching appeared to be a three story red brick prison in
a state of disrepair. The building seemed cold and uninviting. And yet, the sign in front of
the building indicated that I had reached my destination, Torrey West High School. By my
calculations, school had been out for about 20 minutes. A few kids were milling around in
the parking lot, but for the most part the premises were devoid of much action. I walked up
to a set of red double doors and pulled. The doors were locked Not only locked, but
chained from the inside. As I tried another door, I read a notice on the glass window of the
door. Basically, it stated that one would be fined if they were found on the premises
without permission from the administration. I walked around the building pulling on every
door I found. They were all locked. With each tug, I was experiencing an uneasy feeling
about the school. There was no one around. As I walked back to the chained doors, I
eaught a glimpse of some young men inside. I banged on the window of the door. One
young man pulled on the chained door and shrugged his shoulders as of to say, ”It's
locked.” Through the crack of the door, I asked him if he knew where the softball team
might be practicing. Raising his hand, he pointed to the west end of the building As I
glanced in that direction, I saw a person coming out of another set of red doors. I ran
through the door just as it closed

Finally inside, I was not sure whether I wanted to continue my search for the
coach. Not only was I was afraid of being eaught on the school grounds, I was
experiencing great discomfort at the thought of being in a school where they lock the doors
to keep students in and undesirables out. I had seen schools like this one in the movies and

the news. However, those depictions did not prepare me for the reality of the situation. If

20
this was representative of an urban school, I was beginning to rethink my school site

choice.

As I passed a man on the stairs, I asked if he had seen any teams practicing. He
indieated that he saw some young men running through the halls on the third floor. I
proceeded up to the third floor. As I opened the door, sounds of boys cheering and
counting reverberated off the walls. There were four or five boys running to the end of the
hall and circling back toward me. At the end of the hallway, one boy seemed to be resting.
I walked down and asked if he had seen the softball team practicing. He pointed toward a
door. I could hear gins yelling and screaming, but I could not find an unlocked entrance.
Aslturnedtoaskthe boy ifhe knew how togetintothe gym, I realized thatl was the only
one on the third floor. The silence was eerie. I wondered what it must be like to attend a
school with such a seemingly oppressive environment. As I made my way down the stairs,
I questioned my ability to conduct the study in such an environment.

Although I considered going to my car and leaving, I found myself making my way
to the backside of the building in search of the gym door. I found two adults inside a door
on the south side. They opened the door and questioned my presence on the school
grounds. I indicated that I was looking for the softball coach. They thought that there was a
girls' team practicing in the gym on the second floor. Even though I felt more at ease
knowing that these two people were nearby, the walk up two flights of stairs was
unnerving. My fears began to wane, as I heard sounds that seemed familiar. I could hear a
woman's voice yell, ”Get into your positions.” At last, I thought, the softball coach. Yet,
as I turned, 1 saw volleyball players. As I began to open the door across from the gym, a
man eame up and asked what I was doing. I told him that I was looking for Donna, the
softball coach. He informed me that the softball coach was not there, nor had he seen her
for a few days. That was all I needed to hear. I quickly made my way out of the building
and to the parking lot. As I drove away from Torrey West High School, I found myself
wondering what it would be like to conduct the study behind locked doors. Once I started

21
working with the participants, I found the participants’ experiences to be so rich and

without anxiety that I realized that my first impression of Torrey West was based on my
past experience as a suburbanite.
W

The next day I contacted the Athletic Director at Torrey West. I explained the
difficulty that I was having contacting Donna at school. She offered to provide me with
Donna's home phone number. My goal had been to avoid making the initial contacts with
the coaches at home. However, I was not ready to visit Torrey West again. Consequently,
I decided that I would accept Donna's number from the Athletic Director. That night I ealled
Donna at borne. I informed Donna of the purpose of my call and engaged her in
conversation about her team and coaching experience. According to Donna, this was to be
her second year as varsity coach. There had been three varsity coaches at Torrey West in
the last five years. In Donna's view, she was developing a program, not just team. I was
eager to meet Donna in person and discuss the possibility of her participating in the study. I
wanted to know how a coach's communication behaviors influence the culture of the team,
and here was a coach attempting to develop a program to fit her vision of what being on the
varsity should mean to its players.

Donna and I agreed to meet the next day at the school where she taught. What a
contrast to Torrey West! I arrived between class periods. When I entered the school, I had
an easy time identifying with the rural middle class population and facility. The school
looked inviting and open, with pastel colored hallways, windows looking outside, and
unchained doors. As I walked down the hallway to her classroom, I wondered how
coaching within the confines of Torrey West affected her. I opened the classroom door and
saw Donna sitting at her desk. The classroom was neat and orderly. She rose from behind
the desk and introduced herself. We talked for approximately one hour. I explained the
purpose of the study. For the remainder of the time, we discussed Donna's past coaching
experience, her coaching philosophy, and her vision for the team.

22
Donna was eandid. She felt that she had a lot to learn. When she began coaching,

she felt she had made a lot of mistakes. Half -way through the discussion, I asked Donna if
she might consider participating in the study. Donna, seemingly confident in her decision,
answered, ”I'll do it” I was dumbfounded. I did not believe that Donna had fully
considered the time and emotional effort involved in my observing her coaching.
Coanuently, I did my best to make Donna aware of the time and energy involved in such
a project. We discussed the impact my presence might have on her and/or her players. I
explained that I could not accept her offer to become involved in the study without knowing
that she had considered the matter carefully. I got her address so that I could send her a
letter explaining the study and the informed consent form (see Appendix B). We agreed that
I would contact her one week after I sent the materials.

Even though I was a bit apprehensive that Donna might reconsider her offer to
participate, I could not accept her initial offer to participate in clear conscience. I was not
completely satisfied that she fully understood the impact of my presence. For the amount of
access and time I was asking from her, I owed her the option to back out. I emphasized to
Donna that she had the right to deny me access at any time during the study.

I contacted Donna the following week. We discussed the informed consent letter
point by point. I explained that we would continually be negotiating and renegotiating
interview schedules and observational procedures. Additionally, I tried to make it clear to
Donna that my interactions with the players might focus on their interpretation of her
communication behaviors. Consequently, the players might provide me with some
unfavorable impressions of her behaviors which I might use in my dissertation. When all
was said and done, Donna again agreed to participate in the study. I was elated. The
selection of the rest of the participants was her responsibility. Tryouts would begin in a

week and a half.

23
Donna’s Selection of the Players

me

Although I had coached school softball for years, I had no idea what to expect at the
first tryout. In all of my years coaching softball, I never thought about what it would be
like to organize and run practices inside the confines of a gym. I was apprehensive about
the negotiation of access. I knew I had to position myself so that I could hear Donna's
interactions with the players and coaches. In order to select the least intrusive loeation, I
arrived about 15 minutes early. Donna had assured me that the door would be open so that
I could get inside without the uneasiness of my first visit to Torrey West. I saw a few girls
huddled around a blue metal door held ajar by a broken bat. I walked over to the group and
asked if the door led to the gym where the softball team was practicing. The girls told me to
go through the locker room and up the stairs to the gym. I walked down two cement stairs
and entered into a cement locker room.

There were approximately five rows of gray metal lockers with benches in between
each row. The lockers were only about four feet tall. Along the left side, there was a brick
wall that seemed to divide the room. I walked over and peeked around the corner. On the
left, I saw the showers. On the right, I saw a few girls changing in a locker room
surrounded on three sides by the brick wall. The young women were talking and laughing
as they changed their clothes. School was not out yet, so I was not sure if the girls were
changing after P.E. classes or preparing for softball tryouts. The girls glanced over at me,
turned their backs, and whispered. I beeame aware of how I would feel if a stranger
appeared while I was partially clothed lnconspicuously, I quickly exited the small enclosed
locker area. As I turned the corner, I saw three girls with softball gloves going up the
stairs. I followed them into a gym where about 15 girls were giggling, talking, and milling
around in one of two gyms on the second floor. As more girls trooped into the gym I
moved quickly to the right of the doorway. My first concern was to bring as little attention

to myself as possible. I quickly jumped up on the unopened wooden bleachers. As I began

24
to position myself between a pile of clothes and books, Donna walked over and set her

notes, glove, and jacket down in front of me. She smiled at me and ealled to two women
standing on the other side of the bleachers.

As they were walking toward us, Donna explained that the two women were the
junior varsity and freshman softball coaches. When they arrived, Donna introduced me to
Milly, the JV coach, and Martha, the freshman coach. Donna told the coaches I was
conducting a study about softball and that I would be spending a good deal of time
observing the varsity.

During our discussion, a young woman walked toward Donna. With a big smile on
her face, Donna became engaged in an animated conversation with this woman. Donna
turned and introduced me to Pam, her assistant coach. My first impression was that Pam
and Donna were opposites. Donna seemed to be quiet, thoughtful, almost distant in some
respects, while Pam appeared to be a good ole 'girl. She was talkative, quick in her
movements, and seemingly carefree. I remembered that in our initial conversation, Donna
said that last year the girls had a different, closer relationship with Pam.

The coaches moved away from the bleachers toward the girls on the gym floor.
Donna moved over to the front of the group and asked everyone to come over and sit
down. There were approximately 35 girls standing within the boundaries of the basketball
playing area. As Figure 1 illustrates, the players broke up into three main groups with the
rest of the people sitting amongst the distinguishable groups. This picture shows both
gyms used during indoor practice. Donna stood in front of my bleacher with approximately
35 players sitting on the floor looking up at her. The first circular group of players
consisted of a mixture of returning players and varsity hopefuls.

I was excited The selection process for the rest of the participants, the varsity
team, was about to begin. For the next four days, I was going to begin establishing a
reciprocal relationship with Donna that addressed her personal and professional space, as
well as my access needs. I fully realized that after the team was selected the negotiation of

25
acceas would be much more difficult. Access would continually be negotiated and

renegotiated based on the dynamics of the group, relationships between each individual and
myself, and the logistics of the events being observed. But for now, I was content to sit on
the bleachers and observe Donna select the rest of the participants. As I watched the gins
congregate inside the boundaries of the basketball court, I wondered which ones would be

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

participating in the study.
Figurel
Smaller
Gym
Me
I Bleachers
or Exit"—
Donna
. <23 0
o o
G ° (,3
x
3
g
- a... J

 

The starting times for practices were dependent on sharing the facilities with the
baseball and track teams. Hence, I do not remember knowing until the end of one practice
what time the next would start. Our practice times were 3:00pm, 4:00pm, or 6:00pm.
Practices lasted 2 to 2 1/2 hours. The last half hour was reserved for individual instruction
for the pitchers and eatchers. Donna seemed to be more interested in the development of the

26
pitchers and eatchers. One explanation for the importance she placed in the pitcher/catcher

drills was that she had been a pitcher in high school and college.

There were four days of hitting, throwing, catching, and baserunning drills. Due to
the weather, all of the tryouts and a good portion of the regular practices were held inside
two gyms. The practices always began with stretching exercises led by the girls. As I came
to know the players, I realized that varsity hopefuls were the only ones to lead the
stretching. I do not remember ever hearing anyone designate who should lead the
exercisea. After the stretches, one of the coaches would call out the number of laps that the
girls were expected to run. With the exception of the first day, the freshmen would then
depart from Torrey West to the neighboring middle school for their tryouts. Next the
players would get into pairs and throw sideline to sideline to warm their arms up.

Walking behind the players, Donna ealled out general and individual instructive
comments. For me, this drill, along with pitching practice, was very nerve racking. Balls
would hit the floor, the bleachers, slap into the gloves, and, occasionally, hit the basketball
backboards. Not only was the noise annoying, so was the fear of being hit. Whenever
these drills occurred, one person in the pair would throw in my direction. Balls would whiz
by my head, hit the brick wall behind me and rebound onto the bleacher. It was difficult to
read the field notes taken during these drills, because I was always afraid to look down and
see what I was writing. Time and time again, I would hear someone yell, "heads.” That
was the signal to dump my notes, duck my head, and hope the ball missed me.

With the exception of the first day of tryouts, players were asked to bat, field,
throw, run, and eatch in a variety of drill settings. The first day found the coaches spending
a good portion of their time huddling together instead of evaluating the girls. This situation
was created by two factors. First, two of the five possible returning varsity players were
not present. Second, the number of players trying out was not sufficient to fill the three
teams appropriately. Hence, one might say that there were only three days of tryouts where
the coaches focused on the performance of the players. Generally, Pam and Milly were in

27
charge of the drills, as Donna moved amongst players observing their performance. Donna

seemed to control the tempo of the practice session. Even though Donna seemed to have
first pick of all of the players, she would continually ask Milly her views about particular
players.

Although in most of the drills the varsity and JV lined up one team behind the other,
the distinction appeared insignifieant between what seemed to be the lesser skilled varsity
hopefuls and the more skilled JV hopefuls. Consequently, it was difficult to make an
experienced guess on who would actually be selected for the varsity. Donna seemed to be
consistent in providing reinforcement, criticism, and instruction to all of the softball
hopefuls. The girls, as a whole, unifonnly reinforced the most skilled to the least skilled
peer. There were players that received more boots and hollers. Yet, there were not any
players who did not receive tremendous support from varsity and JV hopefuls alike. By the
third day, I had identified that Cathy, Tanya, and Polly were the retumees from last year.
From conversations with Donna, I knew that Marlene and Sara would be selected for the
team. Additionally, I felt that Tina, Kelsy, Babs, Popeye, Candy, and Nan would probably
be selected. These feelings were bawd on observations of their performance and their
interactions with Cathy, Tanya, and Polly. I refrained from asking Donna who would be
included in her final selection of the varsity.

In part, I did not want her to feel that I was second guessing her. She was aware of
my background as a coach, a researcher, and a player. During a discussion after the second
practice, she asked me, ”How do we look at this point?” I told her that I did not feel that I
had been exposed to high school softball recently enough to know "How they looked.” In
addition, I reminded her that I could not answer questions that might influence the study.
Incidents such as this would be part of our developing relationship. Donna had gone to
great lengths after every practice to answer my questions and informally discuss events of
the day. I had stayed close to the bleachers and not invaded the coaching territory. Yet, I

noticed that Donna conducted many of her conferences in front of my position on the

28
bleacher. I knew that eventually I would have to begin moving around the team setting.

However, I did not feel it was appropriate until I received consent/assent from the players.

During the last day of tryouts, the tone of Donna's comments seemed to indicate
she was ready to begin coaching the varsity. Yet, it was also the first day that I witnessed
Donna appear to relax with the girls. At the end of practice, Donna slid down on the floor
with the players to explain the selection process, where the lists would be posted, and how
she appreciated the effort of all the J V/Varsity hopefuls. After everyone except the pitchers
and catchers had left, Pam printed out the list of names that would soon be known as the
Torrey West Varsity softball team. The selection process was done. Donna had selected 13
girls for her team and my research project.

’ sse ts’ Co t

I entered the locker room at 2:30pm to find Donna sorting the uniforms in a small
room off to the side. She was placing the uniforms in piles of shirts, pants, and undershirts
by size. As I walked in and said hi, Donna handed me the list of players. I was correct in
my assessment that Babs, Kelsy, Tina, Nan, Popeye, Tanya, Cathy, Polly, Sara, Marlene,
and Candy would be selected. The two unknowns were Cissy and Molly. I felt some
uneasiness about presenting the project to the girls without the benefit of knowing
something about each of them. However, official practices were about to begin and I
needed to obtain the players’ assent and the parents' consent.

Donna told me that she planned on passing out uniforms, introducing me, and
informing the players of her expectations. I asked Donna where the field was in
relationship to the gym. She indieated that the girls' softball field was below sea level about
two blocks behind the school. The field lacked dugouts, fences, and access to restrooms.
In order to drive, one had to leave the school grounds and enter a busy street. Donna also
told me the roads leading to the field were dirt. Consequently, many a player and opposing
team had gotten stuck or had to walk to the field during spring showers. This was quite a
contrast from the boys' baseball field next to the main parking lot with a well-manicured

29
field, large bleachers, elaborate dugouts, and a chain-link fence plastered with the names of

supporting advertisers.

As we were carrying on our discussion, girls began peeking their heads around the
door. Most players wanted to know where to meet. Donna indieated that we would meet up
inthegym. I helpedDonnastackthelastofthepantssothatwecould gettothegym
before practice time. Donna was a stickler for being prompt.

When we entered the gym, I jumped onto my unopened bleacher while Donna
stood on the floor going over her notes. As the players meandered in, they congregated into
groups of three or four. These small groups seemed to be engaged in one of two activities,
discussing boys or horsing around. Two members of one group, consisting mainly of
varsity players, had actually begun wrestling on the ground. As I was observing the two
girls entangled on the floor, I heard Donna call out to Cathy. The two girls on the floor
stopped in mid grab “and looked at Cathy. Cathy excused herself from the group and earne
over to the bleacher. Donna asked her, ”Who do you think for captain?” Cathy looked back
at the players on the gym floor and answered, "I don't know, a junior.” Cathy explained to
Donna that she was having a difficult time coming up with someone. The discussion ended
with Donna telling Cathy to " get em going.” This was a statement that 1 would hear time
and time again. It eame to mean "time to start practice.”

Cathy walked toward the groups of girls and yelled, ”Three laps.” The small social
groups of girls disbanded into a long line of softball players running the outer edges of the
gym. As the players were finishing their stretching, Donna told the varsity players to gather
up their belongings and meet her in the locker room.

I was the last one into the locker room. As I entered, the girls were organizing
themselves on the benches, the lockers, and each other's lap. Everyone was present except
Candy. The noise of their laughter was echoing throughout the locker room. Donna had to
ask them to be quiet twice. As the players trrrrred to face Donna, she welcomed them to the
varsity. With big smiles on their faces, the players cheered for themselves. She told them

30
that practice was going to focus on organizational matters, such as assignment of lockers,

uniforms, and a discussion about her expectations. Continuing, Donna said, "First I want
to introduce you to Linda Lyman. Linda is a student at Michigan State University. She is
working on her Ph.D. in Physical Education. She wants to use our team for her
dissertation research.” As I moved next to Donna, the players, still smiling, seemed to
stiffen as they exchanged glances with each other.

I began by asking the players if they had wondered about my presence over the last
four days. One player indicated that she thought I nright be a reporter. A senior player was
hoping drat I was a college scout. I apologized for not being anyone quite so exciting and
began my explanation of the purpose of the study. I told the players that I wanted to
tmderstand their team experience as individuals and also as team members. I pointed out
that during the course of the study I might observe them doing something that was not
considered appropriate team behavior. I assured them that the coach would not be provided
with any information that I gathered about them. I explained thatl was interested in ”team
things” and how they become meaningful. During tryouts, I had remembered that the
varsity coaches had addressed Cathy as ”Rock.” When I asked Donna how Cathy got the
nickname, ”Rock," she explained that the year before an opposing team was so impressed
with Cathy's unwavering spirit and performance that they gave her the nickname. To
provide the girls with an example of team things, I began a discussion about the
significance of Cathy's nickname. In the middle of the discussion, Sara blurted out, "I
didn't know why I was ealling her that. I just did it beeause everyone else did.” I pointed
out that Sara's statement was important in understanding the signifieance of the nickname
“Rock” to this group of varsity players versus last year's team.

I made it clear that I would be present at practices, games, team meetings, and any
other team functions. In addition, I tried to impress upon the players that if my presence
bothered them they had the right to refuse participation at any time. I read aloud all of the
points in the informed consent. I promised the players that I would provide them with as

31
much confidentiality as possible. I explained that one limitation surrounding the issue of

confidentiality would be the number of people that they told about the project.

We entered into a discussion about the need for using pseudonyms for the purposes
of reporting data gathered during the study. During this discussion, the players began
joking with each other about possible names that might fit their individual personalities. In
response to this joking, I told the players that they could select the name that would identify
them in my notes and any reporting of the results. Each player verbally agreed to participate
in the study. After the discussion, I gave each player a letter to the parents (see Appendix
B) and an informed consent form (see Appendix C). I discussed the same issues with
Candy the following day. Within a week's time, all of the players returned the consent
forms.

W51

Twice during tryouts, the uneasiness of being in an urban school returned. The first
time was on the second day. As practice ended, a few of the girls left out the side door. In a
few minutes, they returned. There seemed to be some confusion as to whether a door had
been left unlocked for us to leave the building.

The next unnerving incident was repeated two or three times during the course of
the season. In the rrriddle of Donna's announcement that she needed help taking down the
batting cage, the lights went out. The gym beeame pitch dark. I was having a hard enough
time feeling secure finding my way to the only unlocked door in the light. And yet, the
players and the coaches took it in stride. For as many years as I had coached, I never
considered the differences in structural constraints placed on coaches in different areas,

i.e., weather, schedule, safety issues, etc. As I tried to understand how my informants
made sense of their world, I too had to make sense of the familiar but strange world around

me.

32
Negotiation of Access

Inside

 

There is a f ine line between intrusion and inclusion. I found this particularly true in
the beginning as I tried to negotiate relationships with individual players, Donna, and
groups of players. Not only did I have to identify and deal with the personal space of each
person, I had to identify how the participants' interactions amongst themselves affected my
relationship with individuals and groups.

My past experience as a coach seemed to hinder my leaving the bleacher. I
continually evaluated the impact of my physical presence within the practice area based on
how I might feel if someone were in my coaching space. I felt like I was spying on
everyone. As I sat on my perch, l was not creating a reciprocal relationship with my fellow
participants. 1 was not allowing them the opportunity to get to know me. I was at this point
a complete observer, an outsider, and I needed to develop an insider perspective to
understand how the players and Donna made sense of being members of the Torrey West
Varsity softball team. I felt that Donna and I were in the process of developing a reciprocal
working relationship. She had offered me unlimited access. However, my problem in
leaving my perch was not only with how Donna might feel, but with the intrusion that the
players might feel. Not only were the majority of players trying to negotiate a relationship
with a new coach, they were also trying to secure a starting position.

I made my first inroads to becoming a participant observer when I helped the
players set up the batting eage. On the days that practice was conducted inside, two long
eables had to be stretched the length of the gym. Normally, the varsity and JV practiced at
the same time; this created a situation where there were enough tall players to stretch the
cables successfully. However, one day the varsity players had to stretch the cables without
the assistance of the JV. Consequently, the task beeame extremely difficult. There were not
enough tall players to support the long metal eables. Cathy was on the ladder pulling the
table when it recoiled so quickly that she almost fell. I jumped off my bleacher and held

33
onto Cathy's legs as she and the others attempted to hook the cable. Again, the eable

recoiled. A man with a broom walked toward me and jokingly asked if the players got
graded for participation. Everyone laughed. As we were all laughing, the gentleman slipped
over and hooked Cathy's eable. He then walked over and booked the cable to the other
wall. As the players slid the netted batting cage along the cables, I walked back to my
bleacher. I felt that I had made some connection with the players.

The next day, drills were organized in both small gyms on the second floor. Hence,
I spent my time in the doorway separating the two gyms. As I was writing in my notebook,
I was hit in the buttocks with an errant throw from the other gym. I turned just in time to
observe Babs, the thrower, laughing and pointing in my direction. When she noticed that I
had turned, she attempted to apologize through all of her laughter. Directly behind me,
Candy, the eatcher, turned her head away and began laughing. Both players asked if I was
OK. Before I could answer, the lights clicked off and the gym became pitch dark. I could
hear players yell, ”I want my mommy.” Through all of the yelling and laughing, Donna
could be heard ealling everyone to the larger gym. I made my way through the dark with
Babs and Candy. We all stood in the dark together and listened to Donna's parting words.
Each day l was provided with more opportunities to interact with the players before,
during, and after practice. Two weeks into practice sessions, I had informally interacted
with each of the players. I was ready to venture off my perch and into the practice setting.

During the rest of the practices inside the gym, I freely walked around the drill
groups and observed the interactions between Donna and the players. Additionally, I
observed the interactions between the players within their practice groups. These
observations provided me access to discussions which led to an understanding of how the
players were making sense of their practice experiences.

Although the players seemed to accept me, I still did not feel as though the players
were comfortable with my presence. Oceasionally I thought that I observed players
refraining from talking as I moved within earshot. Other times I perceived that players

34
stopped exhibiting behaviors that might be perceived as goofing off. Early on I witnessed

some players covering their mouths and apologizing when they swore. Not only would

they look to see if I heard them, they would glance over to see if Donna heard. I learned
very quickly to listen without looking. Towards the end of the season, the players began
calling me antennae ears.

I felt like I was wallo'ng on a tightrope as I attempted to develop relationships with
all of the participants within the team setting. Donna had been my sponsor into the team
setting. She created an environment where I could openly engage in conversations with the
players. Donna provided me with urrlirrrited access and support for the project. And yet her
sponsorship may have been a source of distrust toward me on the part of the players. The
10 new players appeared to be intimidated by Donna's presence. Hence her wholehearted
support of me seemed to make the players wary of my allegiance to understanding
everyone's perspective.

m

As the weather turned warm, practices were moved to the playing field Most of the
players got out of school an hour prior to practice time. Consequently, players would come
to the field early. I tried to arrive at the field 15 to 30 minutes prior to practice. I believe that
it was during this time that I developed a trusting relationship with the players. It was easy
to engage them in conversations about topics seemingly unrelated to the study. I learned
about their families, past experiences, classes, and their likes and dislikes. They asked me
questions about the study. Through our conversations, I attempted to establish my
neutrality within the setting. I felt that it was important to remind them that I had never met
Donna before. I expressed my respect for her. I reminded them that it took a lot of courage
on her part to allow me to engage them in conversations about her without censorship. At
times, Donna would join in our informal discussions about boys, classes, and other things
that the girls wanted to talk about. I seemed to be the buffer between the newcomers and
Donna.

35
While the players warmed up, I would move from the bleachers to the first base

bench. Donna seemed to enjoy my company during practice times. If she were observing a
drill, she would sit on the bench with me and discuss how she perceived things were
going. Knowingly or not, Donna explained most drills to the players in front of my bench.
One practice she held three different coach-player conferences within ear shot of my bench.

Donna knew that l was focusing on communication. She seemed to be quite
accommodating in providing me with access to her interactions with the players. One might
wonder if this was not her way of managing or directing my observations to create a
particular image. I do not believe that Donna consciously tried to direct my observations.
Throughout the whole season, there was only one time Donna balked at my unlimited and
uncensored access to the players. This incident happened during the sixth inning of a game.
During the huddle, Donna told the players that they needed to get two runs and hold them.
She never said that We were behind, but her tone suggested that it was a ”do or die"
situation. In actuality, we were two runs ahead. One of the players came up in the seventh
inning and asked me the score. I told her the score. Within seconds, jaw tight, eyes
glaring, Donm walked over and asked me why I told the player the score. Donna continued
by saying that I had disrupted her plan to make the players think they still had to fight for
the game. Donna seemed more frustrated than mad at my perceived indiscretion. Later she
apologized. That was the only time flat I perceived any conflict concerning access.

It seemed that both Donna and the players expected my sympathies for the
frustrations they were feeling about their experiences. Donna would consult with me when
she could not understand the actions of the players. The players would express their
inability to understand the actions of Donna. More times than not, I felt insurmountable
frustration at my inability to help the players and Donna understand each other.

The balancing act of negotiating relationships with all members of the team beeame
increasingly difficult as games approached. As the evidence will show, this was due in part
to the players' interpretations of some of Donna's behaviors. In an effort to maintain good

36
relationships with all participants, I made the decision to become more involved in the

team. I began to help Donna carry the equipment bags and secure the bases. This provided
me with the opportunity to engage Donna in informal discussions before and after
practices. My team role was equipment mule. Additionally, I volunteered to help with a few
of the drills when Pam was late or unavailable. I felt this helped to demonstrate my interest
in the success of the team. I was crossing the line from observer to participant observer.
The players and Donna began questioning me if I left early, arrived late or did not show up.

Prior to the first game, there were two events that suggested that I had been
accepted as participant. The first event was Donna informing me that she was going ask the
players if they thought 1 should be in the team picture. Donna felt that the players
considered me a part of the team. I thanked Donna for the offer and reminded her that the
issue of confidentiality prohibited me from being in the picture. The second event was
during the team conference prior to the start of the first game. Donna presented the players
and me with a piece of leather and a poem describing the leather‘s special significance to the
team. One week later, Donna and one of the players chastised me for not attaching the
leathertomy shoelaceastherestoftlreteam had.
few

The access that I was afforded by sitting on the bench during games was incredible.
As I sat taking notes, umpires would ask me if I knew the count or the opposing coach
would provide me with their lineup card for the scorebook. By outsiders, I was mistaken
for being a member of the coaching staff keeping statistics. The limited team area during
games made it difficult for anyone to manage what I heard or saw. I was in optimal
position to witness and hear the players’ reactions to Donna's verbal and nonverbal
behaviors. I was privy to the eamaraderie that developed between the benchwarrners. I was
surrounded by the negotiation and renegotiation of relationships amongst the participants.

More times tlmn I can count, Donna slumped on the team bench so hard I almost

bounced off. Numerous times, I picked up Donna's sunglasses that she had thrown during

37
an intense moment. Oceasionally, a player would miss Donna's instructions and ask me

what she was suppose to do. Donna would motion or call to me from the third base
coaching box sol could give someone her instructions. Even though I had access to the
most intimate and heated interactions on game day, the close proximity of the bench
presented a problem that I had not contemplated. Players would strain their eyes to get a
glimpse of what I was writing. To alleviate their fears or satisfy their curiosity, there were
times when I would set my notes down or ask a player to hold them. At the tournament,
one player asked if she could take notes. She wrote one sentence about the picnic and lost
interest in writing.

W

I traveled on the bus with the team to away games. I would sit with or near Donna
on the way to a game. This provided me with access to individual player conferences. Prior
to the game, she would discuss her expectations with key players. On the way home, my
positioning was dependent on the social interactions during the game. Donna typically was
sullen after a loss while the players seemed to rebound as they entered the bus. On the way
home from a bad game, Donna would freely discuss her perceptions of the players'
attitudes and efforts. The players were usually overly energetic after a game. The informal
discussions with the players were not as valuable as the observations of their behaviors and
interactions.

ME!

My final interactive vantage point was accompanying the team to a tournament. I
rode to the tournament with Donna and spent the night with her, a f riend, and the
scorekeeper. Not only did I have access to team meetings in our room, I had access to
Donna as a person. The tournament supplied me with a different perspective of the team.
Five games were played in the span of eight hours. Players played positions that they had
not practiced during the season. A freshman pitcher was brought up to replace Candy, who
was injured Two or three sets of parents spent the night in the hotel with us. I sat in the

38
bleachers with the parents during one of the games. I served food to parents, players,

coaches, and friends of the team at the picnic. For all of us, the tournament signaled the
winding down of the season, the study, the relationships, and the hours on the game
bench.

Data Collection Procedures
Observag'om

In the previous section, I described the unlimited access that I had to the team
settings. On one hand, I was very thankful for freedom that I Ind in the team settings. On
the other hand, I was overwhelmed with the unlimited observational opportunities. I could
move freely, listen to conversations, and watch individual, as well as group, reactions to
Donna's communication behaviors. However, to understand how the players and Donna
made sense of their experiences, I needed to observe the social interactions amongst and
between the participants in a variety of team settings. Not only did I observe directive
behaviors of members, but also reactive behaviors.

It is difficult to know whether your observations are focusing on interactions
meaningful to the participants. At first, you observe what you feel is important based on the
questions that motivated the initial study. Then, your observations are guided by the
continual analysis of the data. In the beginning, I focused on Donna's formal interactions
with the players in drills, team meetings, individual conferences. In her first interview,
Donna had expressed specific goals for the team. I attempted to understand how Donna
reconstructed those goals throughout the course of the season. The development of the
team culture was an ongoing process. The observational data seem to indicate modifications
in the meanings Donna and the players attached to being a member of the team during the
course of the season.

As the season progressed, I would focus on individual players’ interactions with
Donna. I found that observations of groups of players provided me with an understanding
of how they interpreted Donna's verbal and nonverbal behaviors. I constructed sociograrns

39
of the players in formal and informal settings throughout the study. During game

situations, Donna was extremely demonstrative. Observations of her behaviors in relation
to the performance of players and the score of a game highlighted the importance of context
in understanding why and how people behave in the ways they do. Mid-way through
scheduled games, I gave one of the players a ride home. We were discussing her feelings
of disgust and dismay at Donna's behaviors at a particular game. I knew that l was
observing interactions meaningful to the players when she described an incident involving
Donna that I had highlighted in my notes: Donna was sitting on the game bench examining
her fingernails instead of paying attention to the action on the field.

I found myself focusing on the behaviors of particular players as well as Donna.
Observations of the interactions between these players and Donna were useful in
understanding the importance of past experiences in the interpretation of communication
behaviors. During the final interviews, the players and Donna described specific events that
I had suspected were important in understanding how they made sense of their membership
on the Torrey West varsity. Not only did I view the setting from the perspective of a
researcher, I also integrated the roles of former coach and participant observer. Even
though I found myself identifying team activities with the pronouns "we” or “our," I kept a
distance that Donna and the players seemed to understand. During games I never
demonstrated any frustration or glee about game situations. At the last game, a number of
players invited me to attend games the next year to cheer for them, something I had never
done.

The field notes taken during practices were in the form of direct quotes, sentences,
diagrams, and brief descriptive paragraphs of specific interactions. Additionally, I would
scribble notes to myself about factors that may have influenced my observations or
questions that I might want to ask one of the participants. One instance that I remember
clearly was on a practice day when the temperature was close to 35 degrees. Donna had the
infielders practicing chasing down baserunners. In the outfield, Tanya and Popeye were

40
jumping up and down, running in place, and making comments about the cold weather. By

the time Donna asked them to participate in a drill, they were unable to throw because their
shoulders hurt from the cold. I focused my observations on how the cold weather seemed
to alter the typical practice behaviors. My informal discussions with Donna and the players
provided evidence for the assumption that the weather influenced the tone of practice.

The raw field notes were expanded into complete descriptive sentences and
paragraphs. At the end of the expanded field notes, I would write myself memos reflecting
on my day in the field In addition, I was continually writing memos about methodological
issues, what I thought I was finding, and how I should proceed. The expanded field notes
contained observer reactions and questions guiding further observations, interviews, and
analysis.

Interviews

Observations provided me with description of interactions between participants in
many different settings. However, I needed to go beyond the world of observer and enter
into the world of the players and Donna I needed to know if my interpretations of the
obwrved interactions were congruent with the perspective of the people experiencing those
events. The interviews would provide me with the participants’ perceptions of the
behaviors I had been observing. The participants would help me to understand how they
made sense of and constructed meaning in the world around them. My observations
suggested that there were continual modifications in the participants' behaviors throughout
the season. Interviews helped me to understand the nature of the modifications. The
combination of formal and informal interviews helped me to understand how the
participants constructed and reconstructed the meanings they attached to being a member of
the Torrey West varsity.

I had intended to interview Donna formally three times. However, due to time
constraints, I formally interviewed her only twice. The first interview was after tryouts and

before the first practice. Donna selected a local hot dog stand as the interview site. The

41
taped interview lasted two hours. This interview was used to get acquainted with Donna

and to get a sense of her expectations of herself, the players, and her team. I urged Donna
to ask any questions concerning the study or myself. We also discussed the status of our
relationship and future concerns. Donna seemed to be open and candid. She told me about
bad and good past experiences she had had as a coach and player. Donna discussed her
disappointment concerning the lack of returning varsity players along with a seemingly
honest assessment of the ability of the team. The data collected in this interview was used
as a baseline to provide possible explanations for Donna's observed behaviors.

Before, during, and after team events, Donna made herself available for informal
discussions. I attempted to place myself in positions where I could interact with her during
both stressful and joyous times. We seemed to develop a trusting relationship. In all the
time I spent in the field, I did not witness her stop speaking or acting as a consequence of
my presence. Donna discussed her inner most feelings toward the team and individual
players. Continually, Donna surprised me with her candid and open discussions. I
remember the day she agreed to participate in the study. She expressed a desire to help me
understand the team setting, so that I could help her understand her strengths and
weaknesses.

In June, after school the school year ended, I conducted the second f ormal
interview with Donna. Our interview was held in an ice cream parlor where we had lunch
and talked for two and a half hours The taped interview was guided by tentative assertions
and common themes and patterns resulting from continual analysis of handouts, formal and
informal interviews, and field notes. The loosely structured interview guide addressed
specific areas that I wanted to discuss without a formal question. This allowed me the
freedom to integrate the topic into a discussion, not an inquiry. Not only did I address
issues that I perceived to be meaningful to Donna, I allowed Donna the freedom to direct
my attention to themes meaningful to her. Donna spent a good deal of time reflecting on

how she perceived the players influenced her behaviors. We discussed her differential

42
treatment of players based on her perceptions of their ability, effort, and intensity. Donna

discussed the social events that modified the meanings she attached to what it meant to be a
member of her team.

I found it virtually impossible to interview formally all of the players prior to
scheduled games. During indoor practices, no one could plan ahead beeause of the tentative
practice schedule. Most of the players did not drive, so they had difficulty arranging
transportation. Moreover with in inconsistency in and short notice of practice times, the
interviews interfered with potential study and dinner times. Consequently, I had to rely on
lengthy informal discussions before and after practices. In early April, I began to sense an
underlying tension within the ranks of the players. Consequently, I intensified my efforts
to interview formally some of the players. Five players were able to be manage
transportation and time factors to be interviewed after school and before practice. The
scheduled interviews lasted from forty-five minutes to an hour. One player met me at the
loeal deli while the other players met me in a small room in the locker room. I selected a
retunring varsity player, the sophomore player, one of the captains, a player who seemed
to be receiving overt differential treatment from Donna, and a player seemingly accepted by
most of the players. I believed that this group would provide me with a sense of how the
team was coming together. The taped interviews confirmed my belief tint there was a large
subculture of players who had a different understanding tlmn Donna of what it meant to be
on the team. The interviews also provided evidence for my understanding of the meanings
the players attached to Donna's behaviors. The data from these interviews helped to guide
further observations and informal discussions concerning member's interpretation of each
other's behaviors.

The season began in early March and ended in late May. The team played 32 games
from April 11 to May 20. Toward the end of the season, the team played in 11 games in
one week. The players complained about being behind in their school responsibilities.
Consequently, I did not begin scheduling anyone for a lengthy formal interview until

43
school was out for the summer. Each player selected an eating establishment for the

interview site. Taco Bell was the most often selected restaurant. I picked up most of the

players and escorted them to the interview site. It became quite an undertaking to interview
one of the players. I got lost the first time we agreed to meet. The second time, she became
so engrossed in a nintendo game she forgot our appointment. Finally, we met at Taco Bell.

Each interview session lasted one and a half to two hours. The time span from the
first to the last interview was approximately one month. The topics selected for discussion
were generated from the analysis of the data The loosely structured interviews tested the
tentative assertions and common themes and patterns that evolved from my continual
analysis of the data. Additionally, the interviews allowed the players to identify issues,
events, and factors that had meaning for them during the season. Each player was asked to
describe the team, the coach, and their teammates. During those discussions, the players
would use specific interactions to describe how the meanings they attached to the team and
Donna changed over time. In these final interviews, the players and Donna seemed to share
an understanding about the ”team" in late May.

There was a large group of players who through repeated interaction had developed
shared meanings, perceptions, and understandings of what it meant to be a member of the
team. The evidence supports the assertion that the players did not embrace Donna as a part
of their team until late in the season. In the final interviews, the players seemed to be as
open and honest as Donna. Players discussed their displeasure concerning some of the
awards Donna presented When asked about team jokes all but two of the players discussed
a continual debate they had about Donna's sexuality. This topic and other discussions
concerning the meanings they attached to Donna's behaviors demonstrated the trusting
relationship that we had developed. I say this because all 10 of the players who could
retum planned on playing for Donna again. There did not seem to be any fear that I would

report their discussions to Donna.

44
Data Analysis

The analysis of the field notes, the interview transcriptions, handouts, and other
pertinent data was a continual process. It was difficult to expand the field notes completely
on a daily basis. However, I never got more than a few days behind Donna's formal
interviews, along with the five players' first formal interviews, were completely transcribed
within days of the interviews. The initial transcriptions of the final interviews were guided
by the patterns, common themes, and tentative assertions that emerged from my ongoing
data analysis to that point. In other words, aspects related to evidence to assertions
important to the theme of the paper were transcribed completely whereas other discussions
were earmarked with keywords and the number correlating to the location of the
information on the tape for further transcription after further analysis. One example of this
style of transcription involved the assertion that the players perceived that Donna was
yelling at them instead of for them. The following is an example of how information on this
topic was initially transcribed.

{supportive} I think she kind of I don't know I remember
one time she screwed up she told somebody to run It
might have been He{GL} she told her to run and
He got yelled at (524-527) discussion about
telling D a story (Initial transcription of taped interview
7/5/91)

The latter part in bold was eventually fully transcribed and used in the body of the
chapter, “Coach, Them, and Us,” to describe how Donna reacted when the players
accidentally called her Donna This prowdure helped to reduce the transcription time
without hindering the process of analyzing the data, beeause prior to the actual
transcription, I had listened to the tapes twice, to get a sense of common patterns and
themes emerging from the interviews themselves.

I drew diagrams and sociograrns, and doodled with words in an effort to see what I
thought I was finding. I listened to the tapes for intonation and intensity in the words
spoken. Time and time again I asked myself questions about the validity of my reporting on

the participants’ perceptions. I began each day within the setting engaging the participants

45
in informal discussions of the meanings they attached to the common themes, patterns, and

behaviors that were emerging from the data analysis. More times than not, my assessment
of the meanings they attached to being a member of the team appeared to be similar.

A tentative assertion that emerged from the data suggested that the players were
intimidated by Donna. As I began to search for evidence to support this assertion, I found
that a few players did not feel this way. In the final analysis, three players perceptions
provided disconfirrning evidence to the assertion that the players were intimidated by
Donna. These three players were the returning players. In analyzing the differences in the
perceptions of that particular group and the rest of the players, I found the thread that runs
through the entire analysis of the team experience. The retunring players had been
intimidated by Donna their first year. The analysis of this information led to the main theme
of the paper, the assertion that the interpretation of communication behaviors is more
important than the intended message. One’s past experiences are influential mediating
factors in the interpretation of the communication behaviors of others. Without the analysis
of the contradictions in the perceptions of the two groups, I might never have understood
the process involved in the players’ different interpretations of the same behaviors exhibited
by Donna. Disconfirrning evidence from one day beeame evidence of a strong, valid
assertion two weeks later. Not necessarily the original assertion, but a more substantiated
claim supported by the analysis of disconfirrning as well as confirming evidence.

The next action is a narrative description of the “team” banquet This narration
provides the reader with a description of Donna’s portrayal of her team and the players at
the end of the season. T o understand the process involved in the development of the team,
one must have an image of what “the team,” the collective we, meant to the players and
Donna. Where else to start than at the end, when there seemed to be a consensus on who
they were as a team, unlike in the beginning? My reflections of past events and the
description of the banquet set the stage for an analysis of the ongoing process involved in
the development of “the team” presented in this narrative.

46
“The Team”

The following description of the Torrey West Softball Banquet sets the stage for the
presentation of evidence to support the claim that the concept of team was constructed and
reconstructed throughout the season. “The team” presented in this narrative is a result of the
cumulative social interactions over the course of the season. The fun loving nature of the
players existed throughout the season. However, the coordinated fun loving, group
behavior presented in this section only existed after a major confrontation between Donna
and the players concerning incongruence in the meanings they attached to appropriate
member’ behaviors. More specifieally, the confrontation was a direct result of Donna not
attending the huddles at the Bicknell game. Throughout the rest of this paper, I have labeled
this crucial team event the Bicknell incident.

The last gathering of “the team” provides the starting point for an analysis of the
role ccmmunicatiorr plays in the development of team. Throughout this paper, I will attempt
to show the process through which thirteen players and Donna became the seemingly
cohesive “team” at the banquet. This narrative is a combination of data from the actual field
notes and my reflections as I observed the event on May 29, 1991, two and a half months
after the first varsity practice.

The day was not reminiscent of all those evenings when I was so cold that it took
hours to thaw after observing three or four hours of softball. To the contrary, on my drive
to the park, I wished that I had air conditioning. Even though I was eager to see Donna and
the girls, I drea®d attending the banquet in such heat and humidity. As I drove in the
parla'ng lot just minutes before the awards ceremony was to begin, I regretted that due to a
work conflict I had missed the potluck portion of the event

I knew I was in the right place when I heard the distinctive boots and hollers of
Tanya and Cissy as they engaged in their usual tugging and pulling on each other. The
picnic area was populated by approximately eighty Torrey West softball players, family
members, and friends. Four of the varsity girls were gathered around the front table. As I

47
moved closer, I heard them laughing and pointing at pictures someone had taken during the

season. Donna and Pam were standing next to the girls arranging the certificates and letters
that they were about to present to the varsity players. Donna was dressed in shorts, a
collared cotton shirt, tennis shoes, and a gold necklace, much like she dressed on warm
days during the season.

The table designated for the awards was situated next to the food table. Most of the
food was gone. People were sitting on three long tables one right behind the other in front
of the awards table. I waved to Donna and positioned myself next to some of the varsity
parents directly in front of the award's table. I felt that l was in a position to hear Donna
and the girls, as well as the reactions of the parents.

Donna walked to the front and asked that everyone be seated so that the
presentations could begin. There was quite a bit of movement around the tables as people
turned to face the awards table. As Martha, the freshman coach, rose to speak, Donna sat
down at the food table with Pam. The girls had jokingly warned me that Martha had a
history of being long winded in her banquet presentations.

Martha ealled the entire freshman team up to the front. Clapping and cheering for
themselves, the noisy processional of girls moved toward Martha as she gave a brief
summary of the season. Living up to her reputation of being long winded, Martha not only
introduced each girl individually, but she provided us with a synopsis of each girl's talents,
and personality, as well as her offensive and defensive statisties. About ten minutes into
Martha's presentation, I heard noises from behind me. I turned to witness three varsity
players talking and laughing. Almost simultaneously, Donna delivered her patented ”look”
to the group. Instantly, the girls beeame silent. During the rest of Martha's presentation, I
heard intermittent whispering and laughing. Each time that I turned to see who was talking,
the guilty parties would glance apprehensively over in Donna's direction as if checking to
see if she had heard them. Reflecting back to the season, I remembered how long it took
for the players’ initial fear of Donna’s reactions to subside. Although the players were

48
smiling, I sensed that even in a relaxed setting such as this, they were still lingering fears

attached to the “look.”

When Martha finished, she turned the program over to Milly, the JV coach. Milly
called each girl up individually and provided information about each one as a player and a
person. Milly announced the winners of the team trophies, as she embarrassedly admitted
that she had forgotten the trophies. After having spent three months with the team, I was
not surprised that Milly had forgotten her trophies.

As Milly finished, Donna slowly rose from the food table and moved toward the
awards' table. From behind and beside me, I heard catcalling from the varsity girls about
Donna's sock line. During the season Donna wore calf high socks, now she was wearing
anklets. The tan line from the higher socks was extremely evident. In unison, a couple of
the girls yelled out to Donna, ”Hey Casper." Hearing “Casper” reminded me of the first
time that Donna hadengaged in horsing around with the entire group of players. On that
spring day, Donna teasingly grabbed players when they teased her about her non-existent
tan. That was the first time that I observed Donna cross the boundary line between Donna,
the coach, and Donna, the person.

The small groups of varsity girls loeated throughout the audience began making all
kinds of whooping and yelling noises. Calmly, without any of the typical squelching looks
or body movements, Donna began her oratory on the varsity season. “We had only eight
wins on paper. However, we accomplished positive things. We had twice the number of
games than last year that gave us more experience. Our total number of games was thirty-
two. One of the most positive things was the feeling on my team. Additionally, five
players had fielding averages of 90%.” All of a sudden there was excitement and pride in
her voice as she announced, “One indication of how much the girls improved was the
difference in errors made in the fust game and the last game. On April 12, the team made

fourteen errors, however on May 20 the girls only made five errors.

49
As Donna finished this statement, the whole audience clapped accompanied by

much booting and cheering from the varsity girls themselves. Donna paused while
everyone celebrated one of the positive aspects of the varsity season, a drop in errors. I still
remember the feeling of apprehension that permeated the gym the day after the first game.
Because the players knew how she had handled game errors in the past. Consequently,
they were not looking forward to seeing or hearing her the day after. As the noise died
down, Donna’s voice rose and, becoming much more serious, she acknowledged what
made her most proud about the team, “Their undying spirit. No matter whether they won or
lost, they continued to set goals. We laughed a lot, sometimes team meetings took hours.

In the end, they were a team.”

I remembered that night in the hotel room when players laughed until Donna tossed
them out. That tournament weekend, along with the ill-fated Bicknell incident, were critieal
events in the development of “the team” Donna was portraying to the parents. From behind
me, somerme yelled, "Bust a sag.’I The varsity girls gave out a cheer. Donna got a big
smile on her face and asked the varsity girls to join her up front. As the girls moved from
their seats, Donna thanked the varsity parents for their support. The girls' cheers for their
parents turned into their typieal laughing and giggling as they congregated next to Donna.

Donna explained to the audience that the varsity parents were instnunental in
helping raise money for the materials to build the dugouts on the varsity field She
continued by spelling out the next phase of the program. “As you are introduced, I would
like you to shake my hand and give Pam a hug.” Even tonight, there seemed to be a
boundary line between “Coach” and Donna. “Coach” was providing them with guidelines
for appropriate greeting banquet greeting behavior.

With that stipulation, she began her introductions, “Sara Morrow, the only
sophomore.” Sara moved away from the girls, shook Donna's hand and then Pam's hand.
As Sara finished shaking Pam's hand, I heard Milly ask, ”Don't I get a hug?” Sara gave
her what seemed to be a forced hug. Donna continued, "Sara has a lot of potential and I am

50
glad that I get to have her on my team for two more years.” I found that comment to be

interesting, in that Donna had benched her for a bad attitude at the end of the season. As
Sara moved slightly behind Donna and Pam, Donna called out, "Cissy Katy."

Cissy Katy moved from the group, shook Donna's hand, and then hugged her. As
I watched Cissy walk her distinctive pixie walk, I heard Donna in the background, “Cissy
did a good job at second.” Before Donna could finish, all the girls cheered and laughed at
the same time. As the noise died down, Donna called out, “Nan Dodi.”

Nan Dodi shook Donna's hand and hugged Pam. While she moved beyond the
table toward Sara and Cissy, Donna told the crowd that Nan D. did a good job in the
outfield. Her stats were impressive enough that Nan would play there next year. Kelsy
Henry was introduced next.

Simultaneously, as Donna announced Kelsy's name, the varsity girls in unison
yelled out 'Keslie.” The girls during the course of the season had fooled both Donna and
me into thinking that Kelsy's name was Keslie by continually interchanging Kelsy and
Keslie. Eventually, I asked the girls what Kelsy's real name was. The girls found it
amusing that they had confused us. Kelsy, with a big smile on her face, made her way over
and shook hands with both Donna and Pam. Donna praised Kelsy for ability to play both
right outfield and catch. I was disappointed that Donna neglected to mention that Kelsy
ended the season as the starting catcher. Nan D. moved away from the other players and
gave Kelsy a big hug as Donna quickly introduced Babs.

With the introduction of Babs Larsen, Cissy screamed, "Hos.” Babs jauntily
moved toward Donna and demonstrated the "Bust a sag” pant position to the audience.
The girls were laughing while Donna and Pam both gave her a hug. Cissy, Nan, Sara, and
Kelsy all moved toward Babs and touched her hand While watching the players rejoice,
Donna became quite animated as she told the audience that Babs was a catcher. She
recounted a story about the time Babs played right field (although it was center field). I
remembered the incident vividly. The ball flew out to left centerfield and Babs looked over

51
at Popeye (left fielder) as if to say, "Please, Popeye, catch the ball." In the background,

Pam and the girls were booting and hollering as Donna finished her story. Babs strutted
directly behind Donna and made faces. Donna finished by telling the audience, “Babs will
eatch for me again next year.” Hearing that statement brought back memories of what I
called the “catcher controversy.” I could not believe that Donna still considered Babs her
catcher. I wondered how Kelsy felt upon hearing these comments.

Tina Ecke, one of my favorite participants, lumbered toward the front, as Donna
told the crowd that Tina's nickname was “Turtle.” Continuing on, Donna presented Tina to
the crowd as one of the most awesome hitters in the league. All the girls hooted and
hollered as Tina stationed herself next to her buddy Kelsy. With Tina in position, Donna
began her introduction of the player that I believe was most instrumental in the creation of
the ”team” being described in this narrative, Candy Rice.

Candy walked up to Donna and shook her hand. As Candy walked past Donna to
join her teammates, Donna whispered, ”Are you coming back next year?” Without any eye
contact or answer, Candy joined her teammates. I doubt if most people heard Donna's
question. Only team members and I would understand the significance of this interaction
between Candy and Donna. I was so engrossed in my thoughts about the implieations of
Candy's lack of eye contact that I almost missed Donna's introduction of Marlene Mitchell,
as Merle, a nickname tint Candy started when Marlene would pitch.

Donna introduced Merle as someone who IIplayed anywhere I wanted her to play.”
Donna vividly described a diving eatch that Merle made during one game. She finished by
telling the audience that Merle had the third highest batting average. While everyone was
clapping for Marlene, Donna called out “Popeye.”

With a big smile, Popeye Peters' little body bounced toward Donna. Popeye
hugged Donna. As Popeye joined her teammates, Donna gave her credit for being a
reliable, smart left fielder. This was quite a compliment from a coach who seemed to expect
perfection. Quickly Donna moved right into her introduction of Molly. With a big smile on

52
her face, Molly moved toward Donna Donna animatedly told the audience that Molly had

the highest batting average on the team. Donna explained that this was quite an
accomplishment for someone who had never played organized school sports. The girls,
Donna, Pam, and the audience gave Molly a big hand as she moved behind Donna Tanya,
Cathy, and Polly were left to be introduced. These three players were the only retumees
from the previous varsity team. Moreover, they were all seniors, along with the last two
players introduced, Pepeye and Molly.

With a smile that filled her face, Donna called out, “Tanya White.” Tanya was the
only player that Donna regularly called by her first and last name during the season.
Typieally, there were two distinct reasons why one would hear Donna's raised voice call
out ”Tanya White.” First and foremost, Donna called out Tanya's name when she was
less than pleawd with Tanya's behavior. Second, if Tanya performed at a level that pleased
Donna, she would praise Tanya with, "That's you, Tanya White, that’s you." More times
than not, one would hear Tanya's name because Donna was frustrated with her. Donna
introduced Tanya to the audience as the centerfielder and a big hitter. As Tanya passed
Donna, she gave Pam a huge bear hug, practically lifting her off the ground I expected
Donna to provide more information about Tanya, however, she continued on and ealled out
“Coooop.”

Polly Coopenheimer's nickname was “Coop.” Donna dragged the word Coop out
as Polly made her way up front. People were clapping and laughing at the same time. Coop
reminded me of the eartoon character, Gumby, tall, lanky, and lirnber. Donna made
glowing remarks about Polly's fielding percentage of over 90% at first base. As Polly
joined her teammates, I noticed Cathy was the last one to be introduced. In Donna's rrrind,
I believe she was saving the best for last. It seemed that Donna accepted more indiscretions
in performance from Cathy than any other player. Additionally, Donna relied on her advice,

as in the instance of selecting the second eaptain.

53
Donna took a deep breath, smiled and called out “Rock.” The significance of the

nickname “Rock” was related to Cathy’s performance the previous year.Everyone in the
audience cheered as Cathy sheepislrly moved next to Donna Cathy Sales was a popular
young woman; quiet, hardworking, and friendly. As the cheering died down, Donna said,
" This is Cathy's second year as eaptain." She continued by telling that Cathy had eleven
stolen bases and exclainring "what an arm!" As Cathy joined her teammates, the audience
cheered and clapped for “Rock.” Donna turned and told the players to go back to their
seats. The girls passed by the table with the team pictures and carefully picked them up.

Donna paused until all the girls had returned to the tables before she began her
presentation of the All-League Awards. She explained to the players that the performance
of those selected was recognized by "my peers and your own peers." We had two people
selected for honorable mentions. Donna ealled out Marlene Mitchell. Marlene made her way
up to the front. Her mom was whooping and cheering as Marlene moved beside Donna.
The varsity players were cheering; however, I sensed a lack of sincere enthusiasm from
them. Donna shook Marlene's hand and gave her a certificate. The second player to receive
a certificate was Molly. The varsity players hooted, whistled and hollered as Molly made
lrer way up to accept her certificate. Donna reminded the audience of the magnitude of such
an accomplishment for Molly, ”not bad for someone who has never played organized,
competitive ball before."

The next presentation was for Second Team All League. Donna began the
presentation by expressing her pleasure about this award. "I am real proud of this player,
she worked real hard” Raising her voice, like a proud parent, she practically screamed,
"Tanya White!” The varsity players were going crazy as the clapped, cheered, and
whistled for Tanya. Tanya paraded up to the front posturing herself in a way that stated
“I’ve arrived” She shook Donna's hand, and accepted her certificate. While Tanya was
making her way beck to her seat, Donna began talking about the First Team All League

winner. She remarked that this player's strength was when she was up to the plate.

54
I had guessed that it was Tina. I was sitting next to Tina's parents when Donna

called her name. As usual, they were as unassuming as Tina. She walked up rather shyly
with a big smile on her face. Donna shook her hand and presented her with a box
containing a plaque of some sort. Tina looked so pleased as the crowd cheered and clapped
at her accomplishment. As Tina was showing off her trinket, Donna proclaimed her
excitement at being able to present ”four awards that I got to choose."

The first award was for Best Offensive Player. The winner of this award was not
much of a surprise, considering Tina had just received the league award for hitting. Tina
was still engrossed in showing off her previous award when Donna called out her name,
"Tina Bcke.” As Tina made her way back up to the front, people she passed slapped her
hand and congratulated her. Donna moved into her presentation for best defensive player
by discussing the fact that the team had its share of defensive woes. I expected her to name
Cathy as the Best Defensive Player. Actually, I had already written her name in my notes,
when Donna called out Coop's name. Everyone clapped and cheered as Coop slowly made
her way up to receive her award With a big smile on her face, Coop reached out to Donna
and gave her a big hug. As Coop lumbered toward her mother, Donna announced that the
next award would be for Most Improved.

I wondered if the player would be Cissy, Kelsy, or Popeye. These three players
had been starters at integral positions on the team. My vote was for Cissy. In the first
practices and during interviews, there was quite a bit of discussion about Cissy's ability to
sit on the bench, let alone start on the varsity. As I was looking around to captrue the
reaction of the players, I heard Donna eall out, “Tanya White.” There was a momentary
pause prior to the contained cheering and clapping. I wondered what criteria guided
Donna’s selection of Tanya as the most improved player. Donna commended Tanya on the
improvement that she had made in her two years as a member of the varsity. Donna
specifically complimented Tanya on her ability to read the same sign twice in a row. I heard
the chuckles of the varsity girls peppered throughout the crowd. They were all well aware

55
of the trials and tribulations created by Tanya's short attention span. As I was reflecting on

the players’ reactions to Tanya being named Most Improved, I was brought back to the
presentations by the cracking sound in Donna's voice. She was crying. Apologizing for her
inability to continue, Donna took a wep breath as if to inhibit the crying. As Donna stopped
in mid-sentence, everyone at the tables seemed more attentive to Donna’s display of
emotion, so contrary to her day-to-day tough person demeanor.

Struggling for control, Donna continrwd, “I am proud to be able to present the
Coach’s Award, an award that goes to the player that has been an integral part of the team,
a hard worker, a leader, and a friend, not only to the girls, but to me.” During her
description of the Coach’s Award, Donna again became visibly shaken. Her voice
cracking, she apologized for choking up over honoring this person. At this point, Donna
began to cry again. She reached out and pointed toward Cathy. The audience had been
extremely quiet during Donna's show of emotion. When I looked around to observe the
players’ reactions, I saw the same quiet, empathetic expressions that were on the players’
faces when Donna confronted them during the Bicknell incident. That was the only other
time that Donna dropped the emotional wall between Doom, the person, and Donna, the
coach. That event, the Bicknell incident, was not a happy oceasion for any member of the
team. And yet, without that direct confrontation between Donna and the players, Donna
may not have been so proud to state, “In the end, they were a team.”

When Cathy reached Donna, they embraced and patted each other on the back
Donna described how much she relied on Cathy for two years. Presenting Cathy with the
award, Donna told her tint she would miss her as a player and a friend The audience
began clapping, while the varsity players whistled and cheered for Cathy. Donna then
turned to Pam and embraced her. As Donna began to thank all the parents, family, and
players for coming, Babs quickly ran up to the front with two packages.

Babs handed a package to Pam and one to Donna, thanking both coaches for their
effort and help. Pam, like a little kid, eagerly ripped open the package and pulled out a pair

56
of yellow cotton shorts. Instantly, I heard her yell, ”Bust a sag!” She turned the shorts

around so we could we “Bust a sag” screened across the bottom of the shorts. The varsity
girls cheered and laughed as Donna held up an identical pair of shorts. Choking back their
laughter, Donna and Pam made another attempt to thank everyone for coming to the
banquet. At first, the saying “bust a sag” was a descriptor of the way in which three of the
players wore their pants. As the evidence in Chapter Four will show, through repeated
interactions, the signifieance of the saying moved from a joke to a symbol of the team
culture. When I left, Donna and Pam were holding their “bust a sag” shorts while members
of the audience took pictures.

The banquet provides a fairly accurate picture of the fun loving nature of the
players. From the first day of tryouts, I was impressed with their noisy, seemingly
unconditional support, for each other. The image created by Donna’s synopsis of the
varsity was one of unison, undying spirit, and fun. From her joyful reflection of team
meetings that were full of laughter, one might assume that Donna enjoyed the fun loving
nature of her players. To the contrary, the seemingly aloof, fun loving nature of the
players, particularly the first year players, was a continual frustration to Donna until, as
Donna proudly stated, “In the end they were a ‘team’.”

Donna’s animated, reflective depiction of her players and the season, along with her
crying, could provide outsiders with the impression that Donna and the players had a
personal, as well as professional, relationship. The players, Donna, and I lmew differently.
I ean remember only one other time during the season when Donna allowed her personal
emotions to cross the boundary line that she had intentionally established between Donna
and “Coach.” That event, the team meeting after the Bicknell incident, was crucial in the
development of “the team” that Donna presented at the banquet. They had come so far.
And yet, interactions such as Donna’s individual presentations of Kelsy, Babs, and Sara;
Candy’s lack of eye contact with Donna; and Donna’s display of what the players ealled,
“the look” seemed to indieate that some remnants from the past still haunted “the team.”

57
The following results and discussion chapters will document some of the key social

interactions that either hindered or facilitated the development of a cohesive team culture.
Chapter Three, “Coach, Them, and Us,” focuses on the influence that the participants’ past
experiences had on the early group dynamics. Chapter Four, “Yelling Out of Intensity, Not
Anger,” describes and analyzes events, like the Bicknell incident, that were critical to the
evolution of “the team” at the banquet. Chapter Five, “Kelsy’s Story,” critieally examines
the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon in relation to Kelsy’s performance as a catcher.

Chapter 3
COACH, THEM, AND US: THE BEGINNING

On March 8, thirteen girls and Donna gathered together for the first official day of
varsity softball practice. On that day, there were two main subgroups of players and
Donna. I labeled the largest subgroup “Us.” Although this group consisted of the players
that had not been coached by Donna, most of these players had specific expectations of her
behavior. In the ease of Babs, Kelsy, Nan, Popeye, Marlene, Candy, Tina, and Sara, their
expectations of Donna’s coaching behaviors were based on their observations of her
coaching the previous year and on hearing stories told by the returning players. The two
outliers of this group, Cissy and Molly, had not played softball the previous year. Hence,
they entered the situation with few specific expectations of being coached by Donna
However, after interactions with Donna and the stories from members of the “Us” group,
Cissy became an active, if not influential, member of the group. Throughout the season,
Molly attempted to remain neutral.

The "Them” group consisted of the three retunring players, Cathy, Polly, and
Tanya Their expectations of Donna’s coaching behaviors were similar to members of the
“Us” group. However, the returning player’s interpretation of the expected behaviors were
mediated by their past experiences with Donna. Hence, early on, what distinguished
members of “Them” and “Us” groups was the differences in the way they interpreted and
reacted to Donna’s interactions within the team setting. What appeared to be intimidating to
members of the Us group seemed to be routine for the returning players.

The sociogram that follows shows the relationship between “Coach, Them, and
Us” on March 8, the first day of official varsity practice. These links between players
illustrate the avenues of informal communication that led to the development of similar

58

59
interpretations of Donna’s communication behaviors. This sociogram illustrates that Donna
was the gatekeeper of the organizational communication. There were strong links between
Donna and the Them group. The core of the Us group consisted of the seven players
moving up from the Junior Varsity. The links connecting these players were a result of past
experiences within the Torrey West interscholastic system. The subsequent sociogram
(pg. 100) will show that flow of communication and membership in the networks changed
with the links connecting the subgroups becoming more formalized. Then after the events
surrounding the Bicknell incident, the strong subgroup links dissolved providing more

interactional communication between Donna and all of the players.

Figure 2

 

3
a

 

 

 

 

G“?
9

Donna! Coach

Prior to being hired at Torrey West, Donna had coached freshman softball, JV
softball, and JV volleyball at other schools. She was entering into her second consecutive

year of coaching the varsity at Torrey West. This program had seen three different coaches

60
in five years. During our initial phone conversation, Donna explained to me that her intent
was to develop a program, not just a team.

Our first meeting was at the school where Donna taught. As she moved from
behind her desk, my first impression was that she was an athlete. Donna's physical
presence exuded a sense strength and confidence. She appeared sturdy and fit. Not a hair
was out of place; the same held true for the organization of her classroom. Her smile f illed
her face. And yet, there seemed to be a strength in her face that suggested hardness. She
was friendly, but distant On the first day of tryouts, I saw the distance that I sensed at our
first meeting.

Call Me “Coach”

As the softball hopefuls sat around her, Donna explicitly introduced herself as
"Coach Andrews.” The tone of her voice, her upward, stiff body position, her taut jaw and
focused eyes seemed to indicate that she had separated Donna, the person, from the title
“coach.” In addition, I had a sense she was establishing a division between player and
coach. Continuing, with a big smile on her face, Donna introduced Pam, the part time
assistant, as “Pammie” to the softball hopefuls. As she introduced Pam, I remembered
something that Donna had said in our initial discussion about the previous season. At that
time, Donna stated that her assistant coach Pam had a closer relationship with the players.
During this discussion of team relationships, I thought I detected what appeared to be a
feeling of disappointment on Donna’s part at not being closer to last year’s players. Yet, as
the statement below demonstrates, Donna intentionally wanted the players to relate
differently to Pam.

And I do that way for them. I want them to know that she is
the one to pal around with during practice. She's going to
buzz around them, chat, and talk with them. While I am up
there going {imitates giving orders to the players}
(Transcription of taped interview 3/19/91).
Donna’s definitive instructions to be addressed as “Coach” Andrews not only

created a distance between player and coach, but also created a boundary line between

61
Donna, the “Coac ” and Donna, the person. Pam would be her liaison to the players and
Donna would keep her distance. Pam was the one to pal around with. Donna was the one
to give the orders. The players were expected to address her as “Coach,” not Donna.

Donna seemed to believe strongly that it was necessary to create a distinction
between coach and player. Occasionally, players would accidentally call Donna by her
name instead of "Coach.” Typically, as the player finished pronouncing the "ah,” the player
would shoot a fearful glance in Donna's direction. If Donna heard the player, she would
direct a glance or verbalization toward the player in a way that forewarned others not to
make the same error in judgment Cissy’s recollection of the time that she wrote Donna’s
name on a Torrey West Varsity Softball poster demonstrates how adamant Donna was
about separating Donna, the person, from “Coach” Andrews.

No, well I remember one time. I did well. I didn't do it
(verbally call her Donna). It was that poster I was maldng.
This poster with all the pictures on it. And I didn't know
how to spell her last name (laughs) Sol wrote Donna
down, but I didn't write her last name. Because... I had
every intention of doing it. I remember I showed her the
poster. And she went “DONNA l” I never (laughing) I will
never forget that It was like.. DON'T YOU DARE!
(Transcription of taped interview 7/5/91)

Donna perceived that being addressed as “Coach” was more professional. Her
assumption was that if the players addressed her as “Coach,” they were showing her
respect. However, the evidence will show that Donna did not earn the respect of the
newcomers until after the Bicknell incident when there was a direct confrontation between
Donna and the players about expectations for members of “the team. After that event, the
players seemed to address Donna as “Coach” out of respect for her as a teammate as well as
a coach and person. As Cissy’s quote suggests, prior to that event, they addressed Donna
as “Coach” out of fear.

Donna's firm insistence on being called "Coach“ created an uncomfortable situation
for me when I was introducing the study to the players. As I was speaking, I found myself

wondering how to identify Donna I caught myself before I said Donna and referred to her

62
as "Coach.” As a result of this incident, I approached Donna the next day and asked her
how I should address her in front of the players. Choking back the laughter, Donna told me
that she did not mind me addressing her as Donna while we were in the presence of the
players, nor did she have a problem with my identifying her as Donna in private
conversations with the players.

I was surprised by the adamance with which Donna's insisted being called,
"Coach." Based on our informal discussion, prior to the start of tryouts, I perceived that
Donna would present herself as a team member. Instead, she presented herself as an
authority figure. After her first formal interview, I began to understand why Donna had
such strong feelings about the separation between the personal and the professional Donna
Reflecting back to her first coaching and teaching experiences, Donna described why she
separated Donna, the person, from the players:

That‘came from the very first year that Cookie and I had. We
said “We’re your pals. Call us, Donna and Cookie.” And it
did not work We made the mistake of we want to be your
friend in our very first year and so the rest of the season was
ruined because they didn't understand that we had to draw a
line because we were their FRIEND. So that made a huge
difference the first year ..... I think I had the same kind of
idea my first year teaching. I told the kids to call me Donna,
instead of Miss Andrews. But now, there’s no way. I would
prefer that they call me Miss A. Just so they know from the
start that I’m in charge and later I’ll become their friend
Transcription of taped interview 3/19/91).

It appears that Donna's past coaching and teaching experiences were instrumental in
the modifieation of her perceptions and meanings concerning the coach-player relationship.
Additionally, her past experiences influenced the meanings she attached to her role as a
coach and as Donna, the person. Hence for Donna, the coach and the person had to become
two different entities, at least early on in the season. The term “coac ” gave her a sense that
she was in charge.

Donna felt so strongly about creating a distance between self, “Coach,” and player

that she planned on discussing the situation with Martha, the freshman coach, and Milly,

63
the JV coach before the next season. The following excerpt provides evidence for the
assertion that Donna expected an unequivoeal distinction between coach and player:

...I’m going to give them (the coaches) a list of things that
will be different next year. With specific things like you
don’t call them (the coaches) by their first names. You call
them “coach.” You know those kinds of things..to instill a
little respect. a little more differentiation between authority
and player and not pal (Transcription of taped interview
6/19/91).

Donna expected a distinct differentiation between authority (her) and the players.
Donna perceived that part of the difficulty that she had in connecting with the players was
due to the players’ past experiences with Martha and Milly. In her mind, those coaches had
not drawn an irrefutable line between the authority of the coach and the players. Donna
suspected that the difference in coaching styles may have made the transition from Martha
and Milly to Donna more difficult for the players. Later evidence will show that Donna’s
suspicions were correct. The new players’ past experiences with Martha and Milly
mediated their interpretations of Donna’s behaviors, making the transition period difficult
Resflt as a Right
Early on, it beeame evident that Donna expected the players to respect and obey

“Coach.” The following vignette from the second day of tryouts illustrates how Donna
dealt with a sitrration where Sara did not conform to Donna’s expectation of automatic
obedience without question.

In the far comer of the gym, Donna was on the floor

providing instruction for a infield drill. The ball was rolling

slowly toward Sara She leaned over and plucked the ball up

with her glove. Donna yelled out to her, ”If it is on the

ground dead, use your hand." Sara, in a confident tone,

expressed her belief that it was better to use her glove.

Donna attempted to explain the logic of her instruction. Sara

continued to question the wisdom of Donna's advice.

Suddenly, the tone of Donna's voice changed. The

instructive statement turned to an order. She abruptly walked

toward Sara and told her in no uncertain terms under what

conditions she was to use her hand to field the ball (Field
notes 3/5/91).

64

The tone of Donna's voice, her abrupt movement toward Sara, and her direct order
suggested that Donna had interpreted Sara's questions as a challenge to her authority as the
coach. Although Sara seemed to carry the discussion beyond a point of clarification, one
might expect a player to question differences between how Donna expected a skill to be
executed and how former coaches taught the player to execute the skill. Donna's whole
demeanor seemed to communicate that questioning her instructions was inappropriate
behavior.

Donna's first formal interview was two days after I witnessed this incident with
Sara. In her discussions about her experiences as a player, it seemed quite evident that
Donna had never questioned her coaches. She expected the same behaviors from her
players:

I don't think I ever paid attention to what the coach did with
other players. I guess just because I was so softball
focused that I thought whatever the coach did is what we did
period. You don't question it. You don't ask her. You don't
bring it up. You know she does what she does and sol
really didn't pay attention to what she did with the other
players (Transcription of taped interview 3/19/91).

Donna’s perceptions of the “Coach” as an authority figure seemed to have been
influenced by her past experiences as a player. Remembering back to the incident with
Sara, I asked Donna if she expected her players to react toward her in the same way she
responded toward her coaches. In the following statement, Donna explained that she
expected her players to accept her decisions, instructions, and teachings without question,
as she had done with her coaches:

Pretty much, yea. I think they better do what I say, period
Just because I have played longer than the rest of them.
Hopefully, I know a little more than the rest of them. Um, I
guess if it were after the fact, if Sara lad just said to me, OK
I understand what you say and do it and then come to me
after practice and ask me. I guess I'm pretty picky about it. It
would have to be a particular tone it would have to be a very
specifically "I'm just curious” kind of tone. Not “I'm
questioning you kind of tone.” I will always try and explain
why I want them to do something or the way I want them to
do something. I expect them to hear me out and just do it.
But right on the spot, No, like the way she (Sara) did. No.

65
...If she does it again she probably will get me, because I do
not want her to keep doing it (Transcription of taped
interview 3/19/91).

According to Donna, she had been playing softball "forever." Donna seemed to
have been socialized to believe that players do not have the right to question the coach.
Moreover, she was more knowledgeable. The players should value and respect her
knowledge as the coach. In her explanation of how she expected the players to respond to
her communication behaviors, Donna was quite clear. she did not expect the players to
question her verbal instructions or decisions. If perchance a player lad a question about
"Coach's" verbal messages, Donna believed there was an appropriate time, place, and tone
for the question. Under no circumstances was a player to request an explanation prior to
attempting to follow the letter of Donna’s message.

Noisy Chatter as Sign of Sumrt and Involvement

During tryouts, I noted that Donna’s physical presence seemed to affect the
behavior of the players. As she meandered in and out of the drills, it was apparent that the
players riveted their attention to her nonverbal behaviors. The first time I observed this
phenomenon was during the stretching exercises. The following excerpt occurred in the
first fifteen minutes of the first day of tryouts.

Cathy and two other players were leading the stretching. The
leaders were counting the number of repetitions completed of
each activity. In the beginning, everyone seemed to be
chiming in on the count As the players neared the end of the
exercises, only a few people were counting with Cathy.
Donna moved away from my bleacher and stif fly walked
over and faced the players stretching. She reached her hands
up and held on to her ears, as if to say "I can't hear you.” At
the mere sight of this gesture, the number nine reverberated
off the wall (Field notes 3/5/91).

I found this interaction to be quite interesting. Everyone seemed to be engrossed in
executing the stretches. And yet, the counting became louder without a word from Donna. I
could not tell if everyone understood her gesture or if a certain group of people initiated the
increase in volume. It appeared that Donna expected the players vocalize involvement in the

activity. On the second day of tryouts, it beeame quite evident that the amount and volume

66
of vocal support for teammates was extremely important to Donna In the following

vignette, Donna had been leaning against the bleachers observing the players execution of
the drills that Milly was conducting.

Oceasionall y, Donna called out terms of encouragement such
as, "Come on buddy, you can, you can” and instructions
such as "Heads up, I don't want you to get hurt.” As the
infield drill progressed, the only noises that could be heard
were the ping of the bat hitting the ball, the hollow thud of
the ball hitting the floor, and the sound of the fielders' throw
slapping into the baseperson's glove. With a slightly raised
voice, Donna called over to the infield hopefuls, ”Let me
hear you get excited now! We're going back around.”
Simultaneously, Milly hits a grounder to the first baseperson
and calls ”Get 1." The player scoops up the grounder,
touches her imaginary bag, and makes a crisp sounding
throw back to the catcher. Again, the only sounds were
those of the bat, a thud to the floor, and the slap of the
glove. All of a sudden, Donna bellows out " HEY! When
your teammates make a play let them know it. Let
them know It.” The only movements during Donna's firm
insistence on noise were Donna’s as she moved away from
the bleacher area and the players uncomfortably directing
their attention toward her. Although the silence seemed like
forever, it was only seconds before Milly hit another ball and
the players began feverishly cheering each other on
(Fieldnotes 3/5/91).

Up to that point, I found Donna to be soft-spoken in her directions and enthusiastic
encouragement There were a few times when she had raised her voice, but never with
such fervor. Her verbal rebuke resounded off the walls. At the time of Donna’s outburst,
she was positioned directly in front of my bleacher. Much like Milly's brief hesitation in
continuing the drill, I momentarily stopped scribbling my notes and froze. Within seconds,
as if nothing had occurred, Donna enthusiastically called out to the second baseperson,
”Come on buddy, chest hi gh.”

By the third day of tryouts, it became evident that everyone understood that Donna
expected a high level of noise during drills. Players standing in a drill line would identify a
decrease in the noise level and a whisper, “She’s going to start yelling if we don’t talk it
up,” moved from person to person. As the whisper moved down the line, there was a

dramatic increase in the noise level. Not only could the players predict when Donna’s

67
expectations were not being met, I would make notations in my book about the decrease in
noise just prior to Donna or the players addressing the issue. The importance Donna placed
on the amount and volume of chatter was interesting. During her chastisement of the
players, she would emphasize the need to show teammates support But it seemed that her
expectations of loud, noisy chatter went beyond just demonstrating support for one’s
teammate.
Donna’s Percemons of a Bglglgyer

Donna’s description of a ballplayer provided evidence for the assertion tint loud
was related to her perceptions of about one’s intensity level, involvement in the sport
Donna’s perception of Cathy was that she had the ability, but not the intensity, to be a
“ballplayer.” To Donna, someone was not a real “ballplayer,” like herself, unless she was
loud:

..I think she is good enough. Uh, as far as intensity, I think
she has a really good attention span. And I think she ean stay
focused really well, but I guess when I think of intense. I
think of you’re loud and you’re um well I guess I just don’t
ever hear her get loud I think she’s intense enough for her
own playing. But she’s got to be able to rub off on other
people, beeause they aren’t always going to get intense just
because I am (Transcription of taped interview 3/19/91).

Loud noisy chatter was more than just a vehicle to show support for your
teammates. Donna seemed to equate loudness with intensity. I asked her to clarify if her
requests to the players to keep chattering was similar to the loudness she had described.
Jokingly, but sincerely, Donna responded, “I don’t ask them to do that I tell them!” As the
evidence will illustrate, Donna measured a player’s commitment to softball by how closely
her behaviors matched the meanings that Donna attached to “ballplayer.” The following
quote illustrates that Donna’s past experiences as a baliplayer played a critieal role in her
preinteraction expectations of her players.

I guess I expected everybody to be real ballplayers like me,
ya know. Why else are you out (chuckling) if you are not a
ballplayer. I mean what do they decide to do? One day, oh,

softball sounds like fun. I’ll do that this year (Transcription
of taped interview 3/19/91).

68

Admittedly, when she first started coaching, Donna expected everyone to be a
“ballplayer,” that is, someone so focused on softball that she needed little guidance from
the coach. After her first year of coaching, Donna perceived that there were very few
ballplayers as intense and committed as she was and is. It is evident from her description of
a ballplayer that she did not expect many of the new varsity players to meet her criteria for
an intense, self -motivated ballplayer like herself.

Well, I guess you know it's kind of like having a softball
sense. If it is real matterful for you whatever he (coach)
says. It makes sense and I could pretty much go out and do
it But for the rest of the girls and there were probably three
or four of us who were real ballplayers. And for the rest of
them he just was there for them and I mean I would not call
him a really good coach. But he was good for me just
because I was a ballplayer....That's kind of the way it is
with our team too. Cathy, I know Cathy is going to follow
me no matter what I'm saying and the rest of the girls l'rn
going to have to pay a little more attention to what I say so
they do follow (Transcription of taped interview 3/19/91).

By the end of the first week of practice, Cathy was the only player who Donna
thought had any softball sense. Although to her, Cathy lacked the loudness to be
considered a true “ballplayer.” Donna knew that she would have to guide this group of
players as she did not expect many of them to have any softball sense. Consequently,
Donna was prepared to provide them with the tools they needed to understand the concepts
and to execute the skills needed to be a member of her team.

Exggtations Meeting

On the first full day of varsity practice, Donna held the first of many meetings to
familiarize the players with her expectations of them as team members, their rights and
responsibilities, and what they could expect from her as their coach. In our informal
discussion prior to practice, Donna stated that it was important to her to help the players
make sense of their interactions with her and their teammates. The following vignette

shows how explicit Donna was in her deliverance of her expectations.

Everyone began gathering in the locker room. Donna moved
over toward the shower area and asked the players to sit.

69

Someone beside me called out, “I won’t sit there. There is
pee on the floor. As the players straggle in from the gym,
Donna discusses issues like uniform exchanges, emergency
phone numbers, and other organizational matters. Finally,
Donna says, “move in a little bit.” As the players scoot
toward her, she begins the first of many group gatherings
discussing her expectations of the players as members of her
team. I wanted to talk to you about some expectations “that I
have of you and you can have of me. I can sum it up
with one word 100% effort. That translates into things
like eating a good lunch each day. When you come to
practice, I expect you to give 100%. I expect you to sweat
and be able to keep going. Know yourself and know what to
eat to give me 100%. Be geared! This is what I mean. A
day like today, we’ll go outside so have both sets of clothes.
Be prepared with your sweats. Make sure you have your
cleats ready. I expect cleats. Get enough sleep. If I say run
10 laps and you are yawning....{the intonation in her voice
suggested trouble if one was caught yawning} I expect
enough rest The rest of the team is relying on you. They
expect you to give 100% in your performance. Grades, I
expect everyone to have at least a 2.0 GPA. If somebody
really good.If Tanya was really good with math, I would
expect her to help others. And the rest of you should expect
that help from your teammates. If I can help you, especially
juniors and seniors, I will (Fieldnotes 3/11/91).

Donna was explicit and direct in explaining what she meant by 100%. She left
nothing to the players’ imagination. She expected cleats, attention to one’s eating and
sleeping habits, and a minimum 2.0 G.P.A. It was apparent that Donna expected the
players to consider how their actions might impact their teammates and the team. Donna
continued her discussion with an address on what the players might expect from her:

I haven’t done it much today. But I will! I yell out of pure
intensity for the love of the game. I am not yelling out of
anger.” As the declaration earne out of her mouth, Tanya,
H00p, and Cathy broke out in laughter. I looked around and
the rest of the players had little srrrirks on their faces as if to
say, “right!” Without asking any questions, Donna continues
outlining her expectations for the team. “2 strikes and you
get a strike out” Looking directly at Cathy, Donna asks,
“What do I do?” In a matter of fact way Judy answers, “You
yell.” Attempting to clarify, Donm questions Judy, “Don’t I
call you over? I won’t embarrass you in a game. I expect
those things from you and you can expect them from me. Is
everybody OK with me yelling? Let’s clear it up now.” No
one said anything (Fieldnotes 3/11/91).

70

Donna was direct and honest. She would yell at the players out of what she
perceived to be her intense love of the game. In the same breath, Donna made it clear that
she would not embarrass the players in a game. The evidence will show that this statement
came back to haunt Donna The silence was unnerving when Donna asked the players to
respond if they had a problem with her yelling. Without much hesitation, Donna continued
on her quest to help the players understand her expectations of members of her team:

“Our credo, who knows what the credo is?” Tanya
answers, “I don’t know, but we had one last year.” Donna
begins passing a stack of papers around “I’m going to give
you several things on paper. Take a copy of each.” Donna
begins reading the credo out loud. While reading the type
written words on the handout, Donna provides the players
with examples of .what she perceives the words and
sentences mean. As the last word on the handout rolls off
Donna’s tongue, she finishes her presentation with a
declarative statement, “This is kind of our constitution. Take
it home, sign it, and tape it inside your locker.” The large
attentive group of players appears to disperse while Donna
starts to hand out more papers. All of a sudden, Donna ealls
them all toward her, “Let’s have a yell!” Donna puts out her
right arm and players begin the reach in as they scream at the
top of their lungs, “Team!” (Fieldnotes 3/11/91)

Donna was articulate and concise in her efforts to transmit to the players the
meanings she attached to being a member of her team. Donna stressed the importance of
reciprocity of respect, support, and affiliation between members of the team. The
boundaries were being established. This meeting, along with the credo (see Appendix E),
was Donna’s initial attempt at acquainting the players with the meanings and perceptions
that she attached and expected the players to attach to being a member of the Torrey West
Varsity softball team.

The previous vignette provides an excellent example of how clear, concise, and
thorough Donna was in presenting her expectations to the players. Donna’s articulate
presentations to the players were a result of the time and effort she put in to dissecting her
general philosophy about coaching into a definable mission statement about what she
wanted out of the team experience for herself and the players. The following statement by

Donna demonstrates that she understood the role communication would play in

71
reconstructing the players’ perceptions of “team” to coincide with the meanings she
attached to being a member of her varsity.

Handout things, I get you know, urn, knowing right away
that one of the things I was lacking was being
personable..l’m so softball that I cannot be personable. I
thought that I would sit down and decide what I really
wanted them to get from the season. Um what do I want
them to get from me and I came up with all these things. We
have a credo, which is just nice. "I eare about you da da "
and it goes on to list the things I reckon I want them to get
from the season. ..They will have to sign the bottom of
that... some sayings and things that I will have them put up
in their lockers. And I'll have each of them make a sign or
pairs of them make signs to put up in the team room to make
it our(varsity softball) team room. My role is mostly to make
sure that they get those things the fun things...that they learn
about reliability and they learn about themselves and they
learn about the other kids, they can count on me whether we
win or not Um, they gain a little self -respect (Transcription
of taped interview 3/19/91).

Donna perceived that her role was to make sure they learned about themselves,
others, and had fun. Donna knew what she wanted “team” to mean to the players. She had
devised a plan to provide the players with the information needed to help them construct
similar meanings and perceptions of what it meant to be on this team. From giving the
players quizzes on the softball strategies to clarifying how loud is loud enough, everyday
Donna attempted to provide the players with clear, concise messages about the meanings
she expected them to attach to being a member of the team. As one can see from my copy
of the credo (Appendix F), Donna provided the players with operational definitions of what
the she perceived the typewritten words meant. The following quote provides evidence that
Donna believed that the handouts, the credo, and her nonverbal and verbal behaviors would
help to develop a team identity.

I think probably ...... those little sayings are going to and I
don't know what it would be I don't know if I could give it a
word or a two word title but yea, yea there probably is a
personality that I want the whole team to have. And it looks

like it is going to be easier this year than it was last year
(Transcription of taped interview 3/19/91).

72

Donna envisioned that a team personality could be developed through her meetings
and giving the players handouts outlining her expectations and passions on issues such as
catcher/pitcher responsibilities, eaptain’s responsibilities, visualization, and a poem on self -
esteem. These were things that Donna perceived to be important in the development of
shared meanings and perceptions about being a member of her team, a collective we.
Leather Ritual

Donna made the pinnacle presentation of what being a member of her team should
mean to the players just before the first game. The following vignette describes Donna’s
attempt at making the players understand what they meant to her. Her presentation of a

small piece of leather seemed to bring all of us together minutes before the first competitive
game:

The players appeared nervous. They kept watching the
pitchers from the other team. Every once in a while, I would
catch bits and pieces of ohs and ahs as the ball smacked into
the opposing eatcher’s glove. This was their first game as
varsity players. One could cut the tension with a knife.
Standing by the team bench, Donna calls out, “Can I get
everyone over here, please?” While the players pack
together, Donna passes out a piece of leather to everyone,
including me. Quizzically everyone looks around. Donna
continues, “Tie the piece of leather on your left shoe lace.”
Without question, the players bend over and tie the leather
on their shoes. As I looked down at the players shoes, I
noticed that Cathy already had a piece of leather on her shoe.
Donna bends down with the players and states, “Pull real
tight or have another player help you.” Just as Donna began
reading the memo aloud, she glanwd up from my shoe to
my hand where I was tightly clutching my leather while
taking notes. I felt as though she expected me to participate
in the ritual. As she began to read the memo, I felt a sense of
belonging to the group. Yet, I did not tie the leather on my
shoe (Field notes 4712/91).

This team ritual seemed to signify the culmination of a month of
repeated interactions within the team setting. The players’ silence and attentiveness to
Donna as she read the memorandum aloud seemed to signify that they had a shared
understanding of the moment The following vignette is a description of Donna reading

aloud the memorandum as each one of us followed along on our own sheet:

73

“Here is a simple piece of leather but something very special
to me as you slip it in your shoelace. It is as special as each
of you are to me, and as softball is to each of us. You see, it
speaks to each of us of our nature. You notice it is entwined
in a knot, intertwined and bending as our personalities have
been. Yet, it has left an opening, an opening to be attached to
something else-perhaps a team--perhaps for security. It’s
leather because leather is an amazing material. It adapts to the
temperature, sometimes cool, sometimes hot It is durable
and can withstand wear and tear. It can be bent, it’s flexible
yet it maintains it’s original composition. It is simple, yet has
class--like all of you. Wear it in good health as we enter our
season with a positive expectancy for the future. Best of luck
team. LET’S GO FOR IT!” Without a word, the silence
turned to continuous cheering and touching of hands. Then
all of a sudden, the players and Donna bellowed,

“Puritans! !” (Fieldnotes 4112/91)

For the first time, I felt as though the subgroups were beginning to integrate into a
group with a shared understanding of it’s identity. We were all (Donna, the players, and
myself) sharing a team moment that defined what it meant to be a member of the Torrey
West Varsity. My bedy tingled with excitement for the group and myself. We were
entering another phase of team experiences. It was game time. From that moment, the
players and Donna began their marathon schedule of thirty-two games in a month. Little did
any of us know that the events of the next few days would challenge and reconstruct the
meanings and perceptions that were just shared in this team ritual.

Later evidence will substantiate the claim that the strengthening of Us was a result
of the players’ interpretations of Donna’s verbal and nonverbal messages that she exhibited
during games. The players perceived that Donna’s behaviors contradicted the messages that
she transmitted in her meetings, handouts, and informal discussions about the rights,
responsibilities, and roles of members of her team. One of the most prevalent forms of
perceived contradictory messages was the difference between Donna’s explanation for her
yelling and the players’ interpretations of her yelling.

74
Yelling Out of Intensig

Prior to the first team meeting, Donna expressed her concern to me that the players
might not understand that her yelling stemmed from her love of the game. Donna perceived
that it was important to the development of her relationship with the players to make them
understand that her yelling was a result of intensity gone awry, not anger at them.
Repeatedly, Donna tried to make the players understand that she was not yelling at them,
but for them.

At the first expectations meeting, Donna explained to the players that she would yell
out of her love for softball. Donna assured them that she would not embarrass them. She
knew that it would be difficult for them to understand and accept her explanation of why
she would yell. Hence, she believed that it was important for her to show support for the
players in other ways. The following quote about her use of the term buddy provides
evidence for the assertion that Donna understood the importance of conveying a consistent
message of support to counter possible misinterpretations of her yelling:

Consciously most of the time because I want them to know
that even though I’m yelling I’m not yelling at them. I
yelling to them, like for them. I don’t know if they can
understand any of that if I say that to them. They would
probably still think that I’m yelling at them.. Sol want them
to hear me say buddy when I’ve just been blowing off steam
at them for so long. So that they get the idea that I still like
you. You’re still OK. I’m still OK (Transcription of taped
interview 3/19/91).

Donna’s use of buddy” seemed to be effective in conveying a message of support
Throughout the season, Donna regularly used the term buddy to offset her intensity. As the
season progressed, the players themselves began using her favorite terms of positive
reinforcement, “Buddy, that’s you, you ean, you can.” In their interviews, all of the
players identified Donna’s use of buddy as a form of positive reinforcement Donna
suspected that even with her continual explanations of her yelling and her use of buddy the

players would still perceive that she was yelling at them. The following quote describing a

75
good male and female coach from her past demonstrates that Donna understood that her
intense nature could have a negative impact on her relations with her players:

She was always up front. I always saw her trying to
improve herself ..... she knew when to be intense and how
intense to be. And I don't know how she did that because I
probably still am not very good at that I am always at
"intense”.. when I could just be you know this intense and
make them work this hard instead of this hard ........ But I
learned a lot of about the game from him even though he was
not real personable. I guess a combination of those things
being the right intensity, being up front, still being
personable and still being able to teach me something
(Transcription of taped interview 3/19/91).

Donna believed that a coach should be up front, personable, able to teach, and in
control of his/her intensity levels. Evidence presented in the next chapter will substantiate
the claim that Donna’s heightened intensity levels in games influenced how the players
interpreted Donna’s verbal and nonverbal communieation. Earlier it was shown that Donna
believed that there Was a difference in the intensity levels of “ballplayers” like herself and
other softball players. On the one hand, Donna perceived that her players needed to be
more intense. Intensity was to her a sign of commitment to the team and your teammates.
0n the other hand, Donna’s inability to balance her intensity levels was incongruent with
her perceptions of being a good coach. Even with her awareness of how her intensity level
may affect communication with the players, Donna believed that there would be fewer
problems associated with her yelling this year:

I think partly beeause they know me. They know what to
expect And I think they like it that a coach is going to get
excited about the game and practices. [difference in
expectations this year vs last] I don’t think they expected to
get all those things out of it that I wanted them to get out of
it. I think that my expectations were a lot higher than theirs.
It was a real adjustment for them. But this year, I think they
know coming into it They know and that’s going to make
things a lot easier. And the girls have talked and they have a
little more idea of what to expect And I meant to start right
off during tryouts. Get them going, doing the right kind of

stuff during tryouts (Transcription of taped interview
3/19/91).

76

Donna’s perception that the interactions would be smoother this year stemmed from
her belief that she had done a better job of preparing and implementing her plan to transmit
her expectations, perceptions, and meanings to the players. In addition, she began
conveying her message in tryouts so that all potential varsity players were exposed to her
views. More specifically, Donna perceived that the majority of players would have some
realistic expectations of her coaching from either playing for her or observing her coaching
the previous year. More importantly, Donna expected the players, new and returning, to
exchange information about the experience, thus making the transition easier. Yet the
evidence will support the claim that the newcomers “realistic” expectations made the

transition difficult

Percem'ons of Anger

Even though Donna continually reassured everyone that she was not yelling at
them, the evidence Will support the claim that the newcomers did not attach the same
meanings to Donna’s yelling as she did. In my first interview with Donna, I asked her the
question, “What cues do you think the players pick up on when you are mad?” As Donna
began to answer, I realized, like the new players, I perceived that Donna’s yelling outbursts
signified anger.

Well, first ,I hope they don’t see it as mad, I hope they see it
as intense. And I even go through that with them at some
point I’ll tell them, “You know you’ll hear me yell A LOT
but it isn’t because I’m angry it isn’t because you’ve made a
mistake. Beeause I know you’re going to make tlrem I
expect you to. I just have such a love for this sport that I
can’t imagine giving less than 100% to it” And] can’t
expect them giving less than 100% to it So] sure hOpe they
see it as intensity. I hope they don’t see it as anger...I
thought about that last year because they would see me
...drop my hands and put my head back on the 14th or 15th
error. Before this year I was thinking gosh they ean see me
when I do that and guy I always tell them, “Never say die,
never quit, never say die.” And they ean see me drop my
hands and plop my head down, so I’m probably giving
mixed messages. But I don’t know what they are going to
get The girls that are used to it from last year will know that
it just means keep going. Let me do my thing (Transcription
of taped interview 3/19/91).

77

She expected the returning players to “let her do her thing.” She believed that they
understood that her yelling was not a result of being mad at them, but a result of her love
for softball. Donna seemed to be aware of the possibility that the players could interpret her
behaviors as contradictory to the team slogan of “Never say die.” The behaviors she
described herself doing are behaviors that she identified to the players as unacceptable for
members of her team. Although Donna did not label her yelling and intense nonverbal
behaviors as anger, she did recall one time the previous when she was truly aneg at the
players. The incident that she discusses below was described by every newcomer that
played on the varsity and JV the previous year.:

They did see me once last year in true anger. This team was
winless until they played us and I was so irate after the game
tint I said, “You all really owe me big”...This is when we
had our big discussion about how I was different from
whoever else they had. Kitty spoke up and said, “Well coach
you know you said at the end of the game that we really
owed you...We did not know what to expect We were
really seared and all that” I knew her as part of the team and
we owe each other. I was so mad I said, “We’ll have to talk
a little bit later. You run, I’ll yell.” So they were running
their laps (for each error) along the infield and I was
standing at the pitchers mound yelling at the top of my
lungs. I kind of surpriwd myself that I let myself get so
angry in front of them and to them (Transcription of taped
interview 3/19/91).

On one hand, Donna perceived that this was the only time she was angry at the
players. On the other hand, the evidence will substantiate the assertion that the players’
interpreted her yelling outbursts as anger, rather than supportive intensity. However,
subsequent recollections of this particular incident by the returning players and the
newcomers will substantiate the claim that this was the defining event in the development of
the preinteraction expectancies of members of the Us group.

As the competitive season approached, Donna yelled more. She continued to
counter the yelling with statements such as, “That’s you Tanya, that’s you” or Buddy.
Donna had been consistent and persistent in her attempts to inform the players why, how,

and when she would yell. As the evidence will show later, the players’ initial interpretation

78
of Donna’s yelling was a critical factor in the maintaining of the US-against -Coach -and-
Them attitude of the Us group.

The evidence in this section supports the assertion that Donna was clear and concise
in her verbal messages about what the players should expect as members of her team.
Additionally, Donna’s actions were congruent with her verbalizations about how she
planned to transmit her expectations of herself and the players. If one were to examine the
communication sections in most coaching education programs, Donna was following the
recipe on how to effectively communicate with the athletes. Donna’s proficiency in
transmitting her message about team rights and responsibilities to the players was a
major factor leading to the miscommunication between Donna and members of the US
group.

Donna consciously worked at helping the players make sense of her expectations of
them. There was a major huddle at the end of every practice or game. I never heard anyone
direct the players to participate in these team rituals. They just did If a player did not tap
Donna’s hand hard enough in the huddle, in front of everyone, Donna would call the player
back and demand, “Do it harder.” Consequently, without specific reference to the
significance of the tap, the players learned how hard to hit Donna’s knuckles after the team
yell. As game time approached, it appeared that the new players were adopting the
meanings and perceptions that Donna attached to “team.”

The evidence will show that for most of the season, Donna, the gatekeeper to the
inside, was considered an outsider by the newcomers. Hence, the person with the majority
of power was the odd person out on the “team” that existed prior to the Bicknell incident.
Interestingly, Donna attached a similar meaning to her membership on the team.

When Donna read the credo, she reminded the players that she was a person, not
just a coach. Time and time again Donna emphasized to the players how important it was to
her to be considered a member of the team. During all of Donna’s “expectations” meetings,
it appeared that Donna’s theory of reciprocity applied to the coach as well as the players.

79
And yet, as the following quote demonstrates, Donna perceived that the role of the coach
was much different than that of the players.

No, I think I just expect them to take it as part of that
division, coach and player. Even though I tell them I'm part
of the team, and I truly am, I still have a whole different role
and so we don't live by the same rules. Mostly I think they
get to play. I just get to try and tell them how. And they only
have to earry what they do and I have to carry what all of
them do, individually and collectively. And so I guess I cut
myself a lot of slack in thinking that I get to deal with that in
whatever way I feel I need to, even if that sends out every
once in a while a contradictory message (Transcription of
taped interview 6/19/91).

Throughout the season, Donna provided the players with verbal and nonverbal
messages that she was a teammate, as well as a coach It appears from this quote that she
expected her behaviors to contradict her favorite team slogan, “Never say Die!” She would
become silent, drop her head, and appear to give up or die. Yet, the players had to maintain
their loudness, their intensity. Donna had left very little unsaid about the rights, roles, and
responsibilities associated with membership on the team. However, until the Bicknell
incident, she never attempted to explain to the players why some behaviors that were
unacceptable for them were acceptable for her as coach. While these contradictions between
Donna’s actual behavior and her prescribed behavior for team members wemed to
strengthen the tension between the Us group and Coach, members of the Them group
found the atmosphere created by Donna’s behaviors to be relaxed and acceptable.

Them

Cathy, Polly, and Tanya were the only retunring players from the previous varsity.
Cathy was a quiet, no nonsense player. Occasionally, I would see her joke around and
laugh during a practice. However, she never exhibited such inattentive behaviors in
Donna’s presence unless Donna had given them permission to relax. It appeared that she
got along with everyone, especially Polly. Cathy was Donna’s confidant within the ranks

of the players.

80
Polly did not interact with many people. She kept to herself, always asking
thoughtful questions to clarify things she did not understand. Very rarely did she exhibit
any jovial behaviors during official team events. Tanya caught my eye the first day. She
carried herself in a manner that set her apart from all the rest. She was always testing
Donna, messing around whenever possible, and yet was serious about the game of
softball. She wanted a college athletic scholarship for softball. Of all the returning players,
she was the only one openly to embrace (in Donna’s presence) the fun loving attitude of the
Us group. Her frustrated outbursts resembled Donna’s animated nonverbal and verbal
displays of intensity. During the course of the final interviews, most players named Cathy
and Tanya as Donna’s favorites. As a group, they seemed to have an allegiance to “Coach”
that separated Them from the new players.
The Role of the Returning Players
These players were the ones to pass on the team rituals, traditions, and stories that
evolved through their social interactions with Donna and other players on the previous
varsity team. Every day of tryouts, Cathy, Polly, or Tanya led the stretching exercises. I
never witnessed anyone telling them what types of stretches to lead. I never saw anyone
telling them how many repetitions were to be done. They just moved to the center and
began directing the rest of the softball hopefuls, as if they knew what was expected of
them. In the following quote, Donna discussed the role she expected the returning players
to take in transmitting her vision for the team to the new players:
I just wanted it to be one of those things (hitting fists at the
end of practice or game) that earries through year to year.
And that the girls expect when they get there. And so I
specifically didn’t explain it It’s a small thing. But it’s a
varsity thing and you know small things are all we can do.
But I knew the girls from last year would come (to the
huddle) and the others would pick it up (Transcription of
taped interview 6/19/91).
Donna expected Cathy, Polly, and Tanya to send verbal and nonverbal messages to
the new members that signaled appropriate behaviors for Torrey West Varsity players. It

appeared that they did an excellent job of conveying information about the huddle. I never

81
observed a formal discussion of Donna’s expectations for a team huddle at the end of every
practice and game. And yet, everyone went to the team huddles. None of the new players
could tell me how they knew to go to the huddle. The players seemed to Imow that they
were to hit Donna’s fist. As established earlier, Donna taught them how hard was hard
enough.

Cathy, Polly, and Tanya’s responses about the huddle were similar to those of the
new players. Tanya perceived that “it was a tradition thing. We just did it” Cathy and Polly
both perceived it as something passed on from one group to the next, “We just did it from
last year.” Whether they realized it or not, Cathy, Polly, and Tanya were living up to
Donna’s expectations of Them. They were passing on the stories, jokes, and rituals that
helped the new players develop a shared understanding of their rights, responsibilities, and
roles as team members.

It appeared that Donna expected Cathy to be the overall leader. On the first day of
tryouts, Donna called out “Get em going, Cath.” That was all it took Cathy was leading
the run while cheering on every person behind her. Listening in on a coaches’ meeting that
included Cathy, I found out that she had been selected by Donna to be team captain her
junior and senior year. The coaches, Donna in particular, seemed to value Cathy’s opinion
and ability, relying on Cathy to select the junior eaptain.

Their Perceived Relationship with Donna

In the previous section, Donna described Cathy as not “loud” enough. The
description of Donna’s presentation of Cathy at the banquet and later evidence support the
assertion that, loud or not, Donna had a different relationship with Cathy than with
everyone else. However, Polly and Tanya both thought Donna treated all of Them
differently than the new players. Polly’s explanation of how Donna treated Them
differently than members of the Us group highlights the importance of one’s past
experiences with a person:

Um, not really different. I mean it wasn’t like you could see
it But in a way because she knew us better. And she knew

82
what we were capable of doing more than the rest of them.
In a way, it was (different), but not apparent It’s not like
she made it apparent or anything (Transcription of taped
interview 6/28/91).

Polly perceived that they were treated differently because Donna knew Them from
their history together as team members. Donna knew what to expect from Them. Polly
viewed their relationship with Donna as different, but not noticeable to others. However
evidence presented in the next section will substantiate the claim that Donna’s relationship
with the returning players was obvious to the Us group.

Because of their shared past experiences with Donna, the returning players seemed
to understand the intention underlying Donna’s coaching behaviors. Even though Cathy,
Tanya, and Polly passed down stories to the new players tint evolved into common
expectations of Donna’s coaching behaviors (i.e. yelling, silence, game behavior, practice
behavior), their interpretations of Donna’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors were different
from those of the Us group. Donna lived up to the preinteraction expectancies of the new
players. Cathy, Polly, and Tanya were pleasantly surprised that Donna was more mellow,
less strict, less intimidating than they expected.

Relax Com to Last Year

A common theme emerged from Cathy, Polly, and Tanya’s reflections of their
experiences with Donna from the previous year to the present All of Them perceived that
Donna was more relaxed this year. They ran less. They perceived that the new players were
less intimidated by Donna Cathy’s recollection of the previous year provides an accurate
summary of Tanya and Polly’s descriptions in contrasting the past to the present:

Um, difficult (laughs) {why} Just because, we had a new
coach and it was like kind of like..What's going on? Last
year it just.She came off a lot different than she did this
year. Because it was like last year we were like, I don’t
know, people. I guess it had a lot to do with the people that
were on the team. I think because people had a lot of
attitudes last year on our team or I thought we did I tirink
that like Tanya picked a fight but, um, she just seemed

more,.. I don't know more tough last year (laughed). It was

kind of I think she had more of more people scared than she
did.You know, we had a lot of respect for her and

83
everything, but she also had us like if we don't do this right
(laughs) We're going to run for our lives (laughs). Because
it was really..We did a lot of running last year. But, I don't
know that’s probably the main thing that she did different
this year. She, it seemed like more relaxed and stuff
(Transcription of taped interview 6/20/91).

They expected to run for their lives for every error in a game. They did last year.
Cathy, Tanya, and Polly expected her to be more strict, tougher. They were pleasantly
surprised by what they considered a drastic change in temperament. Members of the Them
group perceived that people were less intimidated by Donna. However, as will be shown
later, the intimidation factor was influential in solidifying the boundaries between the
subgroups Coach, Them, and Us.

Neither Cathy or Polly could pinpoint whether it was Donna who was different or
that the new group of people made her seem different. The following quote by Polly best
describes the feelings she and Cathy shared about the differences in Donna’s demeanor
from the previous year:

Well, I think it was..Well, when she first came, I think it
was kind of a two way street. Because she was a different
coach for us, and we were a different team for her. So I
think that she just tried a lot of things out to see what worked
and stuff. And I think this year, she figured out a lot of stuff
that didn't work (laughs) and decided not to do it anymore.
{like} LAPS She..the year before that she was more, I
don't know.. She was a little more competitive and got a
little bit more angry at things. But this year, she seemed to
kind of level off about it. ...... Yea, lightened up. Just
because she wouldn't make us do more exercises and laps
and more (pause) She didn't YELL at us as much
(Transcription of interview 6/28/91).

Polly expected the yelling to be more intense (anger) and more frequent. Like Cathy
and Tanya, she expected much more running. Polly thought maybe Donna learned what
worked and what didn’t from the previous year. It seemed as though Polly and Cathy
appreciated that Donna was less strict. But, as the following quotes from Tanya
demonstrate, not all of the returning players shared the same feelings of relief that Donna

yelled less and made Them run less.

84
I liked her right away, personally. You know she yells and
that’s what a lot of people complain about. But I’ve always
been used to it. So it didn’t really bother me. Take
personally-- No, that’s the way I coach and that’s the way
my mom coached (Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).
Running for every error does help. It (running) makes you
think about it. I think it really helped last year. She was out
in the middle screaming at us (Transcription of taped
interview 7/22/91).

Tanya perceived that making peOple run and yelling were appropriate and effective
coaching behaviors and she proudly declared that her mom coached the same way. More
importantly, as a beginning youth sport coach, Tanya found such coaching techniques to be
useful. According to Tanya, she was not as affected by yelling as were many of her
teammates. She was used to it. Although Tanya never directly mentioned the intirrridation
factor associated with playing for Donna, her statement that she was not as affected by the
yelling indicated that she may have been aware that players were bothered by Donna’s
yelling.

Ramifications of Making Game Errors

Tanya was surprised that Donna did not make them run as much as previously.
Tanya had vivid memories of Donna standing in the middle of the field yelling at Them as
they ran for every error they made in a game. Both, Polly and Cathy had clear recollections
of the same incident that Tanya and Donna had described to me when they ran for every
error while Donna yelled at them. As the following quote demonstrates, Polly perceived
that Donna’s response to players’ mistakes this year was more effective because the players
did not have to be as fearful of making errors.

This year (laughing) {more effective} um. (Pause) I
think (hesitation) this year even though we didn't win a lot.
{why} Just because people were more relaxed about it.
They didn't get so worried that if they made a mistakelt
would be all over. (laughs) and um (pause) (Transcription
of taped interview 6/28/91).

Polly’s assessment that Donna’s more relaxed attitude created a less intimidating

atmosphere echoed the feelings of both Cathy and Tanya. To Them, last year. if you made

85
a mistake, it was all over. This year it seemed to Them that people were not as fearful about
making a mistake. And yet, the players’ fearful anticipation of practice the day after the first
game suggested that all players (new and returning) worried about Donna’s reaction to
mistakes.

After the first game, I remember Cathy laughingly warning the new players that
they would be running forever. The team had made fourteen errors in the game. In the
following quote, Cathy described the past experience that led her to warn the new players.
Not only is this the same incident that Tanya, Polly, and Donna referred to in previous
quotes, but this is the one incident that influenced most of the new players’ fearful
preinteraction expectancies of Donna as a coach.

Yea, ...... because last year everyone was, oh my gosh, she
MAKES us run FOREVER, you know, because one day
one game that we had. It was actually like I think it was the
first game that we had we made like 13 errors just in one
kind of setting and so we ran 13 laps and everybody was
like, “Oh my gosh!” We don't want to have to deal with this
and stuff. But it was a lot more relaxed this year than what it
was last year I think people came in scared and then they
realized, you know (Transcription of taped interview
6/20/91).

Last year, Donna stood in the middle of the field and screamed at them as they ran
around and around the field. This year it appeared to Cathy, Polly, and Tanya that Donna
was able to control her intensity. The returning players perceptions that Donna was less
intimidating seemed to be influenced by their construction and reconstruction of the
meanings and perceptions they developed through a year of repeated interactions as
members of Donna’s team. They believed that the new players came in scared and then
realized how much easier it was this year, as they had. Forgetting, how they much they
feared Donna last year when they moved from Milly’s coaching to Donna’s.

Cathy, Polly. and Tanya admitted that they were intimidated by Donna the previous
year. To Them, their new teammates did not have reason to be intimidated this year.

Polly’s response to my question about whether she worried about making mistakes best

summarized Cathy and Tanya’s discussions about their fear of making mistakes:

86
No, {did you the year before} Yea after the way we found
out the way she HANDLED things. Sometimes but not this
year. I mean there was nothing I could do about it. If I
(laughing) missed it if] missed it I missed it. {taken a
different attitude}yea! (Transcription of taped interview
6/28/91)!

They now understood how Donna handled things and attached different meanings
to her behavior. Hence, they felt less intimidated by Her. Earlier in this section, Donna
indicated that she expected the returning players to understand that her yelling was
frustration, not anger. She expected them to “Keep going and let me do my thing.” It
appeared that the returning players had learned to deal with the way “Coach” handled things
and take Her in stride. The returning players had done a good job of passing on
information about team rituals and other team events. However, Cathy, Polly, and Tanya
were unable to identify that members of the Us group interpreted Donna’s behaviors
similarly to the way they had the previous year. Hence, the two subgroups of players
seemed to have different interpretations of the team climate and Donna’s coaching
behaviors.

Us

The Us group consisted of the ten first year varsity players. Five of the players,
Nan, Tina, Marlene, Candy, and Kelsy, had played on the freshman and junior varsity
softball teams together at Torrey West. Three other members of the group had played
interscholastic softball with the aforementioned core members of Us: Cissy on the
freshman team, Popeye and Babs on the junior varsity. Hence, at one time or another, eight
members of the Us group had played together in the Torrey West softball program. Sara,
the youngest member of the group and team, was making the transition from freshman
level competition to the varsity. She had participated on other recreational teams with five
of the six core members of the Us group. The final member of the group, Molly. had never

played interscholastic or recreational softball with any member of the team. Molly and

Cissy were the only two members of the US group to enter into the setting without specific

87
expectations of what it would be like to play for Donna The rest of the of the Us group had
observed Donna coaching the previous year.

Sara, Nan, Kelsy, Babs, Marlene, and Tina had participated in other extracurricular
activities such as band, interscholastic volleyball, basketball, tennis, and recreational teams
with Tanya, Coop, or Cathy. None of the members of the US group had any experience
with their former teammates and friends on a team coached by Donna. They did not have
any direct past experiences with Donna as their coach, nor did they have any experience
competing at the varsity level. In this setting, they were outsiders trying to understand their
roles within the existing varsity structure created by repeated interactions between Donna
and the returning players the previous year.

WWW

Donna indicated in her initial interview that she had designed team meetings,
handouts, and slogans to help the new players understand the meanings she expected them
to attach to being members of Her team. The following general description of the
interactions during the early “how to make sense of your experience” sessions shows that
Donna may have inadvertently reinforced the new players sense of being outsiders.

These meetings typically began with Donna passing out handouts that supplemented
her explanations of the roles, rights, and responsibilities of players on her team. A pattern
of interaction between Donna and the returning players emerged in these meetings that
supported Polly’s assertion that Donna treated Them differently. During these “make sense
of your experience” discussions, Donna would single out Cathy. Coop, or Tanya to verify
her verbal description/outlines of what the players were to expect from her (i.e. yelling,
intensity, etc.) and what she expected of them. In many instances. the returning players
seemed to take the words right out Donna’s mouth and finish her sentences. One example
would be Donna’s insistence on making the returning players corroborate her descriptions

of when or how she might yell at players. After a returning player confirmed Donna’s

88
message or related a story of her own, she would completely fall apart laughing at Donna’s
continued insistence that she yelled out of intensity, not at someone.

These specific interactions among Donna, Cathy, Polly and Tanya were typically
filled with laughing and joking about previous team events or future consequences if one
did not live up to “Coach’s” specified expectations. Conversely, few, if any, of Donna’s
early interactions with the new players resulted in even a smile. Donna’s different
communication styles with the returning players and the new players were understandable.
After all, Donna had a past history with Cathy, Coop, and Tanya. She knew very little, if
anything, about the new players. Inadvertently, these meetings seemed to reinforce the new
players’ preinteraction expectancies of Donna. Donna would yell. They were outsiders to
Her way of doing things.

An analysis of the interactions amongst the players supports the tentative assertion
that within the first week a division existed between the returning players and the new
players. Daily, situations arose where one of the new members could not hear or did not
understand Donna’s directions. As a rule, the player would ask for clarification from a
member of the US group, never Donna or any of the returning players. This pattern of
behavior was interesting, in that prior to practice, the players seemed to interact amongst
each other freely. Then, as soon as Donna called practice, it appeared that there were two
distinct ways in which the players conducted themselves in practice.

Members of the Them group seemed to take on Donna’s persona. Their presence,
expressions, and attentiveness to drills seemed to distance Them from the new players. The
new players had a different way about them. While Donna was near them or looking in
their direction, they were as focused and attentive as Cathy. Polly, and Tanya. However,
when Donna was not looking or there was a break in the action, members of the Us group
engaged in messing around and chattering behaviors. Even if they were caught in the act,
the new players continued to have fun while practicing. The distinguishable differences

between the behavior and patterns of interaction amongst and between the newcomers and

89
the returning players supports the assertion that the division between Them and Us was
much more involved than just the new players making sense of their experience.

As the evidence will show, members of the Us group believed that the returning
players just went about their business without any concern or acknowledgment about the
fears of the Us group. After all, to Them, Donna was much more relaxed and less strict.
The evidence will also show that the newcomers found Donna to be less strict than
expected, yet their interpretations of Donna’s behaviors were clearly different from those of
the returning players. These differences would be consistent with one of the postulates of
the symbolic interactionist perspective that one’s past experiences play a critical role in how
one interprets the behaviors of the other.

At first glance, the emergence of the subgroup of Us was simply a matter of the
new players bonding out of a common feeling of uncertainty associated with the
expectations of a new coach and the process of becoming varsity ballplayers. However, as
the earlier sections illustrated, Donna did a good job helping the players make sense of their
varsity experience. I sensed that the underlying tension associated with Donna’s presence
was more than new players being intimidated by the unknowns of playing for a new coach.
As I began to develop relationships with the players, informal discussions before, during,
and after practices substantiated the assertion that membership in the Us group was more
involved than just being a new member to the varsity.

It is difficult to separate and analyze the factors underlying the multi-dimensional
process that transformed the intimidated newcomers into the Us against Her and Them
bunch. At the surface level, the initial basis for membership in the group was the shared
common goal of becoming “insiders” on Donna’s team. With the exception of Molly. the
new players were much like job transferees. They had participated in the Torrey West
interscholastic softball program and had been promoted. Hence, in their minds, they were
being asked to perform tasks they had already learned, but at a higher level. Through

repeated interactions with the same coaches, most of the players had developed schemas for

90
appropriate softball skills, practice/game protocol, and coach-athlete relations. Their
perceptions of appropriate and acceptable softball player behaviors had been constructed
while they were members of the freshman and junior varsity teams. The following section
will highlight the role the newcomers’ past softball experiences played in sustaining the
divisions between Coach, Them, and Us.
WWW

Seven of the ten players had played for Martha, the freshman coach. My first
impression of her was that she was someone’s mother. She was probably late forties, early
fifties, gray hair with a plumpish figure. During tryouts, all of the players went out of their
way to interact with Martha - quite the contrast to earlier descriptions of the manner in
which the players responded to the mere presence of Donna. When the newcomers
discussed their early relations with Donna, they continually alluded to the difficulty of
adjusting to Donna in relation to their experiences with Martha and the JV coach, Milly.
Cissy’s recollection of Martha summed up the other players descriptions of their freshman
softball experience:

And I guess Coach M.. I mean it was just like ..I don’t
know, Coach M was like a grandma to you. You would
totally screw up and she would say, ‘Ah, that’s OK.”
(Transcription of taped interview 7/5/91).

Martha seemed to take errors in stride. This was in sharp contrast with the
newcomers’ perceptions of their present experience with “Coach.” Seven of the newcomers
had past experiences with Martha’s relaxed, accepting style of coaching. Now they were
playing for Donna, who had stated several times that she expected physical, not mental
errors. She would be the one to decide whether a player made a mental or physical error.
Donna made it clear that she would yell. Something was OK. when Donna deemed it OK.

Not only were most of the newcomers used to Milly’s relaxed, accepting style,
most had played on the IV for Milly. As evidenced by Kelsy’s comparison of her JV
experience and her early experience with “Coach,” the players moving up from the IV were

also used to a relaxed. accepting atmosphere:

91

It’s a lot more serious than..I mean I don’t know if anyone
told you but we used to play duck duck goose to warm up
sometimes last year....We had so much fun. The practices
weren’t that serious. We worked hard. Yet, they (coaches)
weren’t that serious and we’d get into a game
situation...when we’d get down they would say, “You guys
can do it. You guys can do it.” And this coach practically
gives up (Transcription taped interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy’s perceptions of her past and present softball experiences paralleled those of
the other six players who moved up from the JV. Six of the seven players that moved up
from the JV also played freshman softball together. Through shared experiences within
those settings, one would expect these players to attach similar meanings to the differences
between Milly and “Coach.” In the following quote, Nan’s description of the difficulty
making the transition summarizes the feelings of all the newcomers who had previously
played JV and freshman softball at Torrey West:

Yea, especially for volleyball, my volleyball coach loved me
and from last year on JV ..having Milly just be one of the
girls. You know it’s hard to make the change ..... I think I
liked Milly, but she was too friendly. And our “COACH” is
just the opposite...] know this is really mean, but she says
how much she really cares and how much she wants to be
our friend. I don’t think she acts like it at all in the way she’s
coaching. A lot of people feel uncomfortable around her,
because she’s like, “Do everything perfect or don’t do it at
all!” (laughing) (Transcription of taped interview 4/15/91).

The sirrrilarities in these three reflections on the differences between their previous
two coaches and “Coach” were remarkable. The players depicted their previous coaches as
relaxed and accepting of them, with or without mistakes. The players used words like
uncomfortable, serious, and perfect to describe their experience with “Coach.” Although
Molly did not have any previous coaches to compare her experience with “Coach,” the
following quote indicates that her perceptions of “Coach” closely matched those of her
teammates:

I didn’t really know what to expect, because I had never
experienced it before...Being so like in charge, so not strict,
but like if you don’t do this you’re going to suffer the
consequences. People were I don’t want to say people

were, afraid of her, but in a way they were (Transcription of
taped interview 7/ l 6/9 1 ).

92

Molly saw “Coach” as the person in charge. Molly, like the others, perceived that
“Coach” expected perfection or else. Molly seemed to attach sirrrilar meanings to Donna’s
behaviors. She believed that her teammates were intimidated by Donna’s take-charge, no-
nonsense presence. Admittedly, there were times when Molly was intimidated, but for the
most part she expected worse. After all, she had never played on an organized team before
and now she was expected to perform at the varsity level. Hence, her membership in the
Us group seemed to be based on her quest to understand what it meant to be a Torrey West
varsity softball player.

Membership in the group was much more involved for the seven players who
played freshman and JV softball together. Not only were they trying to become accepted
members of Donna’s team and adjust to the different coaching styles, but they perceived
that they were having less fun while being less successful. The following quote by Babs
epitomizes the concerns of her former JV teammates.

I mean we were 16-1. We were sweet But there was not
pressure to make the perfect play or whatever (Transcription
of taped interview 4/ 17/91).

Babs perceived that “Coach” expected them to make the perfect play. The core
members of Us perceived that they had to contend with “Coach’s” more serious attitude
toward softball with a less fulfilling outcome. Seven of the ten newcomers were used to
messing around in practice and still being successful, winning. As freshman and JV
players, they had lost only a total of four games. This team had already lost four games.

These players attached strikingly similar meanings to the atmosphere created by
Donna and their difficulty in adjusting to the differences between the past and the present
Although Molly, Cissy, Sara, and Popeye had not shared the same past experiences with
the core members of the Us group, their views paralleled those of their teammates. The one
factor that everyone unanimously agreed upon was that at some level they were intimidated
by and/or fearful of Donna

Intimidation Factor

I mentioned earlier that I sensed that the newcomers seemed to be intirrridated by
Donna’s presence. The subsequent evidence will substantiate the claim that the newcomers’
preinteraction expectancies of Donna were the source of the fearful atmosphere surrounding
Donna’s presence. As I interacted freely with the players, I heard comments like “Do you
dare me to try on Coach’s glasses? Watch out She’s looking in our direction” or “Oh,
She’s going to be mad” The newcomers always seemed to have one eye on the task at
hand and the other on Donna.

As established earlier in the section about Donna, she expected the transition period
for the new players and herself to be easier this year. Donna believed that the newcomers
would enter into the setting with more realistic expectations of what to expect from their
experience on her varsity team because most of them had observed her coaching the
previous year. Unlike their predecessors, these players would not be shocked by her high
expectations and her propensity to yell.

Donna was correct in her assessment that the newcomers entered into the setting
with preconceived ideas about her coaching based on actual observations of her coaching
and stories from the returning players. However, those preinteraction expectancies fueled
the tension that existed between Donna and the new players prior to the first game, not the
key to a smooth transition. As evidenced by Sara’s explanation of her hesitancy to become
a varsity player, the newcomers’ observations of Donna’s coaching the previous year were
influential in the development of the Us against Her attitude of the newcomers:

One reasonwasbecauseofthe coach. Becauseldidn’tcare
for her. But I didn’t know her that well. I only knew from
what I heard...And..We (the freshman team) were watching
them(varsity) and were cheering and she(Donna) didn’t want
us to (Transcription from taped interview 3/27/91).
Sara knew what to expect Donna was firm and had different expectations than her

former coach. For that very reason, Sara almost declined Donna’s offer to play eatcher on

the varsity as a sophomore. Sara admitted she did not really know Donna. Nonetheless, her

 

94

interpretation of that incident made her apprehensive about playing for Donna. Not only
was Sara apprehensive about playing for Donna, but so were the former JV players. In her
discussion about her expectations of her varsity experience, Popeye used the word fear to
describe the her perceptions of the feelings that existed as she and her JV teammates entered
into the setting:

Coach was like, I don’t know, we all eame in with fear

that(laughs)...We(last year’s JV) would be sitting on the JV

field and we could hear her yelling at them, screaming at

them. And then we’d watch them, and one time we watched

them, they started to run laps beeause they lost the game

before and had lots of errors. They were running at the

beginning of our practice and we were done they were

STILL running(laughs). We were like, OH MY GOD

(Transcription of taped interview 8/28/91)!

The event that Popeye referred to was described by every player on the team with
the exception of Sara, Molly, and Cissy. Each and every newcomer who witnessed this
incident admitted to being afraid of Donna while the returning players used the incident as a
point of reference to illustrate Donna’s metamorphosis from the strict, intimidating coach
from last year to the more mellow, less demanding coach of the present. Earlier in this
chapter, Donna identified this incident as the only time she recalled yelling at players out of
anger, instead of intensity.

Through repeated discussions of this incident and stories from previous varsity
members, the core members of the Us group attached meanings to Donna’s coaching style
that led to them bonding because they were intimidated by Donna. Candy’s retrospection of
the social interactions early in the season supports the assertion that the subgroups of
Coach, Them, and Us existed within days of the first practice. Additionally, her description
of how and why the players came together summarizes the sentiment expressed by all of
her former JV teammates.

We used to talk about it in class all the time (laughs). We got
together and talked about “Coach.” I think it was the only
thing that kept us together...l’m glad we talked about it
because, if not, it would have been thirteen people

individually, not thirteen, because the varsity ones...like
Cathy and Polly were kind of off on their own and Tanya.

95
But the rest of Us were like scared people. It was good that
we had someone to console each other ...... They(varsity
ones) were just like THAT’S THE WAY SHE IS. I think
they dealt with it in their own way. They never told US. We
all just pulled together cowards (Transcription of taped
interview 7/24/91).

They came in apprehensive, and then they fed from each other’s fears. Eight of the
ten new players entered into the setting fearing Donna Candy perceived that members of
the Them group (returning players) dealt with Donna in their own way, leaving those who
feared Donna to fend for themselves. Thus, began the early inception of the intinridated Us
group. Through repeated interactions that reinforced their preinteraction expectancies and
stories from the past, the intimidated core of eight evolved into a cohesive group of ten,
which resulted in the Us against Her and Them atmosphere that prevailed until the
confrontation between Donna and Candy, Cissy, and Popeye (representing all of the
players’ views about Donna’s behaviors) in the meeting after the Bicknell incident

Cissy’s recollection of the early team dynamics relative to “the team” summed up
the sentiments of her cohorts in the Us group. According to Cissy, the assimilation of the
Us, Her, and Them subgroups into “the team” at the banquet was painless relative to the
evolutionary process involved in transformation of the intimidated newcomers into the Us
against Coach bunch.

Because at first, it was really strong. Because it was like
THE TEAM versus COACH. it was like two different things
and um I don’t know....lt’s kind of weird just because we
all came together ragging on the coach and then it was like
ALL of us and that was kind of cool (Transcription of taped
interview 7/5/91).

Cissy perceived that the early patterns of interaction divided the group along the
lines of everyone against Coach. Eventually, as if by magic, all of tlrem earne together, to
become “the team” at the banquet From Donna to the last player interviewed after the
banquet, the one word used to describe “the team” was fun. Yet, as this chapter shows, the
collective understanding of team and fun did not just happen, it evolved as a negotiated

version of Donna’s vision for her team and the players’ vision of a team. Prior to

96

development of a collective “we,” the meanings that each participant attached to team and
fun were more influenced by their past experiences as a member of other teams, with other
coaches, as a coach, and as a member of one of the subgroups. Over time, the meanings
and perceptions that they attached to their shared experiences created a collective
understanding of what it meant to be on this team i.e., rules, values, norms, language, and
expectations of members (Blumer, 1969).

Summary of Chapter

The evidence in this chapter supports the major tenets about commurrieation and
social order of the symbolic interactionists. Communication is an ongoing, dynamic
interpretive process. People act toward the meanings that they attach to events, objects, and
behaviors, not to the actions or things themselves. The meanings that people attach to such
actions evolve from social interaction. Consequently, the meanings that evolve from one’s
past experiences and from interactions within particular reference groups affect one’s
interpretation of one’s direct interaction with an object, event, or person (Berger &
Luckman, 1967). Social order evolves from people acting upon their environment through
the creation, maintenance, and exchange of symbols that lead to an understanding of the
“reality” of the institution in which one interacts.

This chapter illustrates the role the participants’ past experiences played in the
interpretive process of communication. Most of the newcomers entered into the setting with
knowledge of the sport, the program, and definite preinteraction expectancies of what it
would be like to play for Donna. Their past experiences influenced the meanings that they
attached to the team events, objects, and human behaviors that they initially encountered
within the team setting. Wimt was communicated by the behaviors of another participant
correlated more with the meanings and perceptions that one developed through past
experiences than with the actual behavior or event. Consequently, even when Donna’s

behaviors conflicted with the players’ preinteraction expectancies, the players still

97
interpreted her behaviors as intimidating and pressuring because her communieation style
was different than previous coaches.

From this perspective, communieation is a product and process of being a team.
The continual changes in the communieation networks within the team support this premise
made by organizational culture theorists. Early on, the formal lines (preexisting reality) of
communication were downward, with one’s power coming from linkages directly
connected to Donrn and with Cathy being the only direct link Later, strong informal lines
of communication developed as the newcomers bonded in response to their fear of Donna
The informal lines of communication became sites where players like Candy, Cissy, and
Popeye gained enough personal power to challenge Donna’s decision not to attend the
huddles in the Bicknell incident The continual changes in the communication network
(formal and informal) evolved out of the social interactions between and amongst all of the
participants within the setting. On this team, the informal lines of communication were
instrumental in the negotiation process that led to “the team.”

The evidence in this chapter, along with the following chapter, suggest that an area
of research that we should pursue in the future is network analysis. Network analysis could
provide us with valuable information about the social order of a team. Conducting
observational studies focusing on the interactional patterns within the team setting could
provide us with the information about the purposefulness of informal and formal lines of
communieation; the impact that factors such as years experience, attitudes, power,
centrality, position, etc., have on the development and strength of networks; and the effect
networks have on the coordination of group and individual goals (Salarrick, 1995).
Moreover, this type of research could help us understand the interplay between social and
task communieation networks and how they impact the cohesiveness and performance of
the team.

The findings within the body of this chapter also lend support to the research
showing tint preinteraction expectancies persist despite actual disconfirrrring face to face

98
interactions (Burgoon & LePoire, 1993). There was an ongoing tension within the team
due to the differences between Donrn’s actual behaviors and the players’ interpretations of
them based on their preinteraction expectations of her as a coach. Those preinteraction
expectancies were based on stories of Donna’s past coaching behaviors, observations of
Donna coaching, and the difference between Donna’s coaching style and the players’ past
experiences with other coaches. Until the newcomers’ confrontation witir Donna about the
Bicknell incident, the players’ interpretations of her behaviors were more influenced by
their membership in the Us group, than as a member of “the team.”

The evolution of “the team” was an ongoing process that was a result of the
modification of the initial meanings and perceptions of team held by the participants into a
shared understanding and acceptance of this team. The interpretive process of
communication was the process through which the individuals and subgroups integrated
into a collective “we.” In Cissy’s mind, in the end they were a team. Cissy’s perceptions
concurred with Donna’s announcement at the banquet, “in the end they were a team.”

The following chapter will describe and analyze some of the events that transformed
the dissident newcomers, the frustrated coach, and the ambiguous returning players into the

fun loving group at the banquet

Chapter 4
YELLING OUT OF INTENSITY, NOT ANGER

In the previous chapter, the team was described as an organization divided along the
lines of how people perceived they should and/or would experience being members of the
Torrey West Varsity softball team with Donna coaching. The meanings and perceptions that
that each member attached to their preinteraction expectancies were influenced by their past
experiences as members within the Torrey West interscholastic system. The intimidation,
almost fear, tlnt the majority of the newcomers experienced in Donna’s presence was a
result of two factors. First, eight of the ten had observed Donna yelling and screaming at
the previous varsity and had heard war stories from former varsity members about their
experiences with Donna. Second, as the players began to interact with Donna, the
difference between the laid back coaching climate of former coaches and Donna seemed to
reinforce their preinteraction apprehensions about Donna’s tougher, more demanding style
of coaching.

This chapter will describe and arnlyze key events that led to the assimilation of the
three subgroups into the team at the banquet The pregame “team” was a result of the
incongruence between the meanings and perceptions Donna attached to being a member of
her team and the past experiences of members of the US group. As the players began to
adopt the meanings and perceptions that Donna attached to team, their interpretations of
Donna’s nonverbal and verbal behaviors were instrumental in maintaining the division
between Donna and members of the US group. Although the players were still fearful of
Donna’s yelling, the underlying tension associated with her yelling was replaced with the
players’ perceptions that Donna’s behaviors contradicted their understanding of her

messages about what it meant to be a member of their team. Through team meetings,
99

100
huddles, “sign day,” and other team building activities, Donna’s presentation of “TEAM”

conveyed to the players that the “expectations of a team member” meanings that Donna and
the players negotiated applied to everyone, including Donna. Consequently, the players’
interpretations of Donna’s verbal and nonverbal game behaviors as incongruent with their
understanding of her expectations of them as team members led to a climate of hypocrisy
and betrayal. Evidence in this chapter will support the assertion tint “team” is a dynamic
process tint is constructed and reconstructed through repeated interactions within the
setting. In this instance, this team moved from “her” team to “their” team, and ended as
“our TEAM.”

The earlier sociogram (pg. 59) representing observations of tryouts and the first day
of practice illustrated tint the Us group was a loosely knit communication network with
numerous outliers (Cissy, Candy, Sara, Marlene, Molly, and Popeye) and a few strong
friendship bonds (Tina and Kelsy; Nan and Babs). The following sociogram constructed
from observations of players before, during, and after practice through March 25 portrays a

much different set of relationships.

 

Figure 3
Donna \
I ‘ \ ..
\
I, @A $

101

Candy was becoming the informal leader (hub) of the communication network for
the Us group. Not only were the links within the Us group becoming formalized, there
were also meaningful communication networks emerging within and outside the boundaries
of the Us group. Tanya had developed a strong friendship relationship with Cissy and
interacted regularly with Nan and Babs. The friendship dyads of Tina and Kelsy, Nan and
Babs, and Cathy and Coop were still strong. Tanya and Popeye developed a relationship
on the basis of their experiences as the only regular fielders on the team. There was also
intermittent interaction amongst all of the seniors, Tanya, Cathy, Hoop, Erica, and Popeye.

The most sigrrifieant relationships that formed were the bonds between Candy and
Cissy, Candy and Babs, and the catcher triad of Sara, Babs, and Kelsy. In this and the
next chapter, evidence will be provided to substantiate the claim that these three social
networks were the main channels through which the perceptions and meanings of the Us
group were constructed, reconstructed and transmitted to Donna and members of the team.
Even as the tension associated with the differences between Donna and the Us group
became more defined, the “team” as a whole was continually negotiating and renegotiating
the meaning of the team, their team.

Getti us ed to

In the previous chapter, I described indoor practices where Donna’s mere presence
seemed to create a sense of intimidation in the newcomers. Daily, it appeared tint the
division between Donna and the newcomers was weakening. There was more joking
amongst Donna and all of the players with few yelling outbursts by Donna. A prime
example of this assertion is the following vignette of the first day of outdoor practice.
Although it was warm enough to go outside, it was too wet to practice on the field. Donna
decided to go outside and practice in the school parking lot.

By the time I left the gym, everyone was outside. Cissy and
Candy were missing. Donna sent the girls on a run to the

end of the school and back. Cissy showed up just as they
finished running. As she walked up to the group, in a tone

102

tint made no excuses just stated the facts, Cissy breathlessly
blurted out, “I had to walk. Hoop drove right by me.” From
every direction, jokes start flying about “poor Cissy had to
walk” or “yea Hoop drove right by saying oh there’s Cissy,
I’ll make her walk” All of us were laughing, Donna and
Cissy included. Until Donna innocently said, “I think you all
owe me something from last Wednesday, right here by the
no parking sign.” The group moved over to the no parking
sign and lined up to run the 11 sprints they owed Donna for
dropping balls during warm-ups on Wednesday (Fieldnotes
3/15/91).

There were not any of the usual signs of interactions between members of the Us
group in reaction to Donna’s presence or directive. There was not any groaning, just
acquiescence to the directive “right here by the no parking sign.” They were quite a sight.
Molly and Cathy were wearing shorts while Marlene was wearing ear muffs. Everyone
else, including Donna, was bundled up in sweatpants, sweatshirts or jackets. Tina and
Donna were wearing sunglasses. During the running of the sprints, there was very little
talking, only heavy breatiring. After the last sprint Donna ealled the players over to her ear.
For the first time since the varsity had started practicing, “Coach” seemed to integrate the
personal with the professional.

As the girls walked toward the ear, they were breathing
heavily and struggling with holding their gloves, taking off
their sweatshirts, and keeping their T-shirts on. Donna ealled
to them, “Get a partner. A different partner than the one you
usually warm up with” From behind me, I heard someone
say, “I feel like I just gave birth.” There was no joking as
everyone seemed to be struggling to breath and walk at the
same time. Finally they partnered up and began to warm up
their arms. As she opened the driver’s door of her ear,
Donna jovially asked, “What station do you like?” There was
a momentary silence and then you could hear numbers flying
through the air, “92.5, 95, 100.6 and so on.” With a smile
on her face, Donna turned toward me and said, “I guess I’ll
put on mine, 92.1.” Tanya shrugged her shoulders,
wrinkled her nose as the music began to blare, “Oh my
God!” (Fieldnotes 3/15/91)

During the first four inside practices, there had been some joking between Donna
and the players. Two days before, Donna informed me of a nickname she had thought up
for Candy, “Fonzie.” However from all of my observations and conversations with

Donna, I would not have expected her to allow music during practice. From the players’

103
silence prior to responding to Donna’s radio station request, it appeared that they were also

surprised. Other differences in this practice from the previous ones was the recurring
confusion about language and drills. Due to the space constraints of practicing in the gym,
Donna was introducing certain drills for the first time. It appeared tint Donna expected
them to have a certain base level of knowledge.

Donrn assigned players to the landmarks that she has
designated as bases (i.e. grease spot for first, someone’s
sweatshirt for second, etc.). Then she explained that they
were going to work on the specifics involved in covering
bases. As everyone moved toward their assigned position,
Donna said, “When Candy presents that will be the cue for
third and pitcher to hustle in.” Candy pitched the ball and
Babs threw to the outside of firstbase. Candy commented,
“Oh, oh wrong side.” Donna called out, “Hoop give her an
inside target” As Hoop threw the ball back to Candy, Tina
asked, “How many times do you want us to do it?
Answering Tina, Donna said, “once.” Then she directed her
attention to Candy, “Do your present better.” Candy went
into her pitching motion and seemed to exaggerate the
windup. Loudly, Donna called out, “That was not a
present!” Looking directly at Donna, Candy asked, “What
do you mean by present?” Without any suggestion tint such
a question was stupid, Donna replied, “Touching your ball
to the glove is a present.” At that point, Donna truned her
body toward Erica and said, “When she presents, you
square to hunt.” Other times during this drill, players missed
their cue to run the bases or play a position beeause of
misunderstanding about the drill. Each time, Donna patiently
clarified the roles and responsibilities of the players
(Fieldnotes 3/15/91).

This was the first time tirat I witnessed a situation where there was a
misunderstanding about a word. Candy’s rise as the leader of the US group seemed to be
connected to her willingness to question or challenge Donna’s instructions and/or
directives. In this instance, there was no apparent tension or conflict between Candy and
Donna, however as the games began, it was difficult to assess if Candy and Donna were
battling each other as individuals or members of the subgroup they represented. The
practice was fairly uneventful until a situation arose that Donna seemed to identify as a
mental error. Donrn Ind made it clear in many of her “expectations” meetings tint a certain

number of physieal errors were acceptable, but no mental errors.

104

Donna walked toward Cissy and supportively said, “Cissy,
you’ve got to scoop up the ball, come on buddy.” And then
all of a sudden, Donna exploded, “DO WE KNOW HOW
TO DO SHORT HOPS? DO WE BACK AWAY?” From
around the field, I heard, “No.” Donna continued her tirade
as she walked toward Cissy to demonstrate the proper way
to scoop the ball up, “PLAY THE BALL DON’T LET IT
PLAY YOU!” Everyone was silent, while Donna worked
with Cissy (Fieldnotes 3/15/91).

The outburst from Donna shocked me a bit. I quit writing my notes when she began

yelling. The first part of the practice had been very positive and instructional. She had

joked with the girls during warm-ups, let them listen to the radio, and entertained questions

about the organization of the drills. After her outburst, the practice continued with the

players making jokes, laughing, and horsing around whenever Donna wasn’t looking.

During one drill, Donna laughingly said, “Better low than high.” She continued,

“Should we get a bumper sticker that says that? It would go for drugs as well as softball.

We could sell them.” Everyone joked about the possibilities of such a venture. The practice

ended with the announcement of Donna’s selection for the junior captain. As the following

vignette shows, the players and Donna seemed to feel more comfortable interacting with

each other.

“In here, as you know Cathy is the team captain and we
(Donna, Cathy, Pam) have talked a few times about who
should be the other captain. I would hope that you will
applaud who we chose, Babs Bar.” Everyone cheered as
Babs wiggled around. Donna continued, “Cathy please go
through the handout that I have distributed with the captains’
responsibilities.” Cathy read the responsibilities out loud to
the group as Donna interjected her own comments about
particular items. When Cathy finished reading the captains’
responsibilities, Donna took over the conversation. “In
volleyball, you got to drive to games. Not here, you will ride
the bus.” With that statement, Donna passed out a sheet
specifying the exact departure times for each game. “I want
everyone (varsity) to sit together. Where do you want to
sit?” Sara answered, “The back.” Two or three more
comments of “the back” were heard within the group of
players. Donna announced without further discussion, “OK,
we will sit in the back of the bus together.” Donna began the
statement, “If we go undefeated...” Then everyone started
talking, Nan asked, “Do we get to put TW in your hair
(shave initials in it)? Popeye yelled out, “Blue and gold in
it.” Donna was answering, “No!” as quickly as they came

105
up with ideas. Then she announced, “If you go undefeated,
I’d write Torrey West in my hair. I know this is a short
practice. Does everyone have a ride?” Jokingly she quipped,
“Everyone can ride with Cissy.” The practice ended like all
the practices to date with everyone grouped together to yell,
“Team” and touch Donna’s knuckles (Fieldnotes 3/15/91).

The joking and playful interaction between Donna and all of the players was
atypical. In this practice, Donna seemed to balance the fun aspect of participation with her
role as leader. Even though she raised her voice to the point of stopping practice for a brief
moment, Donna engaged in much more interaction with all of the players, not just the
returning players. Donna seemed to bring more of Donna, the person, to this practice.
There was little, if any, interactions that suggested that members of the US group were
intimidated by Donna.

W

Donna’s announcement of the Babs as the team eaptain was a combination of joking
and business. The selection of captain was important enough for Donna to require that
everyone listen while Cathy read Donna’s handout entitled team eaptain responsibilities
(Appendix F). In addition, it appeared that Donna considered it critieal that the players sit
together as a team on the bus. The concept of team seemed to be extremely important to
Donna To date, after every practice, the players huddled, yelled “team,” and then knocked
knuckles with Donna. As the following quote shows, Donna started the “knock knuckles”
activity with the concept of team in mind.

I started to last year. And I meant to never have to explain it
again. I just wanted it to be one of those things that carries
through and that the giris expect when they get there. As sol
specifically did not explain it...But I knew the girls from last
year would know what it was and they would come and the
others would pick up on it. And again I think I did it just to
remind them that I’m part of the team and even though I
yelled at you today I still believe in you. No I didn’t explain
it on purpose (Transcription of taped interview 6/19/91).

Donna had not only formulated her lesson plans for her practice sessions, but she
also had a game plan for the development of a collective understanding of being a member

of her team. This plan was much like that of a large corporation to get employees to identify

106
with the mission of the company. Donna’s plan for the huddle was purposeful and

calculated right down to what they would yell in the huddle. Donna’s perception of the lack
of success that she had with the previous varsity players coming up with meaningful yells
had her reevaluate how to handle the situation. This year the players would not be allowed
to select a phrase or term until she believed that a some sense of team:

So, I thought this year I would just decide especially in the

first part of the season. And then I would start asking them,

“What do you want to say?” Or if it was a particularly easy

day let them decide what they wanted to say (Transcription

of taped interview 6/19/91).

Donna decided that until they had some experiences on the team that she would
select the phrase or word to be yelled in the huddle. To clarify my understanding of the
huddle, I asked Donna, “So the purpose was to pull the team together and you consciously
decided what to say. Am I right.” Her response was, “Yea. Yea.” Donna would decide
what to yell until she deemed the players capable of selecting phrases or words that were
significant to the development of “the team.” Interestingly, the first practice that Donna
deemed the players knowledgeable enough to select an appropriate yell for the “knock
knuckles” huddle was also the practice that seemed to reinforce players’ fears associated
with Donna and her yelling, three days later on the varsity field.

t on the Varsi e

There was no easy access to the varsity softball field. One had to drive out of the
parking lot onto the main street, then go around the block and turn on to a one way street,
while trying to determine which driveway-like dirt road provided access to the field. After
entering onto the correct dirt road, you hoped your car did not drop into one of the many
deep ruts usually filled with mud. I missed the driveway twice in the first week outside.
Two players were late the second day outside because of their inability to navigate the busy
streets and find the dirt road. Just before a game, Tanya got her ear stuck so ®ep in the
mud that many of the freshly cleaned white uniforms turned into brown polka dots while

trying to free Tanya so the visiting team and spectators could get to the field. Another time

107
an opposing team had to carry their gear the two muddy blocks from the school, because

their bus could not maneuver around the mud holes.

Early in the season, Donna had spent one of our pre-practice informal sessions
bemoaning the difference between the boys’ varsity baseball field and the girls’ varsity
softball field. The boys field had dugouts and was surrounded by a fence supplied by
sponsors. The location of the boys’ field was next to the main parking lot on high ground
within walking distance of the gymnasium. As we drove to the field, I understood her
complaints about the “swamp.”

I rode with Donnainhereartothefield. From thatday on, I tookanactive role in
helping with the equipment and/or bases each practice. I found that by taking care of the
equipment prior to practice, helping players hook the bases, and picking up the equipment
after practice, I moved from pure observer to participant observer. During those times, the
players or Donna wOuld provide me with their inner most reflections about practice and
feelings in general, or clarify information for me.

Once we unloaded the equipment, Donna isolated herself from everyone. The
players straggled in one by one. Molly and Marlene were the first to arrive. As I sat
listening to Molly and Marlene talk about putting on their cleats for the first time, my
attention was distracted by the rumbling of Tanya’s black ear literally bouncing over the
bumps. As we moved from the bleachers to observe the ruckus, Mariene and Sara set the
wheels in motion for a shared understanding of the “Bust a sag” slogan on the back of the
shorts the players presented to Donna and Pam at the banquet.

A small import ear drove up and as it parked, Nan, Babs,
Cathy, Coop, all get out laughing wildly about Tanya’s
driving. Mariene moved away from the bench with her
sweatpants so low on her waist that the crotch was
practieally down to her thighs. She seemed to be imitating
the new basketball style of low baggy shorts. Kelsy and
Sara showed up wearing shorts. Sara sat down and made a
comment about how dumb she felt because her new cleats
were so white. As I was observing the players prepare for
their first field practice, Donna ealled out to everyone, “Let’s

go. Get your cleats on. Let’s get ready.” As Sara moved
away from the bleachers, I noticed that she had put her

108
sweatpants on in the same low baggy manner as Marlene.
Sara’s plaid shorts were quite prominent above the waist line
of the sweatpants. Tanya called out to her, “Do you have
your pajamas on underneath there? Sara just smiled and in
the background Donna asked, “Where are Cissy, Popeye,
and Candy?” At the same time the girls were explaining to
Donna that those girls had a late class, I could see Cissy and
Popeye running toward the field. It was 3: 15. They were
late. Candy was walking behind. Just as Cissy and Popeye
reached the field, Donna made everyone start their laps.
While they were running Donna turned to me and said,
“Cissy is a kick Yea, I don’t see her getting much playing
time.” Donna seemed impatient to get started. Her body
posturing was much like the first day of tryouts, distant and
strong (Fieldnotes 3/20/91).

Donna had removed herself from the action prior to the official start of practice. She
did not interact with any of us until she called out to the players to get ready. At every
previous practice, Donna had provided me with access to her plans and thoughts for the
day prior to the start of practice. Except for the drive to the field, I, like the players, was
kept at a distance. Her impatience and frustration that Cissy, Candy, and Popeye were not
there when she expected them was evident by her puffing, the change in tone of voice, and
her slumping body posture. Even when Donna joked with me about Cissy, she was
watching her watch and glancing at her list of drills/ topics to cover. She seemed almost
pressured to get started. I felt as though I was at the first day of tryouts. Donna seemed to
be distancing herself from the coach the players were becoming accustomed to and
reestablishing herself as “Coach A.”

After the girls finished their run, they stretched in the grass behind first base. I
could hear “ugh, rabbit pellets.” Donna ealled out, “Hey guess what? Guess what? I saw
someone only do half (pushup). Do twenty again.” After stretching, they moved over to
the infield to run the ten sprints that they owed Donna from the day before. As each girl
finished her tenth sprint, she breathlessly waited for a throwing partner and they began
warming up their arms. The air was devoid of any talking; the only sound was of the ball

hitting the gloves. What I noticed the most was the lack of the annoying sound when the

109
balls hit the bleachers or the wall. It was a so nice not to have to keep one eye on six balls

and the other on my paper.

The drill began at approximately 3:30 pm. Approximately seven minutes into the
drill, I could hear Tanya and Popeye chattering away. As I looked over at the players, I
assessed that the throws were not quite as accurate as they had been just minutes before. I
had barely written “throws going way high” when Donna let the players know that she was
watching them.

“Hey, I want throws chest high.” The duo of Popeye and
Tanya seemed to be the loudest in chatter and the ones who
were throwing the highest balls. As Popeye threw a blooper
to Tanya, Donna bellowed, “I DON’T WANT
RAINBOWS! !” Tanya made another bad throw. Donna just
glared at her with what the players called “the look, you
know Linda the look.” Then Popeye made a bad throw.
After she hit the ground with her glove and said, “Why can’t
I? She raised up and practiced her throwing motion without
the ball. As I’m watching Tanya make another bad throw, I
heard Marlene say to Babs, “Ask everyone if they are
warm.” Babs, the dutiful captain, polled all of the players
down the line and called out to Donna, “We’re all warm.”
As if someone had challenged a direct order, Donna
flippantly inquired, “Did I ask you?” Without the previous
chatter, everyone turned and continued to throw back and
forth. As the a ball rolled toward us, Donna sarcastically
asked, “If you are all warm, why do I see you miss
throws?” While she was letting them continue to throw until
she decided when they were warm enough, I noticed that the
girls had moved closer together and were throwing much
slower. At 3:45pm Donna walked over and picked up a bat
and called out positions that the players were to assume
instead of warnring their arms up (Fieldnotes 3120/91)

In the indoor practices, Donna made the players run a sprint for every ball they
dropped during warm-ups. Although she stressed the importance of “chest high” throws
during previous practices, she did not usually scream at the players for throws that were on
target. Donna seemed to be establishing or reestablishing that she was in control.

There was one other time that Donna had become frustrated with a player for
making her own decision. That player did not understand when she was supposed to rotate
during a drill. Consequently she made the decision to rotate out after two trials. Donna

challenged her right to decide when to switch much like she challenged Babs’ decision to

1 10
poll the players. However, this time I sensed an urgency from Donna. It was almost like

the field represented competition, not practice. She seemed to need to control the situation,
the players. After all, the players needed to be ready to “play ball” in a matter of weeks.
Donna was more like the “Coach A” that the players expected than the “Coach” that they
had been negotiating the meaning of “the team” with. The following vignette is an example
of what was to become typieal field practice behavior for Donna prior to the start of games.

Donna finished assigning each player to a position. Kelsy

was catching with Sara backing her up. Donna called out,

“OK we’re going to get one. Watch this dirt. The ball will

roll slow or hop.” Her first hits were bunts to the catchers.

As each eatcher picked up the bunt, Donna gave her

instructions on proper glove position based on the speed of

the ball. From out of nowhere, Donna looked out at the other

players and literally screamed, “I WANT TO SEE CHEST

HIGH THROWS. EVERY TIME WE OVERTHROW

THEY GEI‘ A BASE” (Freldnotes 3/20/91)

Donna was patient and detailed in her instructions to the players down to the dirt
factor. During the season, Donna tried to provide the players with detailed information that
the players would need to perform to the best of their ability from the dirt factor to the
proper execution of blocking the sun. Donna went from the calm, instructional teacher
working with the catchers to a loud (yelling) authoritarian when addressing the fundamental
aspects of “chest high” throws. Although she was voicing her expectations of their
performance, her presentation of this expectation was much different than her tone and
demeanor when working with the eatchers. She seemed to be commanding them to make
chest high throws instead of giving the hows and whys of making accurate throws. The
practice continued with numerous bouts of Donna vacillating from a calm instructional
coach to a coach emotionally frustrated with the players inability to execute the slightest of
skills.

Within about ten minutes, there were several other incidents that highlighted the
animated frustration that Donna was demonstrating in this practice. Nan and Cissy had
been having trouble executing at second base. They either misunderstood who was making

the cutoff or they were not turning their bodies in the direction Donna expected. During this

1 1 1
period, Donna had dropped her bat in frustration and gone out to demonstrate physically
the proper techniques and positions for those situations.

Through it all Donna had not raised her voice or verbally admonished Nan or Cissy
for their inability to execute. Her body language and bat wielding seemed to say it all.
Donna was frustrated at their inability to follow her instructions to a tee. As the following
vignette shows, she saved her verbal outbursts for events that conveyed to her that the
players were not attempting to follow her directions.

Just as Nan and Cissy went to be executing better Coop
threw a ball directly to Marlene and she dropped it. Donna
firmly called out, “Come on Puritans. Let’s go. Let’s go.”
As she finished the statement, Donna hit the bat against her
head. Everyone seemed to look down and around. Donna
directed her attention to hitting the ball to the fielders, “Get
two!” The first ball went over Tanya’s head and she made a
good throw to second. The next ball sailed over Popeye’s
head without much chance for stopping someone at second.
The cutoff ealled out, “Go three.” The throw was right on
target at third base. Donna screamed, “HEY, I called two.
We will change it when I change it.” Upon finishing her
directive, Donrn took her finger and pointed at her self, as if
to make sure they knew who was in charge (Fieldnotes
3/20/91).

This was unlike any practice to date. In each previous practice, Donna would find
oceasion to raise her voice and provide the players with loud, yelling, frustrated directives.
However, the impatient, do or die attitude, with each ball was different than all other
practices. What had been instructions inside were directives on the field. Donna’s
vacillation between the patient, instructional coach and the frustrated, controlling,
instructional coach dtrring this practice was representative of most of the outdoor practices
leading up to the competitive games. The evidence will show that the emotionality of
Donna’s behaviors at this and other outdoor practice was a precursor to Donna’s animated,
emotional displays on game days. Other yelling bouts in this practice included statements
such as, “ DID EVERYONE SEE WHAT I DID?,” or “You guys better be ready to yell for

seven innings!! If Pam and I out yell you, you will really owe us.” It was almost like

1 12
being on the varsity field put pressure on Donna to control the players and focus on

practicing to compete, instead of practicing to become skilled.

At approximame 5:21, Donna had all the girls sit on the bleachers for a recap of
practice and for general team information. Donna clarified the players’ roles in plays such
as delayed steals, sliding, and cutoffs. When going over the laws of offense and defense,
Candy made a minor challenge to Donna’s authority, in jest, but subtle. Late in the
meeting, Donna asked if anyone had any questions and Candy raised her hand to ask the
sign for the delayed steal. Although, this interaction seemed harmless, the tension and
subtle challenges made it seem as though Candy and Donna were sparring.

“What’s the signal for delayed steal? I don’t remember.”
Donna answered, “Remember we have two indicators and
then the sign. Right shoulder, left arm, signal.” Candy
contintwd her questioning, “Do you have a signal for I don’t
hear you?” Donna responded patiently, “If it happens a few
times, I will talk to you.” “Then they’ll know something is
up, right?” Donna responded jokingly, but with authmity,
“Right! Then you’ll hear from me tomorrow (meaning next
day)” (Fieldnotes 3/20/91).

The sociogram eariier in this chapter established that Candy was becoming the
informal leader of the US group. Candy was the only player to repeatedly respond to
Donna’s ealls for questions after a team briefing or instructional session. Many times,
Candy’s simple request for clarification of a point seemed more like challenge to the
meanings that Donna attached to coach-athlete interactions. Like this one, Candy pushed
Donna until she could point out the possible flaws in Donna’s explanation. This was just
the beginning of the battle of wit and words between Donna and Candy.

This section on the first outdoor practice substantiates the claim that Donna’s
communieation behaviors became erratic in nature. Within nrinutes, Donna’s response
ranged from ealm and instructional to emotional and controlling. In previous practices,
Donna had shown her propensity to become frustrated and animated as a result of the

players’ digressions from her expectations. This was different. These outbursts were more

1 13
frequent and more intense. It seemed as though the players’ inability to perform to her

expectations was a signal to Donna that she was not in control.

Even though Donna seemed frustrated with the players’ performance in practice,
she handed over the responsibility for selecting the yell for the “knock knuckles” huddle to
the players for the first time. That dichotomy made this practice significant for two reasons.
First this practice introduced the players to the coach they had expected when they entered
the setting. Second, as evidenced by the following vignette, Donna perceived that the
players were team oriented enough to select the yell for the huddle.

The conversation moved on to establishing where and when

practice would be dependent on the weather. For the first
time in the season, Donna asked the players, “ What do we

want to yell?” A few phrases were tossed out and then
everyone agreed on “Feel the Breeze.” As we were riding
back to the gym, Donna said, “Candy, I ean’t read her. I am
usually good at reading kids, but Candy is so solemn”
(Fieldnotes 3/20/91).

Here was a practice where Donna seemed frustrated, almost angry at times, and yet,
she passed the responsibility for selecting an appropriate phrase or word to yell in the
huddle to the players. In the section on Donna, she had stated that one of her flaws was her
inability to control her intensity. The huddle was her way of saying, “Even though I yelled
at you today, I believe in you.” By giving them the ability to select the yell, she was giving
them more of an investment in their team.
$39.13!

Five days later, Donna provided the players with another opporttmity to actively
participate in constructing the meaning of “the team.” In the first chapter, I described the
first “expectations of you as a member of my team” session when Donna passed out the
credo (team constitution) and told the players to tape it to their locker. It was time.
Volleyball season had ended so softball had full rights to the locker room. Donna was
ready to check and make sure everyone had signed and taped the credo to their locker.

Additionally, Donna expected the players to make and post signs to identify the area as

l 14
property of the varsity softball team. Today she would meet the players in “the varsity”
locker room and inspect their lockers and the locker area

I arrived at 2:40 pm, earlier than normal. I wanted to observe the process of
transforming the dull gray corner of the locker area into “team” territory. As the following
vignette illustrates, the players seemed to carry out the assigned task out of fear rather than
an acknowledgment of the signifieance of the project.

The climate in the usually dreary locker room was tense.
Four players with Babs at the helm were feverishly working
to get the materials to make signs. Sara and Kelsy were
working on a large sign, “Feel the breeze.” They were
laughing from the insecurity of not knowing whether they
would be done in time. Sara fearfully commented to Kelsy,
“Maybe she’ll hit us.” The statement was made in jest, but
the tension told the story. Not one of the players had signed
or taped the credo to her locker. Kelsy, Sara, and Popeye
were rushing around to find a clean copy of the credo and a
copy machine because they could not find their credos.
Tanya entered the locker room and left as she exclaimed that
she had forgotten everytiring at home. Mariene made the
same claim. The two of them rushed out the door to go home
and retrieve their signs and credos (Fieldnotes 3/25/91).

The tension in the locker room was high. Although they were laughing and joking
about the possibility of Donna yelling at or hitting them, there was definitely a sense of fear
in the air. Their colored marker strokes on the signs were rushed and imprecise. They were
running to the copy machine, running to tape the credos to their lockers, and practieally
ripping off their street clothes to be changed and ready before Donna came in. It seemed
that the players’ concern about Donna’s reaction to their procrastination or lack of initiative
went deeper than just this event.

I sensed that the increase in Donna’s animated emotional outbursts during the recent
outdoor practices was reinforcing the players’ preinteraction expectancies of how mean and
seary Donna could be as a coach. Since those practices, there was an increase in
interactions between members of the US group that suggested that the underlying tension

associated with Donna’s yelling was alive and well. The following vignette, describing the

l 15
reactions of both newcomers and the returning players to not being prepared, suggests that

at some level all the players feared Donna.

I was walking around the tiny section of the locker room
where the players placing the signs marking their territory.
Nan sheepishly walked up to me and explained that she
could not find her locker combination. She was smiling, yet,
her eyes had difficulty meeting mine when she almost
beggingly asked, “Do you think coach will be mad?” I told
her that I was not sure, but I doubted that she would get mad
over such a thing. She looked at me as if to say, I hope you
are right She walked away to help the players wallpaper the
area with their rushed masterpieces. At 3:07, players were
crawling on the lockers as they attempted to get the signs
hung before Donna arrived. By 3:10, players were trying to
get dressed, eat popcorn, and get all of the signs hung and
talk at the same time. Cathy came in with a squeal as she
realized she did not have any of her stuff. The noise and
activity were almost unnerving (Fieldnotes 3/25/91).

Nan was genuinely concerned about Donna’s reaction to her inability to remember
her locker combination. She was acting more like one of the intimidated newcomers than
someone who was in negotiations with Donrn and her teammates to define team. The
players’ fearful anticipation of Donna’s entrance into the locker area was similar to their
reactions to Donna’s mere presence early in the season. Except for Cissy and Marlene,
none of the players had started their posters until 2:30 pm. For the sake of peace and
harmony, a player would agree to say that other players collaborated on her sign so that no
one suffered Donna’s wrath.

It was 3:00 pm before any of the players taped a signed credo to a locker door.
From observing the process, it did not appear to me that creating a team space and taping
the credo on one’s locker had any signifieance to the players except to escape reprisal from
Donna. However as the following vignette illustrates, Donna interpretation of the outcome
of the frenzy was different than my observation of the process.

At 3: 13pm, Donna entered the team territory. Her eyes lit up
as she exclaimed, “Gotta like it!” Players were still dressing
and on top of the lockers putting the finishing touches on
their taping job. Donna walked around the block of lockers
with a grin from ear to car, “Now it’s looking like a softball

locker room.” As Donna finished her christening of the
area, Nan walked toward Donna. Glancing over at me, she

116

quietly asked Donna, “Can you tell me what my combination
is, please?” Donna lifted a page on her clipboard and
pointed to a spot on the paper. As she moved her eyes from
the paper, Nan looked over at me with a big smile and a head
nod. Coach did not get mad. Donna called out to the players,
“Going outside, too nice.” Cissy meandered over to Donna
and asked, “Do you have an extra credo?” Donna cheerfully
replied, “Yea, but not here.” Continuing without barely a
breath, “Varsity, let me see your locker doors.” As if on a
mission, Donna checked each locker door for a signed copy
of the credo. From behind the block of lockers, I heard her
call to Candy, “Candy, got to sign this bud.” Candy moved
in front of Donna to sign her credo. While signing it, Candy
said, “Coach, 1 have a banquet tonight, I might have to leave
early.” I could hear Donna question her, “What for?”
Proudly, Candy stated, “Cheerleading.” Nan and I were
standing next to each other as Molly eame up and in
frustration claimed, “I need my combination.” Nan laughed
and looked directly at me as she announced, “It’s no
problem.” From behind me, I heard Donna call out, “OK,
OK, let’s get together on the benches in the center.” Players
positioned themselves on the lockers, on the bench, and on
each others’ laps (Fieldnotes 3/25/91).

 

Donna appeared to be elated by the results of the players’ frenzy to comply with her
wish to claim the locker room as their territory. She never stopped smiling. Nan, Marlene,
and Molly had all forgotten their combinations. Many of the players had been afraid to
approach Donna for something so simple as a locker combination. Their fear was for
naught; Cissy forgot her credo and nothing was said. Donna was too busy admiring the
players’ masterpieces. The signs seemed to communieate to Donna that the players were
becoming invested in their team. The session began with Donna proclaiming her glee at the
players’ efforts in creating a team space.

“Frrst of all, EXCELLENT job on the signs. I love them.
Never; gry die is my favorite.” The players clapped and
cheered for themselves. Hardly containing the excitement
that she felt as she looked around her, Donna blurted out,
“Great, EXCELLENT, they look good.” The players
smiled, laughed, and looked at each other as if they had
gotten away with something. Yet, they seemed to take pride
in the joy they had brought to “Coach” (Fieldnotes 3/25/91).

“Never say die” became the slogan for the accepted team attitude. One month later at
the banquet, Donna commended the players for their “never say die” attitude. The result of

the players’ fearful frenzy to complete the assigned task was a team slogan. It seemed that

1 17
the results of the players’ “claim the locker room activity” conveyed to Donna that the

activity was as signifieant to the players as it was to her. As the evidence will substantiate,
‘ the meanings that the players attached to Donna’s promotion of “never say die” as the
accepted team attitude played an important role in the players speaking up at the Bicknell
incident.

In their final interviews, the responses of the players supported the assertion that
they had not put much effort into making the signs or claiming the locker room. Cissy was
one of two players who had actually made her sign prior to practice. She had cut out her
letters and pasted them on the sign. Cissy was the only player who did not have a credo by
the time Donna entered the locker room. Cissy’s discussion of the significance of the credo
and marking the locker area as team territory was similar to the responses of many of her
teammates.

Not really, beeause, we didn't really not really. In fact it
was kind of a pain beeausel lost mine. (chuckles) And here
is coach going around checking your locker and I'm going
like. Oh Hell I don't have it. (laughs) It(credo) was. It
HUNG there, but we all ind our own little individual little
thingies that got us going... I don’t think really it had an
effect on us. I think the little leather thing was kind of nice.
The credos were kind of like whatever yea We'll just
pretend yea yea just to please her. The signs .. I don't know
the sign was kind of a pain too. [Nobody did it until the last
minute] Right! It was too.. Mine was like the night before,
two in the morning (Transcription from taped interview
7/5/91).

To Cissy and many of her teammates, the credo just hung on their locker doors.
None of the players could remember the credo. Tanya in her final interview acknowledged
that they had a credo but she could not remember any part of it. She, like Cissy, found little
significance in the credo hanging on their lockers. Many members of the US group
perceived that that the credo had the capacity to play a role in the development of a team
attitude. However in their minds, Donna did not focus enough of her or their attention on
the philosophy of the credo. The following quote by Kelsy’s was representative of the

collective attitude of the US group about the signifieance of Donna’s “team” activities.

118
Yea (was signifieant), but you have to act them out. You

can’t just write it down on a piece of paper and say this is
our creed. You have to follow it too. Well, I was talking to
Candy the day after our first game and she’s like how can
we come together as a team if when you’re screaming and
yelling at US. And I could I have respect for you and how
can you have respect for me (Transcription from taped
interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy’s statement was made after the first game, an event that was critieal in
reinforcing the players’ preinteraction expectancies that Donna was intimidating and she
yelled at you, not for you. However, the statement is important in that it provides evidence
for the assertion that the there was more than the yelling factor playing a role in the
strengthening of the Us group. As early as the first game, the players seemed to interpret
some of Donna’s communicationbehaviors as contradictory to her the messages she was
conveying to them about “team.” The evidence will show that this perception of
incongruence between her message and her behaviors was due to the shared
understandings developing through events such as sign day.

Kelsy’s statement highlighted Candy’s role within the US group commmrication
network. As the evidence will show, Candy was instrumental in constructing and
reconstructing the meanings members of the US group attached to Donna’s behaviors.
Throughout this chapter, members of the US group, like Kelsy, used discussions with
Candy or paraphrased her words in discussions with me to describe their feelings about
Donna.

Most of the players found no signifieance in the credo. There were two reasons
cited for the credo not being perceived as signifieant in defining team. First, as Kelsy
claimed, the credo was never mentioned again after “sign day.” However Donna did
mention the credo one other time, during the Bicknell incident. Second, the players
perceived that Donna’s behaviors contradicted the words written on the sheet. Actions
seemed to be more signifieant to the players than written and verbal words. Although the
credo and signs did not appear to have any significance to the players, the interactions

during the rest of this practice suggest that the process of making, taping, and identifying

119

what Donna wanted may have brought the players and Donna closer to attaching similar

meanings to being a member of their team.

After the meeting, the players loaded up in cars. I rode with
Donna down to the field. I took the bag of equipment over to
the backstop as Donna passed out handouts on the signals.
The girls were looking at the sheets and talking incessantly.
Donna ealled out, “We really need to use our time wisely.
We need to be done by 5:30pm.” Babs standing shoulder to
shoulder with Donna blurted out, “Oh good!” As if she had
been stung by a bee, a sharp whence came across Bab’s face
as Donna turned to face her. Almost simultaneously, Babs
said, “I’m sorry,” and Donna hugged her. Donna sent the
girls on their run while she sat on the bench with me
organizing for the practice (Fieldnotes 3/25/91).

Donna’s response to Bab’s excitement over the announcement of a shortened

practice was much different than in previous practices. In other practices, the message had

been clear don’t watch the time. Practice would end when Donna was ready. Instead of

giving Babs the “look,” she gave Babs a hug. Donna very rarely touched the players, let

alone hugged them. Donna seemed to understand or accept tint Babs was joking. Members

of the US group, Babs in particular, were always joking.

Not only did it seem tint Donna was beginning to understand or accept the culture

of the US group, it seemed tint the players were beginning to understand and value the

meanings that Donna attached to team. Evidence to support this assertion is illustrated in the

following vignette where the players begin to use Donna’s terms to show support for each

other.

Candy was in the batter’s box. From the field, I could hear,
“Come on Candy, can do , ean do.” I thought that the
verbalization came from Popeye, but I was not sure. Within
ten minutes of this incident, Coop was hit in the crotch by a
bunted ball. Candy as she laughed hysterieally, rushed over
to Coop and said, “Can do, Coop, can do.” Coop recovered
from her run in with the ball and stood back in the batter’s
box. From the first base side, Candy was cheering, “It’s OK
Coop, you ean, you can, be yourself.” While Candy was
supporting Coop in her effort to get a hit, Molly was
providing support for Marlene, the pitcher. “Relax, you can.
You ean” (Fieldnotes 3/25/91).

120
Three members of the US group used the terms tint Donna coined to show support

for the players in their trials and tribulations. In the section on Donna, she specifically
stated that she used such terms to counter her yelling and show the players that she was
there for them. They had come to know the meaning Donna attached to those terms and
words. This assertion is further substantiated by a discussion I had with Bab’s about her
use of the term “buddy.”

You mean that she’s behind you. “Oh buddy.” Yea, I like

“buddy” because it’s like she has confidence in you. “Come

on buddy. You can do it” and stuff ...It calms me down. I

know she’s behind me. I like it it’s cool. I never noticed I

say it but I do say it now that you pointed it out. And when

she says, “Come on buddy,” it’s like that she’s pulling for

you (Transcription of taped interview 4/17/91).

This interview was after the first game. Babs had been using the term “buddy” to
cheer on her teammates in last few practices and the game. Babs had not realized that she
was doing it. Yet, she knew that when Donna said, “Come on buddy, you can do it,” she
felt like Donna was behind her, pulling for her. Donna’s use of those terms and phrases
made her feel good That was Donna’s mission, to develop a common understanding of the
meanings she attached to being a member of the team.

The importance of hanging the credo and claiming the locker room seemed to be
associated with how Donna and the players interpreted the significance of the activity from
the perspective of the other. Prior to this practice, I had not observed any member of the
US group using Donna’s word to support one of their own. Nor had Donna ever allowed a
joke about practice policy. It appeared tint this practice was important in the
acknowledgment and acceptance of the perspective of the other. There was a distinct
tension evolving from the development of the perception of a shared understanding of what
it meant to be a member of the team and the actual socioemotinal climate.

In her first formal interview, two days after sign day, Sara spent a good deal of
time discussing her perceptions of Donna as a coach. From her interview, it appeared that

Donna was being successful in conveying her interest in the development of a cohesive

121
team. However, Sara’s interview also supports the claim that members of the US group

perceived that Donna was yelling at them, not for them.
That’s one of her weaknesses is like she doesn’t like you to
do anything wrong. Then she’s going to yell at you or
you’re going to have to run at the end of practice..So you’re
like threatened during practice. If I have done anything
wrong, I’m going to get into trouble. Or she’s going to yell
at me...I feel she needs to work on that maybe try a different
tactic or maybe having a conference at the end of practice or
something. [her strengths] She’s very into team. You need
tobeateam tobeabletoplay well (Transcription fromtaped
interview 3/27/91).

Sara believed tint Donna’s main weakness was yelling directly at someone when
they make a mistake. It appeared that Sara felt threatened by the anticipation of Donna’s
reprisal if she made a mistake. Maybe Donna should talk to them individually, instead of
yelling at them in front of everyone. It seemed that Donrn had not been successful in
transmitting to Sara tint she was yelling out of frustration, instead of yelling at her. Yet, it
appeared that Donna’s use of handouts, the “expectation” meetings, sign day, the huddle,
and other tools were successful in developing a shared understanding of the importance of
“team.” Sara had no doubts about Donna’s commitment to the team.

Academics gig Athletics

To Donna, the essence of team was showing support for your teammates. The
credo stressed friendship, the importance of reciprocity in respect and trust. In her team
meetings, Donna spent a great deal of time asking about and stressing the importance of the
players’ grades. She assured the juniors and seniors that she would contact college coaches
on their behalf, if they maintained good grades. She told the players that they should seek
each other out when having difficulty in a particular subject. Donna stressed the fact that
they were students first, athletes second.

As this cinpter has shown, Donna wemed to be more emotional and authoritarian
since practices had moved outside. Her focus seemed to be in controlling the players in an
effort to get them ready for competition. Her mission of teaching them and letting them

have fun seemed to have gone by the way side as the date of the first game got closer.

122
Another sign that she may not have been acting on her own words was her announcement

of the practice times during break.

Just prior to the “knock knuckles” huddle, Donna
announced, “Monday, you’ll be here at 10in the morning.”
A collective “ugh” filled the air. Nan ealled out, “For
biology, we have to water our plants. We can only go
between 10 and 11.” Almost challenging, Donna
responded, “ How many times do you have to do this? How
many of you are in this?” Popeye, Nan, Babs, and Candy
all answered, “Everyday.” Sara asked if anyone wanted to
practice earlier. No one answered Donrn repeated her
statement about the time of practice, “10:00am and you guys
get on the stick. Get on your horse about it.” Candy, Babs,
Nan, and Popeye looked angry. Not one of them looked at
Donna They mumbled amongst themselves. I could hear
little snips of the conversation, “School first, right ..... I
thought she said...”(Fieldnotes 3/28/91).

This incident had minimal impact on most of the players. However, Candy, Nan,
and Babs played key roles in disseminating information tint maintained the HER against
US attitude of the US group. Consequently, their perceptions tint Donna was contradicting
her own words had an impact on the meanings and perceptions that all US members had of
Donna Months later in her formal interview, Candy still used this incident to justify her
reservations about Donna.

Half of us had bio together that like added hell to our lives
(laughing). That kind of ticked us off too. Coach was like
academics first well you better go do that in five minutes.
[Couldn’t get slides done] That ticked us off. Whoa Nan
was going forty-five miles an hour. I stood there for a whole
hour..blah blah..(laughing the whole time) (Transcription of
taped interview 7/24/91).

Candy was the information hub within the US group. Consequently, the seemingly
minor incident over the biology slides added fuel to the tensions seething underneath the
surface of a seerrringly cohesive group of people. Not only had the increase in her yelling
seemed to pull the Us group closer together, but the players’ (i.e. Candy’s) interpretations
of Donna’s behaviors as contradictory to her message of what it meant to be a member of

their team was beginning to play a role.

123
Busting a Sag

Two days later, the team was outside getting ready for another chance at their first
game as the Torrey West Varsity. Off and on, since the first practice on the field, Nan,
Sara, and Marlene had been wearing their sweatpants in the low crotch fashion described
earlier in this chapter. Donna had commented to me numerous times tint she did not
understand the purpose of even putting on the pants. Little did she know that the term used
to describe this clothing fashion would become the engraving on the present the players
gave her at the banquet. This banquet illustrates how the term beeame meaningful to all
members of the team.

Donna had just finished remarking to me tint she did not
understand what would make the players want to wear their
pants that way. Hearing her remark, Nan came over and
explained that they were imitating African-American guys
who wore their pants in such a manner to be cool. It was
ealled “busting a sag.” Later in practice, Pam came over and
commented, “I want to know why they are wearing their
pants that way.” Donna walked toward her and stopped in
front of home plate, “It’s called “busting a sag.” She
attempted to place a heavy accent on busting. Everyone
around her began laughing. Candy jumped off the bench and
yells out, “Coach said, “busting a sag.” Pam, always
willing to join in yelled out to all of the players, “That should
be our team cheer!” As usual, Donna redirected everyone’s
attention to the task at hand by hitting a ball over Kelsy’s
head. As Kelsy attempted to back pedal, instead of turn and
run, Donna just leaned back on the bat without saying a
word about Kelsy’s attempt (Fieldnotes 4/11/91).

Sara and Marlene had probably worn their sweatpants in tint fashion five or six
times before Donna addressed the nuance with any of the players. Nan was more than
willing to provide Donna with the information. Those players’ dressing behaviors had
become part of the team culture, an accepted deviation from the norm. Donrn had accepted
it by not making them pull their pants up. The players had accepted it by not teasing them
after Tanya’s initial pajama question to Sara. The significance and meaning of the terms
“bust a sag” and “never say die” are not in the words, but in the shared interactional

experiences of the group as a team.

124
The following section will provide further evidence for the assertion tint Donna’s

plan had been successful in helping her and the players develop collective understandings
of the meanings Donna attached to loud noisy chatter and being a member of their team.
However in her success, Donna neglected to take into consideration that the players’
interpretations of her game behavior was based on their assumption tirat what was expected
of them as team members was expected of her.

rrst as a

Today was the day, the day of the first game. For a month, Donna and the players
had been rehearsing for this, the first of thirty-two performances on a softball diamond.
Today was the day that Donna and the players would bond through the leather ritual, but
also f ragrnent through the players’ interpretation of Donna’s game behaviors as
contradictory to the essence of “team” as defined through negotiations in interactions such
as the ritual. Today Was the day tirat the underlying tension associated with the players’
fears of Donna’s yelling were augmented by their feelings of betrayal by “Coach.” As the
competitive portion of the season progressed, the tension between Donna and the US group
was associated increasingly with the players’ perceptions that Donna’s game behaviors
violated the shared understanding that they had with Donna about acceptable behaviors for
a member of their team. It appears tint Donna was successful in developing a collective
understanding of what it meant to be a member of the “team.” Her own words were
coming back to haunt her.

For two days, Donna had set up situations where the players would practice actual
game protocol. The players had been assigned a designated area to conduct all pre—game
stretching and warm ups. There were rules about walking on the infield and talking to the
opposing team. Now, it was time to test the players’ ability to execute the protocol and play
ball.

I anived just in time (2:33pm) to help Donna unload the
equipment from her trunk. As we were walking over to the

backstop, Donna inf ormed me that she was nervous. The
team they were playing was from the school where she was

125

a teacher. When I left to mingle with the players, Donna was
carefully putting the helmets and the bats in neat lines along
the backstop. The first four to arrive were Candy, Cissy,
Babs, and Popeye. As they walked over toward the field,
Donna warned them, “Don’t walk across the infield!” She
had been adamant in her preparation talks to the players tint
no one was to walk on the chalked lines or across the infield
until the other team began warming up. While I was sitting
on the team bench listening to the players, I frequently heard
the word nervous throughout their discussions (Fieldnotes
4/1 1/91).

The players, like Donna, were nervous about the upcoming competition. The days
of preparation seemed to pay off in the execution of game day protocol. The players met at
the designated area. With the exception of Tanya, no one walked across the infield.
Everyone was on time and prepared to play. As they arrived, the players seemed to cling to
each other as they discussed the upcoming jewelry check, the opposing team, and their
nervousness. The small groups were broken up by Donrn’s request for everyone to join
her at the “team” bench

At 3:07 pm, Donna ealled out to all of the players, “Can I get
everyone over here please?” Before I knew it, I was
surrounded on the bench by Donna and the players. I rose
and took my place within the huddled group. Donrn handed
each of us a piece of brown leather and told us to tie it on our
shoelace, as she read her poem that linked the significance of
the leather ritual to the meanings she attached to being a
member of her team. The ritual ended with the players and
Donna clasping hands in the center of the huddle and yelling,
“Pilgrim! !” (Fieldnotes 4117/91).

This ritual was described in great detail in the third chapter (pg.72). That moment
seemed to synthesize all of the meetings, huddles, handouts, and other team events that
Donna had specifically planned to construct a collective understanding of what it meant to
be a member of “the team.” I was excited for Donna and the team. When they left this
huddle, I sensed a feeling of unity. Two and a half hours and two games later, everyone
left the traditional “knock Donna’s knuckles” huddle frustrated and confused about what it
meant to be a member of this team.

Forty minutes after the “leather ritual,” the players were ready to take their positions

for the infield drill. The temperature was in the low forties and dropping. The other team

126
was wrapped in blankets as they observed our infield practice. Donna was upbeat and

positive through the entire ten minutes of infield. As the last player ran in, Donna yelled
exuberantly, “Good blue, looks real good today.” The starters, the benchwarrners, and
Donna huddled prior to the starters taking their positions on the field to begin the game.
Donna, again very positive, cheered the players on with this comment, “Hey, we looked
good out there on the warm-ups. I saw some really good turns.” My wooden bench
practically shook as “TEAM” reverberated from the team huddle as the players ran out to
take their positions as the Torrey West Varsity softball team.

The chill in the air seemed to be dampening everyone’s spirits a bit. The players
were barely able to move freely with the layers and layers of clothes tint they had on.
Donna kept reminding them that the other team was just as cold. The fielders stood in the
field with their hands in their pockets. Parents brought me hand warmers to keep my
fingers from freezing as I jotted down my notes. As the following vignette illustrates,
Donna found a way to generate her own heat

Candy was pitching. Even though she walked the first batter
in four pitches, Donna was constantly calling out, “Come on
Candy, buddy, come on.” After walking the first three
batters, Candy struck the next player out Nan caught an
infield fly on the next pitch and forgot to look at the runners.
From beside me, Donna lightly said, “God dammit.” While
she venting at Nan’s apparent oversight, Nan looked up and
threw one of the runners out. The inning was over and no
runs scored. Nan was first up. She had the dubious honor of
being the first newcomer to break one of Donna’s cardinal
rules, never, strike out without swinging, or else. The “or
else” in this case was being ordered over to the coach’s box
on the third base side, “NAN, NAN right over here.” With
her head down, Nan walked over to the third base line where
Donna pointed to the chalk line and told her to stop. Then
she let her have it, “What do you do on two strikes, swing
or anything?” Everyone could hear the conversation. Donna
looked and sounded angry. Nan dejectedly walked away
without looking over toward the bench. She found a place
along the fence and stayed there until time to take the field
(Fieldnotes 4/11/91).

Donna, as in the recent practices on the field, was providing the players with a
barrage of messages. She was supportive, frustrated, and maybe a bit angry. It was only

127
the first inning. Donna had sworn loud enough for the players on the bench to hear her.

She had yelled at Nan in front of everyone. In her first “expectations” meeting, Donna had
assured the players tint if they struck out without swinging they would pay, she would
yell. However, in the same meeting she assured the players tint she would not embarrass
them in her yelling, she would eall them over to her. Donna did eall Nan over to her, but
you could hear Donna across the field. This scene was recreated many times over the
course of the season. Not only did the yelling become the focus of the players’ discontent,
the act of being stopped at the chalk line beeame signifieant to members of the US group.
In her first formal interview, Babs discussed the act of being ealled over to the coach’s
box.

I mean it’s like Candy is picking everything out like the
coach. When she wants you, she’s like BABS! !! Like we’re
some kind of dog {points like Donna did to Nan} She
doesn’t say Babs can you come here, I want to talk to you.
She says Babs {points downward} and you know you do
tint to your dog. You know sit! !! I mean Candy is picking
every little thing out that the coach does that’s negative
(Transcription of taped interview 4/17/91).

This interview was conducted the first school day after the first game. These were
not Babs words. Babs used Candy’s words to describe how the players’ were interpreting
Donna’s behaviors. Nan and Cissy also used versions of this description to discuss their
discontent with Donna after games started As the following quote illustrates, Babs herself
did not believe that Donna was intentionally making personal attacks on anyone during her
tirades.

She’s so intense. She doesn’t even see it’s YOU. It’s just
like a person, a body figure is there and they did something
wrong and I’m going to yell at them. I know she’s not going
BABS!! I mean she might say BABS, but I don’t know how
people can just God she called my name. She hates me. And
I mean it’s stupid that’s not that way. It is I mean, she likes
everybody on the team (Transcription of taped interview
4/ 17/91).
Whether Babs believed Donna was making personal attacks or not, when she was

with members of the Us group she espoused the party line, Candy’s words. When I had

128
informal discussions with Babs, she, like Candy, seemed to interpret every little thing the

coach did in a way that seemed to strengthen the US against HER attitude. Babs was the
captain, Candy the informal leader of the Us group. They were instrumental in constructing
and reconstructing the relationship between Donna and the US group.

The depth of the meanings and perceptions tint members of the US group shared
was reflected in the similarities in their descriptions of specific incidents such as Babs using
Candy’s words to describe what happened to Nan. Eariier, Kelsy used her discussion with
Candy to explain why the credo did not hold any significance for her. It appeared that
Candy had actively stepped up as spokeswoman for the US group after her interactions
with Donna in the first game and the meeting.

Eariier in the chapter, I suggested tint Candy’s seemingly innocent challenges to
Donna’s instructions were just the prelude to a battle between Donna and Candy. The battle
began in the first game when Donna got in Candy’s face in front of everyone and turned
into a full blown war when Donna did not go to the between inning huddles at the Bicknell
game. The lines had been drawn long before the first game, but the events of the first game
created a situation where members of the US group beeame more inclined to voealize their
displeasure with status of their relationship with Donna.

Donna’s outbrust at Nan was only the first of many emotional encounters between
Donna and members of the US group. Right after Nan struck out, Tina and Cathy both had
good hits. Donna praised them for their efforts and patted each one as they returned to the
field for the second inning. They were in the field forever. The players made error after
error. Donna was pacing around the bench, stomping, kicking the dirt, and making
sarcastic comments. The comments were never loud enough for the fielders to hear, but
always within earshot of the four players on the bench. However Donna’s nonverbal
behaviors were visible to everyone, parents, opposing team, umpires, and her players.

Although her animated displays of frustration seemed disconcerting to the players,

the nonverbals tint the players mentioned the most in discussions with me and amongst

129
themselves were “the look” and her lack of interaction with the players and involvement in

the game. As the evidence will show, Donna was behaving in a manner tint nullified any
collective understanding the players negotiated with her about “team.”

Candy ended up on the receiving end of three of Donna’s frustrated tirades. In two
of the incidents, Candy had to make decisions on where to throw the ball in situations tint
involved more than one baserunner. Donna had grilled into the players tint the first law of
defense was “when in doubt, get the out.” In the second inning, Candy did get the out.
However a nmner scored because Candy fell as she was running a player down.

Candy walked the batter. The player ran to first and rounded
the base before Babs returned the ball to Candy. Instead of
throwing the ball to a baseperson, Candy ran the runner
down and tagged her. Just as her glove tagged the runner’s
leg, Candy fell on her shoulder and the runner on third
scored. Candy slowly rose and brushed herself off as she
made her way back to the pitcher’s mound. I could hear loud
thumping noises behind me. Donna was stomping around
the bench with the “look” on her face and her arms crossed
over her chest. A runner stole on a passed ball and Tanya fell
and missed fielding a ball. Donna had become very quiet,
her hands were in her pockets. Occasionally she would (all
out to Candy, “Come on Candy. Come on six.” The inning
finally ended with Tanya eatching a fly ball for the third out.
Donna ealled out, “Right her blue.” As the players make
their way to the third base line, Donna challenges Candy,
“CANDY, what did we do in practice? (rundowns) Candy
responded, “Run at her..” Donna forcefully explained that
she should have tried to get the player on third to run
(Fieldnotes 4/12/91).

The inning seemed to last forever; hardly a player was spared from making a mental
or physical error. Donna’s nonverbals seemed to convey to everyone tint she was
frustrated with the players’ performance. Now, she was singling Candy out in the huddle.
The tone of her voice and her body language suggested that she was challenging Candy’s
decision and serving notice that she would make an example out of her.

Donna’s spirits were lifted when the team scored a run and got the opposing team
out in three batters. At the end of tint inning, Candy initiated a ritual of slapping mitts with
each of her fielders. Candy seemed to be the spiritual leader. Donna’s upbeat and

130

supportive behavior ended two innings later when Candy chose to throw home on the third

0111.

The ball was hit to Candy. There were runners on second
and third and two outs. The runner on third had committed
to home and was almost there. Candy threw the ball high
and the runner was safe. From beside me, Donna jumped up
and screamed, “CANDY HOW MANY OUTS? Come on!!!”
The players on the bench all turned away from Donna while
I turned to see her pacing behind the bench. Her face was
contorted and red. As she stomped behind the bench, her
hands moved from her pockets to her hips. Occasionally, I
could hear an “ugh” or a huff, but not one word about the
action on the field. Molly was trying to salvage the moment
by supporting Candy as she pitched three balls in a row after
her error, “Can do, can do, Come on Can.” Donna took
over from Molly and called out to Babs about a play. As the
third out is called, Donna called out, “Right here blue. We’re
in fourth or fifth inning. We need some runs, come on.”
They huddle up and yell, “STICKS!” As everyone begins to
move toward the bench, Donna demanded, “Candy come
here! Candy we should have been out of the inning without
any runs, instead they got five.” With that Donna walked
away and kicked a paper cup sitting beside the bench. Candy
put on her jacket and sat next to me on the bench (Fieldnotes
4/ 12/91).

Donna’s demeanor seemed to rise and fall with the score of the game. Candy again

was the target of Donna’s fury or intensity. Time and time again, Donna had warned the

players that she would yell. Not only was she yelling, she was yelling at them in front of

everyone. From my perspective, it seemed incomprehensible that the players would

remember or believe that Donna was yelling out of intensity and not at them. Candy seemed

to maintain her composure during both interactions with Donna. However her outward

objectivity and emotional control did not survive the next encounter that she had with

Donna.

Tanya was on second. Candy hit a ball passed first base.
Tanya did not leave her base until the ball reached first. She
made it all the way home because of an error by the
firstbaseperson. As she crossed home plate, Donna yelled,
“Tanya, come over here and talk to me!” Tanya slowly
walked over to the third base coach’s box. When she
returned, Popeye asked, “Were you being congratulated or
did you do bad?” Tanya explained that she did not take of f
beeause she was waiting for a signal from Donna She was
in trouble. My attention was redirected to the field when the

131

players on the bench started groaning. Coop had struck out
and ran on a passed ball. Candy stole third and rounded the
base. The catcher threw the ball to third and Candy was
caught in a pickle. She was the third out. The inning was
over. Donna marched over to Candy on the third base line.
She positioned herself, face to face making direct eye
contact, and screamed at Candy about rounding the base.
The look on Candy’s face became pained She was beet red.
She was visibly shaken by the incident. Donna walked away
leaving Candy alone in the middle of the field, in front of
everyone. She began to walk toward the bench for her mitt.
Babs intercepted her and handed her the mitt. As she made
her way to the pitcher’s mound, her teammates called out,
“Shake it off. Shake it off.” Donna was discussing the
situation with Pam, as Candy was trying to regain enough
composure to pitch (Fieldnotes 4112/91).

This incident was one tint I never forgot, especially the look on Candy’s face as
she stepped on to the mound to pitch. She had to pitch after being embarrassed in front of
approximately thirty-five fans, the umpires, the coaches, and all the players. My sense was
tint she was about ready to cry as she tried to wind up for the first pitch. Months later,
Candy confirmed my suspicions in her discussion of the incident.

RIGHT AFTER THAT I had to go out and pitch. I was the
3rd out. I was out there I was in tears I was fighting back
tears I was about to cry. I never had I never had that happen
before. Because we were down and I could have been a run
or something like a really good run and I rounded it she said
I can't remember what she said I don't know if she said
round it or run or something like tint. But I ROUNDED it
and I'm the type of person BUT SHE DIDN'T KNOW IF
YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO I'M GOING!!!
(laughs) and she didn't say NOTHING she said round and
then she didn't say NOTHING so I was like I'm
going(laughs) and tiren I looked and eatcher had the ball and
I ran back to third and I slid and that time I sprained my
ankle on tint play. I hurt my ankle, that's when I hurt my
ankle. And I didn't even know it. I was so upset with myself
and then she earne and like screamed at me. I didn't even
realize it until about third or fourth batter and I was like
trying to shake my ankle I was like oh it hurts. When I got
borne it was all swollen up and everything (Transcription of
taped interview 7/24191).

Candy was so shaken that she did not realize tirat her ankle was hurt. Even as she
limped in after the inning, she never mentioned it. Nor did Donna ask if she was all right.
Candy was angry with herself. Donna seemed to make the matter worse by yelling and

132

screaming at Candy prior to pitching. Candy alluded to the fact that Donna did not know
her well enough to know tint she normally would go in that situation. Donna seemed to
expect the players to understand what she wanted without any attempt to understand their
past performances in such situations. She continually reminded them tint they were to pay
attention to her, not the play, when on the bases. They were not to make baserunning
decisions on their own. However, Donna had never addressed the issue of what to do in
eases of miscommunication on the bases. This type of controlling atmosphere was foreign
to members of the US group as evidenced by Candy’s description of the players’
preinteraction expectancies about Donna and how this situation helped to reinforce her
initial fears of Donna.

[did that give you a negative attitude] Yea, beeause before

the first game before tint first game, we were all talking.

Like Kelsy and I were like are you scared? And she was like

"yea’ We were all seared going into that game, of her

yelling. We're like I'm not really scared about playing. I

know I can play ball... I played ball, you know, whatever

for years. They were just scared We were all scared that she

was going to yell and SHE DID (laughs). And it was like

(laughs) our team from the year before have you ever been to

a JV game? this is what K would tell me " go pitch do your

. best" And I was totally relaxed on the mound and I had a

really good year pitching I mean personally I had a good

year. Everybody got along everybody did f ine it was totally

relaxed and we were totally at ease with everything

(Transcription of taped interview 7/24191).

According to Candy, the players were seared about playing beeause of Donna’s
yelling. They wanted to play ball. But, they were more worried about making mistakes
than playing ball. They were not used to Donna’s style of coaching. Her discussion of the
incident provided further evidence to support the assertion that the players’ past experiences
and their fear of Donna’s yelling were important factors in the initial development of the US
group. They had been afraid of Donrn’s yelling and coaching style prior to entering the
setting. Donrn and the players were in the process of constructing a shared understanding

of team. So far her bark had been worse than her anticipated bite. However their first

133
encounter playing in a game under Donna reaffirmed their preinteraction expectancies. She
would scream and yell at you.

Candy walked the first batter in four pitches. Her teammates were continually
calling out words of support to her. An inning later, the game ended with 14 errors and a
score of 3-13. One could cut the tension with a knife. As this vignette shows, the battle
lines between Candy and Donna were being drawn.

Nothing was said everyone walked away from the team area
to the bleachers to find friends and relatives. Donrn ealled
out to Candy, “Candy be ready to pitch the next game.”

Frf teen minutes later, Donna gathered the players and gave
them a pep talk in preparation for a tougher pitcher. They
huddle and yell, “YES WE CAN. YES WE CAN.” Donrn
moved over near Candy and asked, “Do you feel like you
can throw another game?” Candy did not look at or answer
Donna. My sense from her body posturing was that Candy
did not want to pitch again today. As the players took the
field to warm-up, Candy jumped up on the bench and
screamed, “Who wants it?” The players all screamed back,
“We do!” Without much notice, Tina was the pitcher for the
next game (Fieldnotes 4112191).

The game ended without a huddle without any interaction between Donna and the
players. When they regrouped, Donna was upbeat and supportive. She did not order
Candy to pitch. Candy did not make eye contact or answer Donna’s direct question, yet
Donna knew tint Candy would not pitch. Through it all, Candy remained loud and verbally
supportive of her team. Candy’s ability to continue in the face of adversity and her loud,
supportive involvement seemed to show her “never say die” attitude. Based on earlier
evidence, one might expect Candy to be Donna’s poster child for a “ballplayer.” Instead,
as the following evidence will show, Donna defined Candy’s independent spirit as an
“attitude.” In doing so, the battle between Candy/US group and Donna turned into a war.

These games had been on Friday. The next practice would be on Monday. The
players were not looking forward to seeing Donna. In the final inning, Kelsy turned to Sara
on the bench and said, “ I don’t want to show up on Monday.” I asked why. She
answered, “We’re going to be running.” Earlier the evidence supported the assertion that a

crucial factor in the players fear of Donna was their observations of her making the

134
previous varsity run all pracu'ce while she screamed in the middle of the field. They did not
want to experience the same sort of humiliation. To their surprise, they would not even
practice, let alone run forever.

I had interviewed Nan prior to practice. Consequently, I missed much of the pre-
practice interaction. Everyone was playing around when I entered the gym. Jokes were
made about bruises Kelsy got in the game. Babs was thumping people in the neck while
Tanya and Cissy were trying to throw each other to the ground No one talked about the
upcoming practice. They just messed around with each other until Donna walked in and
said, “Locker room please.” The players walked down the stairs into the varsity locker
area They positioned themselves on the lockers, the floor, and the benches. Molly was
missing. The noise from the players’ discussions about boys, school, and friends was
loud. The noise instantly died down when Donna walked in.

“I want everyone to sit down, not on the lockers please.”
The silence was unnerving. “We obviously won’t be doing
anything today that is why I am not dressed.” While she
was talking, Donna was passing out the stats for the first
games. She continued, “First though we’ll be talking about
the game Friday. I want to talk about the positives that I
saw. The positives I saw were a lot of cheering I only had to
remind you a couple of times to keep it going. When the
person up to bat, when the pitchers are struggling they need
all the support they can get...I don’t expect you to sing in
fact I hate singing (girls all laugh) not singing but singing for
softball. You know what I mean.” The girls start discussing
other teams yells. Donna interjects, “ I don’t expect you to
be talking and yelling 100% of the time but pretty close. But
all I really expect is positives for your teammates. Always
cheering each other, OK (Fieldnotes 4115/91)?

Donna did not like the players singing for their teammates. She expected them to
continually support their teammates no matter what was happening in the game. Donrn
commended the players for their verbal support of each other. Yet during the games, she
sat on the bench and looked at her fingers or talked with another coach when she seemed
frustrated with the action on the field. After she yelled at Candy, Donna did not provide her
with any support as she attempted to pitch. As shown in Chapter Three, Donna made it

clear to me that she had different expectations for herself as a team member than the

135
players. However Donna never explained tint to the players. In all of her discussions,

handouts, huddles, and team defining activities, she presented herself as a team member.
Not once did she allude to her perception that unacceptable behaviors for the players were
acceptable behaviors for her.

Donna was patient and calm in her explanations of her observations of the games.
She praised the players for their offensive power. They had as many hits as the other team.
She was pleased with the number of physical errors. Donna explained to the players that
one error does not make a game. Her suggestion to all of the players was to learn from their
mistakes and don’t do it again. And then Donna moved on to the negative aspects of the
games.

TI-IENEGATIVES Ijust decided to sum it all up into one
was mental errors. ABSOLUTELY, HIGH AND ABOVE
EVERYTHING MENTAL ERRORS and yes I know it was
our first game, but it was not the first game of our life. You
know it’s not like we had never been there before. In those
situations where they got us confused we’ve gone over those
situations!!!!..We need to keep in mind ALWAYS where the
lead runner and yes Candy did the right thing when she ran
after tint girl. Remember? There was a giri at first the girl at
bat got walked and so she kept going when the ball is in the
circle when she stops she can only go one direction and yes I
told Candy to run at her and tint was right for her to do. My
assumption was that she was going at third just enough to
pull this girl off third and throw tint girl out....remember
how we practiced it?...AndI did tell Candy First Law of
Defense “when in doubt get the out.” At the very least we
did get an out out of that, but it shouldn’t have happened the
way it did Donna, nor Candy, looked directly at each other
during this part of Donrn’s speech (Fieldnotes 4/15/91).

Mental errors were the key to their downfall in Donrn’s mind In practices, Donna
had covered each one of the situations tint created problems for the players in the games.
She had setup the same situations for them to practice in. These were mental errors not
physical errors. Babs had several errors at eatcher involving passed balls and steals. They
had practiced those situations time and time again prior to the game. But as established
earlier, the players entered the game afraid of making mistakes because they would get
yelled at. They seemed to be more worried about the consequences of a mistake than the

136
rewards of successful execution. Could worrying about making a mistake eause you to

make a mistake? They had fourteen errors in the first game. Donna did not address Candy
directly about the incident. Yet, she searched Babs out to discuss her mental error.

Um, help me some other mental errors. There were plenty of
them. Babs! Where’s Babs? BALL FOUR BALL FOUR!!
Throw to first with runners on? All of the girls begin to
laugh with Donna. There were plenty, I mean..we could
come up with lots of mental errors. That really cost us
because up to the fourth or fifth inning we were in it. 3-2,
we were in it (Fieldnotes 4115/91).

Bab’s error was as mental as Candy’s, yet, Donna teased Babs about the absurdity
of the decision. The team had one bad inning. Candy’s decision at least followed the First
Law of Defense, “when in doubt, get an out” Babs’ decision was absurd Donna made it
clear there was an acceptable range of errors that she would accept and then:

I do not expect us to do it perfect. By the further stretch I do
not (inaudible) In fact I expect about three errors a game.
PHYSICAL ERRORS we far out did ourselves (girls laugh)
but mental errors..The high school level we can expect every
team to make two or three physical errors. We won’t see
them make mental errors the way we did. And so mental
errors will bethethingthatmakesorbreaksus.
EXPECTATION IS 2 OR 3 PHYSICAL ERRORS. I wasn’t
quite sure how I wanted to approach talking to you today. I
was soooo angry on Friday. I was sooo angry um not just at
you though I guess I was (pause) evaluating me too and
what I’ve done and whether or not I’ve done the right thing
the right way and whatever it is difficult thing this morning
to walk in say hello to Joe and watch him smirk at me. He
did. He did...Nan laughs and says “bet you wanted to
kill”..everyone laughs (Fieldnotes 4/15/91).

Donna expected two or three physieal errors in a game. She did not want any
mental errors. Donna was upbeat and patient as she discussed her anger and self evaluation
related to the games. Donna admitted that she was angry at the events of the day, at
herself. If she had stopped at that sentence, she may have won some of the players over,
but she continued by explaining how embarrassing it was to go to her school and see the
coach after the players’ performances. Kelsy’s statement indieates that the players believed
that she was more interested in her embarrassment than theirs.

137

This is high school softball. This is not I mean I’m here to
have fun. To have fun and get better. It doesn’t make one
happy to get yelled at and get put down. You know I don’t
think it should have anything to do with it. I mean we should
work hard but that’s not the main goal to win every game, I
don’t think. I mean she came back after the TW game and
she works at TW and she knows the softball coach and she’s
like “yea, I was ready to go into work, so he could smirk at
me or something and he did.” and that’s what she said. I

was just like coaches play tint game it was just tint he gave
her smirk beeause they beat us. I think tint’s stupid.
Grownups, I don’t think I’d do that..(Transcription taped
interview 422/91).

Kelsy thought tint they were there to have fun, learn, and win. With the exception
of Tanya and Sara, every player on the team believed that having fun was the most
important aspect of participating. They liked playing softball, a loss was not the end of the
world. In an eariier quote, Donna stated tint helping the players learn about themselves and
making the experience fun were important to her. Yet as the competitive portion of the
season approached, Donna seemed to focus more on winning and how the players’
performances reflected on her as a person, a coach. To the players, Donna’s behaviors
suggested tint she expected perfection and would only be happy if they won. Additionally,
she seemed more concerned with her embarrassment from their loss than their
embarrassment from her yelling and animated outbursts in front of family, friends, and
opposing teams.

Subsequent to Donna’s explanation of being surprised by the inability of the players
to win one of the games, Popeye, an outlier in the US group, seemed eager to present their
view to Donna. Donna expected the players to understand and accept her explanation for
the behavior. It was a result of the difference between what she expected out of them and
what they actually did. Yet as the following vignette illustrates, she did not seem to give
much credence to Popeye’s explanation for the way they felt.

“I’m not making an excuse or anything but I know
personally and I know a couple of other girls were maybe
Tanya (inaudible) returning players. I was petrified at
thought of playing a VARSITY game (chuckling behind) last

year was so different because like there’s no pressure it was
just like you know go out have fun and that’s what we did

138

and I mean it was like we sat there and we were 16-1 last
year. And then we came up to bat trying to do it again and it
was a varsity level and well I was really scared” Behind
Popeye, the players are all mumbling in agreement. They
were scared. The pressure was different. Donna jovially
responded, “You have to remember and you may want to
mention this to your JV players as you see them and stuff.
Just because you beat somebody your freshman and/or JV
year DOES NOT mean you are going to beat them your
varsity year. Players nervously laugh, I hear a “for sure.” It
is a whole different game especially when you talk about
going from whomever coaches JV or freshman to Joe. Joe
will get THE best from his players always...But not to make
excuses we certainly beat ourselves there’s no doubt...I
want you to have fun I really do. And after I ealmed down
Friday night I did have a few smiles on I thought of Cissy.
Cissy did an awesome job second game, second game.”
Everyone clapped and cheered (Fieldnotes 4115/91).

Like Donna, Popeye was explaining that the players expectations of the pressure
and the outcome were different than the actual happenings in the games. Playing under
such different conditions may have accounted for the unexpected performances of the
players. Donna did not blow Popeye off, but she did not address the issue of the difference
between her coaching style and their past experiences with their former coaches. Skirting
the issue of the difference in her coaching and past coaches, Donna continued with her
oratory about other interactions with players that made her smile.

There were some things I could smile about um when Tanya
really acknowledged what I say (laughs) tint makes me
smile. Everyone laughed. Um meaning, NO NOT ON THE
BASES, beeause tint didn’t happen but (big laughs)
meaning afterwards when I had something to say to her. She
really looked at me. She really listened and she really
acknowledged me and she is going to hopefully put whatl
say to use and that makes me smile. UM, Cissy did the same
thing really good about looking me right in the eye when I
had something to say to her. Nan, Um, Popeye on strikeouts
they looked me right in the eye and they acknowledged
me...I did still have fun. I was soo mad for two or three
hours and then after tint I relaxed a little bit and I realized it
was for fun. I hope you guys still had fun, even though we
got whomped I do not want to get whomped again. Players
calling out, “no way.” Laughter peppered throughout the
group as Donna continued, “Beeause it would certainly be
easier to have fun if we didn’t...Anyway I did not know if I
wanted to yell today or just talk LOUD or wint...so I
decided to be ealm about it, look at our numbers and talk
about the situation. We ean’t practice today, because I think

139

practicing inside. We can’t practice defensive situations
inside (Fieldnotes 4/12/91).

Donna’s was open and patient in her conversation with the players. The tenseness
in the air had left the locker area The players were listening and reacting to her comments.
They were joking amongst themselves and with Donna. It was extremely important to
Donna tint players look her in the eye when she talked to them. She praised Nan and
Popeye for looking her in the eye, acknowledging her, while she chastised them for
striking out. Donna assured the players tint she had fun even though they got whomped.
But she did not want it to happen again. She did not ask them if they had fun.

Donna’s explanations of sliding, baserunning, and fielding situations that happened
in the game were detailed and calm. She fielded and answered all of the players’ questions.
Although the players seemed to be accepting Donna’s differential treatment of players’
indiscretions, Candy’s question and Donna’s response seemed to negate any benefit of
Donna’s unexpected ealm rational discussion of the games.

“Any questions?” Cissy asked a question about positioning
of infield when bases loaded. Donna explained to Cissy that
her position would be different because of her weak throws.
Then everyone started laughing and joking about Cissy’s
position on one play where she was almost in center field
The noise in the locker room was almost unbearable. When
the noise died down, Donna asked, “Any other questions? “
The locker room was devoid of any noise for a few seconds
and then in a low voice Candy asked, “ Are you going to yell
as much next game?” Quickly seemingly without much
thought Donna responded, “Probably, with fourteen errors
don’t you think I have a room to yell?” Silence. In the back,
someone said something and Donna responded, “I know I
think I’ve ealmed down since last year.” Cathy laughing
calls out, “IMMENSELY.” Mumbling amongst the players,
Donna again, “Fourteen errors I think I have plenty of room
to yell. I’ll give you two or three like I say two or three

' physical mental errors I mean tint’s fourteen errors without
counting mental errors...Yea I’ll yell but remember I brought
tint up in the very first week if you don’t like to (inaudible)
yell you probably don’t want to play for me. if you don't
like to HEAR ME yell. That’s just part of it. it’s just
intensity it’s not a personal thing. Everybody understands
tint right?” No one responds, the silence was deadly. “YES
EXPECT ME TO YELL!” (Fieldnotes 4/12/91)

140
Donna did not want the players making the baserunning decisions. She explained to

the players that if they listened to her she would accept responsibility for their mistakes. As
in later games, Donna willingly acknowledged her mistakes related to strategy and
positioning. The players relaxed a bit as she accepted responsibility for her mistakes. The
joking and messing around was loud and unruly until the interaction between Candy and
Donna. Silence and tension returned to the locker room for a brief, but seemingly long
period of time. Donna assured them tint she would yell. She was not yelling at them. She
was yelling out of intensity. The yelling was not personal. If anyone did not like yelling,
she should consider not playing. Candy never made eye contact or engaged in the laughter
about the yelling witir her teammates.

In the final twenty minutes of the meeting, f undraising, tournament arrangements,
grades, and other team events unrelated to competition were discussed. Just prior to the
team huddling Donna announced, “If the game is canceled, we will not practice. I HATE
indoors!” From the huddle, I heard Donna say “team.” Loud and strong the huddled
bodies yelled, “ 1,2,3 TEAM! !” The locker room was emptying out quickly. Tanya asked
Donna for a copy of the stats. As Donna walked over to her office, she ealled to Candy, “1
want you to inng out until I get back” Candy and I were left in the locker room alone
waiting for Donna. When Donna entered the area, I felt uncomfortable being there.
Donna’s demeanor had changed from ealm and relaxed to distant and firm. There was the
same tightness in her face that appeared early in the meeting and when Candy asked about
her yelling.

Donna sat down beside Candy and began with, “You had
trouble looking in the eye on Friday.” Candy in her defense
replied, “I don’t take yelling very well and get frustrated
with myself.” Firmly Donna interjected, “How do I interpret
such behavior? Let me tell you how I interpreted it. An
A'I'TTTUDE about six feet tall. You even held a gnrdge in the
second game. You would not look at me. You rolled your
eyes, like now!” ....Candy went on to explain that she did
not find yelling to be a form of positive reinforcement.
Donna replied to Candy’s explanation without addressing

Candy’s concerns, “I’m not going to change me. I am going
to ask you to change. As a coach, I have a license to yell.

141

I’m going to get intense and if you cost me a run!!!!”
(Fieldnotes 4/15/91)

Without much warning, Donna accused Candy of having an attitude. This is a
player who during practices and games continually cheered on her teammates. Candy made
a special point of providing support for players tint had been yelled at by Donna.
Furthermore, Candy never talked back. She always seemed respectful of Donna and her
teammates. Yet, she did not make eye contact with Donna.

From my observations, I noted that Candy did not make eye contact with many of
the adults. At first, I thought tint my presence made Candy uncomfortable because of her
lack of eye contact with me. Later, I assessed that Candy only made eye contact when she
got to know someone. Donna’s interpretation was that Candy had an attitude, a lack of
respect. Candy did not question Donrn’s belief tint coaches had a license to yell. However
she tried to explain to Donna why she could not make eye contact. She had never been
treated by a coach the way Donna treated her. Firmly, Candy reminded Donna how the
yelling affected her.

Firmly Candy reminded Donna how the yelling affected her,
“You were in my face screaming at me and then I had to
pitch. I have never had a coach like you before. I never had a
coach yell...My head tells me in one ear and out the other.
Out there, the play rounding the base, I watched.” Donna
informed her, “I will watch for you! Key on me. Do not
hold a grudge it will make you pitch worse.” Candy
mumbled, “It did” (Fieldnotes 4115/91).

Defending her behaviors, Candy described the incident in the game when Donna
yelled at her in the middle of the field. Without commenting on the issue of how hard
Candy was f inding it to adapt to Donna’s coaching style, Donna eautioned Candy about the
effects of holding a grudge, of holding on to feelings that arise from difficult interactions.
Yet, Donna’s accusations that Candy had attitude seemed to arise from the difficulty Donna
was having in interpreting Candy’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors. The discussion
appeared to be a battle of words with neither side listening to the other. Yet, as the

conversation wound down, it appeared tint Donna was listening. In her summation of the

142

situation, Donna reminded Candy tint whether she really had an attitude or not if Donna

interprets it as one, it is an attitude.
“My yelling is in the heat of the moment tint’s what it
is..simple..Listen to what I say. You eannot avoid me or roll
your eyes. I interpret it as an attitude whether it is or isn’t.
Acknowledge me! Do the things I ask.” Candy defends
herself, “I try. Why get mad if I mess up even when I try?”
Donrn answered, “Yea sometimes I’m going to yell just use
what I tell you. I’m so mad.” Candy, “Me too!” The
tension had all but left the room. Donna ended the
conversation with a final warning, “If I see an attitude or
what I interpret as an attitude, I cannot play you. Shall we
start new tomorrow?” As she was getting up to leave,
Candy said, “Yea.” They gave each other a pat on the arm
and Candy left Donna and me in the locker room (Fieldnotes
4/ 15/91).

There was an explanation for Donna’s yelling or so Donna believed there was. In
Donna’s opinion, there was no explanation for Candy’s lack of eye contact. Much like
there was an explarntion for Donna’s game behaviors, but not for the players’
performance. Donna repeatedly professed to the players that she was one of them. The
assumption by the players and myself that what was good for them was good for her. Now
as the games began, Donna was saying do asI say, not as I do.

Candy was the player who made sure everyone was cheering in the game and at all
practices. One time in the gym she started the wave to get everyone going. This was the
player who continued to pitch and support Donna after being singled out three times in the
game. This was also the player who huddled the players when Donna neglected to show up
to a between inning huddle, late in the first game. Donna and Candy parted agreeing to start
over the next day, their first away trip.

The next day, the interactions between Donna and Candy seemed more cordial, less
tension filled. However Candy was never placed in a position to commit the errors that she
had in the first game. In the last inning of the second game Donna commented to me,
“Candy did better today. It’s amazing what a talk can do.” Donna assumed that the talk
changed Candy’s attitude. However in Babs’ first formal interview the next day, she

provided me with information that suggested otherwise.

143

Candy? No, but the coach does. Candy does not look the
coach in the face anymore. She can’t look her in the eyes.
[Candy tell you she had a talk w/coach?] Yea and she said
Candy has an attitude. And I was like I don’t think that’s
Candy. Candy’s got an attitude because of coach. She
doesn’t like yelling and she doesn’t like coach anymore
(Transcription of taped interview 4 l7/91).

Babs assessed tint Candy’s attitude was in reaction to the coach’s yelling. Candy
had told her that she did not like Coach anymore. Donna assumed that Candy had changed
her attitude because they did not have a falling out in those two games. With or without
quoting Candy, members of the US group were similarly interpreting Donna’s behaviors as
evidenced by Kelsy’s discussion about Donna after the first four games.

...(JV and Freshman coaches)..You could see they weren’t
worried that we and when we got down they say, “you guys
can do it you guys can do it.” They never doubted it. And
this coach practically gives up on us during a game. She just
sits back and starts talking with friends. I mean it’s like
she’s not it’s just like she’s only interested if we’re winning.
I think a coach should be interested in the team ALL of the
time. I don't know I mean I think she...Personally I cannot
take YELLING at me. It’s not going to help me do better in a
game (Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy’s description of the climate they were used to playing in was similar to the
statement Popeye made in the meeting after the first game and to earlier statements by
Candy. These players were not used to the yelling. They interpreted the yelling as a
personal attack, not the impersonal fits of intensity tint Donna described. The players
believed tint Donna’s involvement hinged on the score of the game. The players seemed to
place more credibility in Donna’s nonverbal messages than her spoken word.

Every player mentioned Donna’s lack of involvement when things were bad. One
week after this interview, Cissy mentioned Donrn’s typical behavior of leaning back on the
bench and watching her fingers instead of the game. I had noted tint behavior quite
frequently in my fieldnotes. Yet they were expected to maintain their involvement and yell
in support of each other. If they did not, she would yell at them. After the first game, I
formally interviewed Nan. She alerted me to the fact that Candy had written a five page

letter to Donrn about her yelling and the perceived contradictions in her behavior and her

144
“team” message. The letter was written prior to Donna accusing her of having an attitude,

however, the letter was mentioned by players right up to the Bicknell incident.
Practices: A Time for Negotiation

After the four practice games, the team had a period of relaxation. They were able to
practice on the field three times in a row before the first league game. Donna was late to the
practice after the losses on the away trip. The players were joking, wrestling, thumping
each other in the neck, and just having a good time. Tanya, Cissy, and Babs seemed to be
the instigators of the bulk of the rambunctious activity. Babs sported the “bust a sag”
fashion statement with green sweatpants, a yellow shirt, and blue shorts. At 3:21pm, Sara
called out “Here comes Coach.”

The players had just grouped to decide on how many laps to
run. Coop said, “Here she comes act like we’ve been
running.” By the time Donna reached the bench, the players
finished one lap and began the next. Cathy reminded
everyone that after their performance in the away games they
will be doing twenty more laps. Donna called out and
stopped them, “Everyone on the bleachers.” Stopped in
their tracks, the players jubilantly ran to the bleachers.
Donrn cheerfully tinnked the players for their initiative,
“Thank you for getting started. I appreciate it. Who smells
like cocoa butter? It smells good” (Fieldnotes 4117/91).

The players were their usual fun loving goofy selves of old The same type of
joking and teasing was prevalent on the bus ride home the night before. Donna did not
threaten them with laps for their errors as Catiry had predicted They had lost both games.
They ind ten errors in one of the games. The only running they did was the one and a half
laps they chose to do on their own.

This was the first actual practice in four games. Donna was more instructional and
less emotional than she had been at any practice on the field As the practice ended, Donna
smiled at Cissy and said, “ Hey, Cissy I expected you to be here like Dolly Parton today.”
Cissy shyly laughed, “I forgot.” Players were bending over in laughter. Donna’s joke
about Dolly Parton was an extension of a joke about Cissy’s flowered bra she wore in the

games the day before. On the bus, Cissy had endured ribbing from everyone, including

145
Donna, about whether she was ready to move into something other than a training bra.

Donna seemed to be acknowledging that she appreciated the fun loving nature of the US
group, much like she had done off and on in other practices.
Casper
All three days of practices seemed to provide a forum for constructing and

reconstructing a shared understanding of team, of bridging the gap created by Donna’s
yelling and the players’ interpretation of her game day behaviors. The second day of
practice was on the freshman field. The significance of the players calling Donna “Casper”
at the banquet was related to this practice. As the vignette demonstrates, the players
approach to the team seemed to be influencing Donna’s perceptions of the boundaries
between Donna, the coach and Donna, the person, as well as, between Donna and the
players.

Practice was out on the freshman field It was warm and

sunny. Everyone seemed unusually upbeat. Donna arrived in

shorts and the teasing began. Players were yelling out,

“Casper, hey Casper.” The players were sent for one big lap

around the field. When they returned Donna smiled and said,

“You all know the MOST IMPORTANT RULE Don’t make

fun of the coaches legs.” Sara quipped, “Tanya ealled you

“Casper.” During the stretches, Tanya ealled out, “Oh

Casper.” All of a sudden, Donna ran toward the stretching

players and literally tackled Tanya and laid her out flat on the

ground (Fieldnotes 4419/91).

Donna ind never rough housed with any of the players. Although she had a
different relationship with Tanya than most of the players, she had never crossed the line
from enjoying watching the players rough house to participating in the anties typieally
representative of the US group beinvior. Although Tanya was a member of the Them
group, she spent most of her time with the rowdiest of the US group, Cissy, Nan, Babs,
and Popeye. Donna seemed to be negotiating an acceptable time and place for messing
around. The catchers initiated a joke about Donna as a math teacher. Everyone joined in by
discussing their grades in the subject and their favorite and least favorite teachers. Even

when Donrn did have a bout of yelling or an animated tirade over a mistake, the climate

146
was different. It was less intense, less judgmental. There didn’t seem to be the “do it right

or else” feeling to it.

Prior to the four games, the practices had been organized around the competitive
aspect of the team. Donna reacted to every mistake as if it was an error in a game. These
three practices, by contrast seemed to be organized around learning, having fun, and
getting ready to compete. Donna’s approach seemed more balanced and less controlling.
Although there were frustrated outbursts at mistakes, they were few and far between
relative to the field practices prior to the games. Outwardly, it appeared tint the team was
coming together. The underiying tension seemed to be dissolving. Donna had been patient
and supportive after each set of losses. So far, the players’ expectations of Donna’s
reactions were far worse than Donna’s actual response to their lowes. Donna seemed to be
loosening up. This assertion was supported by Kelsy’s interview, the day before the first
league game.

No not really she seems unapproachable like..She seems to
be getting a lot better though recently. In the last couple of
days, she like jokes with the team, a lot. I think she likes our
team. I don’t know. She knows her stuff, butI mean I like
her personally (in real low voice)..[Are you afraid of Coach]
Basically yea. [Afraid to make mistakes] DEFINITELY
DEFINITELY, but now I’m getting more relaxed at
catching. I’m like oh she doesn’t even look at me
soo..(Transcription of taped interview 4122/91).

Altirough Kelsy perceived tint Donna was unapproachable, she believed that she
was getting better. She was messing around with the players more. Kelsy liked her and
Kelsy perceived that Donna liked the team. But, Kelsy was terrified of making mistakes.
As indicated in an eariier quote, she could not take being yelled at. This interview became a
good indicator of the feeling of the team. Kelsy ind been the starting catcher through her
freshman and JV softball years. To date, she had not caught in a game. As the next chapter
will show, she was a victim of Donna’s differential treatment of her in relation to Babs and
Sara. Consequently, Kelsy seemed to have reason to harbor bad feelings toward Donna, as

did Candy. Yet, she was willing to admit and acknowledge the positives associated with

147
Donna coaching the team. Her assessment of Donna’s contribution to bringing the team

together shows the dissonance that existed for the players in how they felt about and how
they seemed to want to feel about Donna.

We goof around a lot. And we’re like none of US are very
serious people. And I think we should have..She helped a
lot...[How?] When she huddles and meetings and stuff, so
we can..you can tell she’s very INTERESTED in the team
and she’s trying hard and maybe it’s not exactly what we
want but the way she does things but I guess we have to live
with it (Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy perceived tirat through her handouts and other team activities Donna had
helped the goof off group come together. Donna had gotten her message across to Kelsy.
She was very interested in team. Kelsy perceived tint Donna was making progress and
they could live with that. In the same interview, Kelsy had discussed the insignificance of
the credo because Donna did not live up to the meaning of the words. Even though Nan
agreed that Donna’s nonverbals and yelling contradicted the meanings the players’
perceived Donna attached to team, she found the “knock knuckles” huddle significant

when she was not mad at “Coach.”

And our coach, Coach A is just the opposite. I think because
she... I mean she's nice and she says all this

stuff (emphasized). I know this is really mean, but she says
how much she cares and how much she wants to be our
friend and stuff. I don't think she acts like it at all in the way
she's coaching. I mean (Transcription of taped interview

4/ 15/91).

Nan liked the coach, but did not like her coaching. Her coaching did not seem to be
congruent with Nan’s interpretation of all the stuff (handouts, meetings, and words). As
Nan’s answer to my question about the significance of “knock knuckles” huddle
illustrated, Donna was successful in creating a shared understanding about the huddle with
Nan.

Sometimes if I'm mad at her I just like(imitates ignoring as
hit & laughs) if I'm not I think it's kind of like a bond sort of

between just you and the coach (Transcription of taped
interview 4115/91).

148
The players seemed confused. They liked Donna They did not like her yelling.

They perceived that her behaviors did not match the meanings and perceptions she attached
to team. After three practices in a row, Kelsy believed that things were getting better. From
my observations, the relationship between Donna and the US group seemed to be getting
better.

First League Games, We Won

The afternoon started out in a goofy, US group fashion. Tanya got her car stuck
dead center in a mudhole. Nan, Babs, Popeye, Cathy, Molly, Kelsy, Candy, and Cissy all
tried to help her get out. When they returned at 3:22pm, Tanya had mud all over her face
and shoulders. Cissy was muddy from head to toe. The rest of them had mud splatters all
over their uniforms. They laughed until their clothes dried Donna did not admonish them
or commend them for their antics.

The bus carrying the opposing team could not navigate the road By the time the
opposing team walked the two blocks to the field, Donna was already conducting the pre-
game infield drill. While the other team warmed-up, Donna held a team meeting to discuss
strategy and positioning. Just prior to the players going out onto the field, Donna
screamed, “ Hey, I feel a win today.” They huddled and my ears rattled as they screamed,
“DEFENSE!”

Torrey West won both of the games. The first game was touch and go at times.
During those periods, Donna either yelled, screamed, kicked, and threw the infamous
sunglasses or she just sat back and ignored the action on the field as she had done in the
first games. In general, her use of terms like “buddy, you can and tint’s you!” was more
frequent than in the first four games. The second game was a blow-out, consequently, the
outcome of the game did not hinge on one error or a strikeout. Even though Donna had
bouts of intensity, the players did not seem as intimidated by her outbursts. At the end of
the second game, Donna called Candy over and reached out to her. They hugged and patted
each other on the back. Smiling at Candy, Donna called out to the players, “I hear we are

149
undefeated in league.” Everyone cheered, clapped, hugged and smiled as they basked in

their accomplishments as a team. As they rushed off, Donna called out, “3:15 pm
tomorrow, wear your uniforms for the pictures.”

e Da r Wi

This was team picture day, the day after their first wins. The players had come in

their uniforms expecting a team meeting ending with their pictures being taken. Instead,
Donna planned on practicing. Except for the players disbelief that they would practice in
their uniforms, this meeting seemed to provide a setting for revival of the team attitude,
“never say die.”

Donna went to her car to put on her sweats, Sara
sarcastically and angrily announced to players straggling in,
“We’re practicing before pictures which I think is lame.”
The other players mumbled in disbelief but no one seemed to
mind much. Donna returned from her car with the blue
sweatpants and yellow sweatshirt that she usually wore at
the games. She called out, “Everybody on the bleachers and
we will get started.” We all distributed ourselves on the
three rows of bleachers facing Donna With a big smile on
her face, she loudly greeted the players, “Good afternoon
you bunch of winners!” The players whooped and clapped
for themselves. Candy looked at Donna and asked, “We
were in the paper, did you know?” Donna chatted about
some unfinished business and then started her oratory on the
games, “First of all, I’ve got to say we have an awesome
offense. I think we’re just getting to potential. We are really
good at the plate. So tint’s keep that going to carry us
through.” Donna continued by pointing out the people that
miswd signs and explained to everyone the importance of
watching for and knowing the signs. She made a joke by
imitating Candy’s reaction to Donna when she realized she
did a slap bunt instead of a surprise bunt. The whole group
was laughing as Candy irrritated Dmna imitating her. As
usual Donna covered each situation that arose in the game.
She addressed the negative as well as the positive aspects of
each play (Fieldnotes 4124/91).

Everyone was in good spirits. There was an abundance of joking and laughing
amongst the players and between Donna and the players. Donna nnde it clear, however tint
even though they won, they still had lots of things to work on. Just as she did when they
lost, she pointed out the positive and negative aspects of the day. It was important to her
that the players understand how to execute their skills properly in wins and losses. As the

150
following vi grrette shows, the safety of the players was important to her also. However her

messages of concern seemed to be nullified by the intensity of the messages.

Quietly but firmly Donna addressed the issue of sliding,
“Lots of sliding but none very good. Coop I thought broke
both elbows and her butt. You must angle your body back
sooner. Keep your hands up. I told you I knew someone
who broke their elbows. As soon as I saw C00p go down, I
saw it all over again.” Popeye spoke up, “The first thing
tint Coop said when she came to the bench was, “She’s mad
at me. I slid wrong.” Seemingly surprised that Coop would
think tint Donna was mad, Donna informed the players of
her concern, “ I was not mad. I was concerned for your
safety” (Fieldnotes 4124/91).

The players were whispering and snickering when Donna brought up Coop’s slide.
It was almost as though they did not quite believe that her display the day before was out of
concern for Coop’s safety. Yet, in my notes, I wrote, “caring, concern for injury, but
chastised.” I believed Donna’s words, because she had spent so much time in early
practices teaching the proper technique for sliding. Each time they practiwd sliding, she
cautioned them to keep their bodies back and fingers up to prevent injury. Each of them
seemed to place more value on Donna’s intensity than her words. To the players, her
teammates, the act of yelling concern at Coop was more powerful tinn the words she
spoke, “What kind of slide was that? What kind of slide was that? You could have broken
your arm.” Coop had been safe. Why would Donna be mad at her?

Donna commended Kelsy for her performance as catcher in the first game.
Everyone clapped and cheered. Then Donna proudly praised all of her team members for
their “never say die” attitude.

I want to commend you on your “never say die” attitudes.
You did not give in when they got runs. Several people
commented on tint and I commend you highly for it. The
players were quiet for a second. Then a collective sense of
pride seemed to vibrate through the bleachers. No one
cheered for themselves. Everyone seemed to understand the
significance of the moment (Fieldnotes 4124/91).
That moment was as inspiring as the leather ritual. The tone of Donna’s voice and

her posturing sigrnled to the players that Donrn was proud of their resilient spirit,

151
individual and team. The roles had changed Donna’s uncontrollable enthusiasm at the

players’ “never say die” attitude was much like their usual uncontrollable cheering,
laughing or joking. The players were quiet and stoic in their acceptance of Donna’s pride in
them as members of her team, their team. Donna’s validation of the players’ “never say
die” attitude was also a sanction on the fun loving nature of the group in general.

None of the players gave up in a game and none of them, incl uding Donna, gave
up trying to negotiate a shared understanding of what it meant to be a member of this team.
The “never say die” attitude constructed through their shared experiences made the
negotiation of the “TEAM” at the banquet possible. No one was willing to give up on the
other, no matter how frustrated, angry or hurt they were. The evidence to support this
assertion is in the depth of the feelings that were expressed by Donnaand the players in the
Bicknell incident.

mm

The Bicknell team was the reigning champions of the division. All three Torrey
West teams were traveling together to Bicknell. The bus ride was unusually quiet. Players
were studying and sleeping. Even in the warm ups, the players were not their usual chipper
playful selves. Of course these games would be their third and fourth in two days, the third
double header without any practice.

In the first game, the score was close. Candy’s sore shoulder seemed to be
affecting her accuracy. Down the stretch, there were quite a few steals on passed balls.
Donna’s reaction to mistakes and situations such as Candy’s inability to pitch accurately
was more indifference that intense yelling bouts. Donna would sit on the bench, sigh, look
around, and not pay attention to the action. However her nonverbal and verbal messages
were much more indifferent than in the last few games. The “look” with her hands on her
hips said it all in this game until the players left for their between games break As soon as
the players left the dugout area, Donna began throwing her clipboard and anyan not tied

152
down. She groaned, “I’m so frustrated, OH!” I left to use the rest room and when I

returned she was slamming her clipboard on the bench while pacing in the dugout.

Marlene had to pitch in the second game. Her pitching was fast but inaccurate.
Games seemed to last forever when she pitched. Today she had to pitch. Candy was barely
able to hold her shoulder up. Marlene’s pitching and the errors in the field allowed the
Bicknell team to bat around in the first inning. While the players were in the field, Donna’s
behavior ranged from huffing to silence. She seemed extremely frustrated, almost agitated
When the players came in, she attempted to be upbeat and supportive, “Only first inning so
lot’s of time. Let’s stick the ball!” Donna’s role modeling of becoming quiet and
uninvolved when things were down seemed to be contagious. The players were not
laughing, cheering or talking. Cathy and Candy were the only players who continued to
cheer and yell during the good and the bad.

The beginning of the end started when Babs did not slide at home. She was the
third out in the first inning. Donna walked over and yelled at her much like she had done to
Candy in the first game. From tirat point on, the battle seemed to turn into a war of
frustration for Donna and the players. It was 10-0 before the other team had three outs in
the second inning. Donna had thrown her sunglasses, sat on the bench so hard I bounced,
put her hands on her head covering her eyes, and leaned back and picked her fingernails.
After eleven batters, the players finally showed up in front of the dugout for the huddle
where Donna usually provided some support or instruction. Only this time, she decided to
walk away.

Donna was sitting next to me on the bench as the players
dejectedly made their way toward us. As they grouped,
Donna never looked in their direction. I looked to Donna and
then the players. They were standing there waiting for her.
The pained looks on their faces said it all. Cathy stepped up
and said, “Right here! Right here!” Donna left the bench and
walked away toward the coach’s box at third. Everyone saw
her. No one except Cathy made a noise, she reminded them
about the need for a “Never say die” attitude. That was their

half hearted cheer. Sareastically, Nan said, “I like her “never
say die” attitude!” Popeye made her way next to Nan and

153

whispered, “I agree with what you just said” (Fieldnotes
4/30/91).

Donna’s intensity had not shown through the entire day. The players’ unconditional

support of each other did not shine through today. To the players, Donna’s not coming to

the huddle violated the norms and values of the team. She was giving up on them, on the

team. The emphasis tint Donna put on loud vornl support of a teammate wemed to place

her in an awkward situation. No matter what statement she was trying to make by not

showing up at the huddle, she was contradicting her stated expectations of all members of

the team. Although the following vignette shows that Donna was interested in what was

happening on the field, it seemed as though she had decided to let the players think she was

not interested.

Coop sat beside me and said, “That must have been the
longest inning in history.” Four batters and no runs later,
Donna sat on the bench and chewed her fingernails until
Mariene made a fake throw toward a runner. Donna eyed
Marlene. Candy asked Donna why she was mad at
Marlene’s attempt. Candy believed tint they were an actual
play. Donna explained tint she did not consider fake throws
sportsmanlike. Consequently, she did not want her players
to initiate such a play. After that discussion, Donna called
out to Marlene and another fielder. When the players came
in, Donna sat on the bench and called Marlene over to
discuss the fake throw. The players huddled without Donna
or Marlene, “Gank it!” As the players entered the dugout,
Donna got up without a word and went to the coach’s box.
We had six players go to bat. The players seemed to be
bouncing back a bit. There was whispered laughing and
joking. People other than Cathy and Candy were cheering.
Donna called out supportive statements to players for the
first time in innings. Her voice was tentative as though she
was not sure whether she had the right to speak. The players
were excited as they ran in from the field, finally an inning
where the other team did not score. Yet, Donna did not
huddle with the players for a third time. Judy took charge
suggesting hits and runs for the cheer. The players joked
about the ump and about Donna having to dodge a ball in the
box. As the players collected their mitts to take the field, I
heard the players complaining about Donna’s “never say die”
attitude. One player claimed, “She only cares about us if
we’re winning!” (Fieldnotes 4/30/91)

Donna’s act of uninvolvement in the game was hard to watch. It seemed as though

she had placed herself in a position where she felt uncomfortable with what she had done.

154
And yet, she continued to stay away from the huddle. The players seemed to be hurt by her

lack of interest in them. Donna had told them after one of the games that in good or bad
they should always support their teammates. To Donna, the players seemingly
unconditional support of each other had been a positive. This was not positive for anyone.
Donna’s absence at the huddle spoke to everyone who knew this team. Tanya’s mother
entered the dugout to show her support.

Donna attended the last two huddles. As if she had never been missing, Donna
walked in and took charge. Their happiness at her return could not displace their feelings of
distrust and hypocrisy. She had helped them come together as a team through her diligent
negotiations between the meanings and perceptions tint she attached to team and the
meanings they attached to team, the result being their shared understandings of “Never say
die,” “bust a sag,” and the playful nature of the group. In the players’ minds, Donna was
acting in ways they understood to be unacceptable for a member of this team.

E. I I] I . l

The meeting was not held in the team locker area. This meeting was different. The
essence of this team had been denigrated by Donna notcorning to the huddles in the
Bicknell game. The mood was sullen, the air thick with anticipation and frustration. Prior
to everyone gathering on the benches and lockers in front of the coach’s office, I heard
comments about, “the letter” tint Candy had written after the first game. Other than tint, no
one was saying much of anything. Donna stepped up in front of the benches between the
two lockers and made the only noise tint was audible in the room. I stood back from the
group as she began the most important oratory of the season.

Her voice firm, almost pleading, Donna started what I call
the Bicknell incident. “Listen to me and I’ll talk. I really
don’t mind losing if we play well. Our defense is improving.
Our offense had gone to pot!” The silence was deafening.
The players’ bodies seemed to tense even more at the last
statement. Donna continued, “At this level, I should not have
to repeat myself!” Donrn explained that when she ind to
continually correct their f undarnental mistakes, “it takes the

fun out of it for me.” The players looked everywhere but
toward Donna. Donna’s tone had changed Making an

155

indignant plea, Donna reminded the players they were in this
together. “I put in as much time as you, probably more and
yet, when I try to give you some information YOU look
through me, roll your eyes rather than say “yes.” In an
attempt to make her point about how she felt, Donna put her
hands on her hips, looked over the group of players and
rolled her eyes. The players were all watching the
demonstration, but no one made a sound or acknowledged
the gesture. Her voice almost shaking Donna seemed to
make a demanding plea, “I have the same emotions. Treat
me like a member of the team. I would like you to put
yourself on the receiving end of one of those 100 ”
(Fieldnotes 5/1/91).

Even though Donna was discussing the game, everyone knew the discussion went
deeper. This discussion was going to meet the underlying tension between Donna and the
players head on. In most discussions and handouts concerning “team,” Donrn stressed the
importance she placed on being treated as a member of the team, as one of them. Now she
seemed to be accusing the players of leaving her out of the group, of looking past her, not
respecting her contribution to the team or her position. Normally the players would have
made jokes about Donna’s imitation of their reaction to her, but not this time.

When Donna asked the players to put themselves on the receiving end of their
looks, all I could think about was her patented “look,” her body at attention, arms crossed
across her chest, and her eyes (with or without the sunglasses) drilling holes through
whomever was the target of the glare. This was the one every player identified as an
indicator that Donna was mad The evidence in this vignette supports the earlier assertion
tint Donna felt like an outlier on her own team. Donna asked them to treat her like a
teammate. Yet, in their minds, she had violated the “team” attitude they had constructed
together as a team, “Never say die.” Donrn moved from the personal to discussing goal
setting.

“You need to set self expectancies and goals. I want no
strikeouts without even swinging. If you are having
difficulty following signs, make seeing the signs your goal.
We are still 500 in the league. Even if we were in the
bottom, if we were playing our best it would be OK. AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON, I GAVE YOU THE

CREDOWEDONOT NEEDTO WIN ON PAPERTOBE
SUCCESSFUL. WE NEED TO SET GOALS AND

156

STRIVE TO DO OUR BEST. I BELIEVE IN THOSE
THINGS (CREDO). MEETING THOSE GOALS IS
WINNING. If we played our best, I could take it so easily.”
The only noise in the room was Donna and the still silence. I
felt for everyone in the room. They had been so close to
breaking the barriers between Donna and the US group, and
now.... Donna went from her loud reminder of her stated
philosophy to expressing her concern about what others
thought, “When you don’t do your best, it is a reflection on
me. It goes through my mind, did I cover? WHAT THEY
SEE YOU DO, THEY THINK I TAUGHT YOU. Another
part of winning is sportsmanship, class. We don’t talk to the
opponent unless it’s positive; good catch No bantering with
the umps. Keep your wits about you at all times. What you
project is what people think I taught. Even when I argue
with the umps, I call them sir or mam, tint is all part of
sportsmanship.” Still no noise or visible movement from the
players (Fieldnotes 5/1/91).

Similar to every team meeting after a loss, Donna reminded the players tint their
performances and behaviors were a reflection of her as a coach. Her concern for how
others perceived herby the actions of the players seemed to make her forget how the
players felt making errors and losing. The structure of the competitive setting seemed to put
pressure on Donna turning her into someone other than the “Coach” the players were
beginning to like.

Donna brought up the philosophies tint she professed eariy on in the season when
she handed out the credo. On my copy of the credo, I scribbled the words she used to
express her personal beliefs about team, “I’m a coach, but also a person I want to get to
know you enough to care about you. Things to gain other than winning. 1 have feelings.
We all do” The credo, Donna’s verbal messages, and team activities prior to games placed
a great deal of importance on reciprocity, teamwork and friendship. The players seemed to
adopt Donna’s vision of team. Their interpretations of Donna’s behaviors as confladictory
were influenced by what they believed was a negotiated understanding of the expectations
of team members through her words and their repeated interactions. In her negotiations
with the players, she forgot to inform them tint she ind different expectations for the

players as team members than she did for herself, the coach.

157
And sol guess I cut myself a lot of slack in thinking that I

get to deal with that in whatever way I feel I need to even if
tint sends out every once in a while a contradictory message
(Transcription of taped interview 6/19/91).

This statement explains much of Donna’s indifference to exhibiting behaviors tirat
seemed to contradict her explicit expectations for a member of the team. When Candy
challenged Donna about her yelling in the first game, Donna told her tint she had a “license
to yell.” That was the first time Donna had addressed the issue of her belief tint she had
different expectations for her as coach. Prior to tint, Donna made it seem as though she and
the players were in the trenches together. “Never say die” was the attitude for all members
of the team, herself included. Now she was accusing the players of not including her in
“team.” She was accusing them of not remembering that she had feelings. Yet she was the
one tint did not attend the huddles. She yelled at them without considering their feelings.

Donna always stressed good sportsmanship. The players were never to address the
umps. That was Donna’s job. The credo stated, “Showing a temper is disrespectful to me
and to your teammates. Don’t do it!! Be patient with yourself and others.” The comments
Donna made about this statement were, “We’re going to get some crappie umpires. When it
happens let me talk to them.” Many times Donna’s displays of animation or tminvolvement
were due to her dislike and frustration with the umpires. Tanya and Sara were the only
players to ever lose their temper. When they did, they paid. Both of them were pulled out
of games and verbally admonished. Donna could exhibit similar behavior without an
apology or an explanation to her players of why she could and they could not act in such a
manner. Moving from her appeal tint the players accept her as a person as well as their
coach, Donna broke the silence by expressing her pleasure at the fun loving nature of the
players.

“Win on the inside. I am proud of what I do. You should be
proud of what you do! !” Donna looked down at her sheet
and continued, “ My aim is to give you a good, fun softball
experience where you learn sound softball skills. I really like
watching you laugh and play around together (tone of voice

has changed to upbeat enthusiastic, proud). You all keep
Linda and I from getting bored, because we laugh about you

158
all the time.” The girls all started laughing and giggling. “It
is more fun to lose a game by 2-1 than 23-3. Everybody gets
along. There are no cliques. Everybody picks on everybody.
I REALLY believe that we should not lose a game 23-3.”
The noise had died down, but Candy was nodding her head
in agreement with Donna about the score and the unity on the
team (Fieldnotes 5/1/91).

Whenever the team had one of these meetings, Donna reminded them tint she
wanted them to have f un. She never asked them what having fun meant to them. Yesterday
the players interpreted Donna’s act of not coming to the huddle as a sign that she only cared
about them when they were winning. Today, she answered their accusations. She stated
that losing a well played game was just as good as winning. It seemed today tint she was
trying to explain yesterday’s behavior without mentioning it.

Donna loved to watch the players wrestle, joke, and thump each other. She enjoyed
their togetherness. Donna was always telling me how much she liked the players, the team.
This was the first time tint Donna told the players she valued their antics. The ice had been
broken. The players could stretch their bodies and breath.

The Bicknell incident went much deeper than just the events at the Bicknell game.
For all of them, the tension arising from the incongruence between their past experiences in
sport and their present experience had not been resolved. One day Donna was patient and
thoughtful in her interactions. The next day Donna was exhibiting the very behaviors they
feared when they entered the setting. However they were more hurt than scared, because
they had all come to know and understand each other at some level. The team had played
six games without any social interactions not related to competition. As the evidence has
shown, much of their practice time was spent renegotiating misunderstandings tint
occurred during games and negotiating a shared understanding of their daily experiences.

This was the first time that the players made a direct challenge to Donna. This was
the first time that the players had addressed their concerns about the hypocrisy of her

behaviors. They wanted Donna to acknowledge them, to understand where they were

159
coming from. It seemed throughout the season tint they (Donna and the players) wanted

the same thing. They wanted to break down the barriers and be a team.

However Donna had not explained the most important aspect of “team,” the
difference in her expectations for them and for herself. And the players had never conveyed
their displeasure at Donna’s contradictory messages. Now was the time for the underiying

tension to rise to the surface and be dealt with.

Donna concluded with a plea to the players, “Be receptive to
me. Try not to make me feel like an outsider on the team. Be
classy.” Then as usual Donna asked for questions or
comments. Candy began speaking for the group, “You talk
about being part of the team. It really hurt us that you did not
come out to the huddles.” Def ensively, yet, calm and
patiently Donna replied, “That was the first time. There were
two reasons why I did not come out First, I was frustrated
and tired of repeating myself. Second, it wasn’t workin I
thought maybe somebody else could..Yea for three or our
innings I did it. I felt funny. It didn’t work It was the only
handl had to play. Probably it looked bad to all of you, butI
DOUBT THAT ANY OF YOU COULD SAY THAT YOU
WEREN’T FRUSTRATED. Anything else?” The volume
of the message had risen along with the defensive posturing
of her body as she finished the word “frustrated. Speaking
in a low, but firm voice, Popeye responded to her question,
“After a while you did not give a sign. You stopped giving
signs. What is a bunt going to do when we’re down by 15?”
(Fieldnotes 5’ 1/91)

The silence after Popeye’s comment was eerie. The underlying tension haunting
this team was in everyone’s face. This was not the first time tint Donna did not go to a
huddle. She did not go to a huddle in the first game. Candy organized the huddle and led
the cheer. That was the first game. This time was much different. The meaning and
significance of the huddle had not been defined at tint point. Now through the repeated
social interactions as team members, the huddle seemed to signify everyone coming
together in support of each other in good and bad. As Candy and Cissy explained, Donna’s
actions were viewed as contrary to the “never say die” attitude of their understanding of
“team.”

Donna tried again to ease the tension, “I understand your

point of view.” Candy jumped in almost challenging tint
Donna understood, “Well it looks like to us that you have

160

given up. You are not supportive of us.” Popeye chimes in,
“No signs, no support.” Apologetically, Cissy interjected
her feelings on the situation, “We don’t mean to gang up on
you. We as a team we’re not suppose to give up. You kind
of give up in other games.” Cissy paused. It seemed like
she expected help on this point. No one was saying
anything, she continued, “Only I personally.” Before she
could finish her qualification of the earlier accusation,
someone from the group called out, “yea, other games”
(Fieldnotes 5/1/91).

After the first game, it appeared that the players’ fear of Donna’s yelling was a
secondary factor in maintaining the Us against her attitude of the majority of the team. What
fueled the tension between Donna and the players was their interpretation tint her behaviors
contradicted the essence of “team” as they understood it. Her silence and uninvolvement in
the action seemed more frustrating and hurtful to the players than her yelling. 1 had heard it
many times before. Donna had no idea that her behaviors were hurting her players. The
players were not confrontative in their statements. The challenge was made. Donna was
faced with explaining why she was not living up to their expectations of a her as a
teammate.

Donna’s voice was shaking with emotion almost crying, yet,
defiantly she responded, “I get to have tint emotion. You
can be mad. I’m still in the coaching box. You can hide
yourself. Anything else?” “Yea,” Candy in a very upbeat
tone, “I thought our defense was good.” “I did too, but our
offense slacked off,” replied Donna. That was the end of the
discussion. Other team business was discussed and then the
“knock knuckles” huddle. The cheer was appropriately
“TEAM.” It appeared that everyone made sure that the
knuckle knock with Donna was longer and harder than
usual. As everyone was leaving Candy rushed over to show
“Coach” her report card. Within minutes, Donna and I were
left in the locker room. Donna was visibly upset and
indicated tint she did not want to talk about it, she was
“mad” (Fieldnotes 5/1/91).

Donna did not explain away the problem. She just told them. In her mind, she had
different expectations for herself because she was in the coach’s box where everyone could
see her. Donna perceived tint by virtue of being “the Coach,” she had the right to exhibit
behaviors tint she considered unacceptable for the players. This seemed to partially explain
Donna’s preoccupation with how people viewed her based on the players’ performances in

161
games. Nothing more was said about the issue. The interactions within the huddle

suggested tint some issues may have been resolved through the discussion. However

Donna’s mood after the players left made me wonder what would happen the next day at

the games.
T af i e

I arrived early to see if I could hear any comments concerning the confrontation
yesterday. No one arrived until 3:00pm. The players were their usual loud, talkative selves
as they ran and warmed up their arms. Until about 3:43pm, Donna spent most of her time
with the other coach and the umpires. Consequently the pie-infield drill interactions
between Donna and the players were almost nil until she called everyone together for the
following pre-game meeting.

Donna approached me on the bench and said, “I don’t have
the lineup. I was super organized when I first came here.”
Without waiting for my response, Donna yelled to the
players, “Blue team let’s go. Let’s do a quick infield Then
talk about the goals briefly before we get started.” Everyone
was upbeat and loud in the infield drill. As the last person
came in, Donna walked toward the bench and called out to
the chattering group of players, “Right here blue. Let’s go.”
So intent on chatting about the opposing team’s infield drill,
the players did not instantly come to the bench. Donna firmly
repeated her directive, “LET’S GO!!” Within seconds
everyone was grouped around Donna. “OK let me ask you
your goals. I will tell you my goals for the team. Three or
four fewer errors per game through Ocean City. Better
communication.” Donna went on to explain tint better
communication included more chatter, the infield talking to
each other and pitcher-catcher communication on passed
balls. Then she informed the players of her individual goals
for herself, “Correct you, I will correct you. I will allow
myself some emotions but I will control my mannerisms. I
will not repeat fundamental things. Use what I tell you.
Don’t just say I know. I will use the bunt and hit and run a
little more.” Now it was the players’ trrrn to announce their
individual goals. The goals ranged from broad statements to
specific, “Play better than last game; more contact; solid
contact; no errors” (Fieldnotes 5/2/91).

Two things related to the Bicknell incident happened in this meeting. Frrst, Donna
carried through on her decision to focus on individual and team goal setting. More
importantly, Donna acknowledged the players’ concerns about her game behaviors. She

162
would try to control her nonverbals. She will still show emotion. But, she would try. The

tempo of the meeting and the day stayed upbeat even as they lost. Donna became enraged at
Tanya when she threw her bat. There were instances of her giving players “the look,” her
calling players over to the box and pointing at the line, and her yelling. However, the mood
in general seemed less sensitive to the perceived idiosyncrasies of the other. As the
evidence will show, the players’ interpretation of her behavior in this game and the
remainder of the games was based on a combination of the openness with which Donna
addressed the concerns that the players voiced at the meeting after the Bicknell incident and
the actual confrontation where the players felt comfortable enough to tell Donna how they
felt. The underlying tension was dissolving with each successive day of interactions as
team members.

They had a goal setting session two days later at the Ocean City tournament and one
at the Jiles Tournament the next weekend The team played nine games from the “day after”
to the Jiles tournament. The session in our hotel room at Jiles was the prelude to the event
tint seemed to chip away at any remaining barriers between Donna and members of the US
group.
lilesTrumament

The players entered our hotel room at 10:33 pm. They plopped on the two king
sized beds with their hands full of mountain dew, cokes, and cookies. The dnrm of their
voices through the cookies was like a group of dogs growling. The sounds were so loud
Donna cautioned them about the noise rule in the hotel as the meeting began.

“We’re ready. We’re ready. We don’t want to spend too
much time. They have a noise regulation here.” Sara blurted
out, “We walked to TCBY and Tanya almost got us kicked
out for being too noisy.” The other players were trying to
“Sh” her because she was practically yelling. Donna began
as the noise dyed down, “Molly do you think you will feel
better early or late?” “Late, I am not an early person.”
Molly was recovering from a mild case of mono and wanted
to play in one of the five games. Donna turned to Candy and
asked, “What can you do or can’t do?” “I can throw

overinnd. I can do everything,” Candy eagerly replied. Her
shoulder had gotten so bad tint the doctor would not let her

163

pitch. Donna had not allowed her to play anything since the
diagnosis. “Let me put it another way. I don’t want you to
do anything that you shouldn’t,” Donna firmly stated.
Candy did not respond. The rest of the group was laughing
and bouncing around on the beds like two year olds
(Fieldnotes 5/10/91).

Although the US group seemed to be dissolving, there were still signs of tensions
between Donrn and the players. More specifically, Candy and Donna were still openly
engaged in a battle of wits and words. Candy had gained personal power through Donna’s
badgering of her, yet, Donna still had the formal power to treat her differently. The
interaction surrounding Molly’s illness and Candy’s injury were different. Donna was firm
with Candy. Candy did not respond. For them, things wemed to be the same. The other
players seemed oblivious to the interaction between Donna and Candy. Donna attempted to
get their attention, but to no avail. Much like a student in a classroom, Donrn raised her
hand and asked permission to speak. The players acknowledged her request.

Donna raised her hand and said, “My turn, at Big Hollow
game we had really good contact. Our baserunning rs still
stinko. We had seven or eight errors. Please pay attention to
me that’s why I’m in the box. Cathy you had no errors at
Big Bend. The first time all year. Let’s set some goals for
the tourrnment.” Sara eagerly called hers out first, “ Less
errors.” Donrn reminded them all, “ Must be more
specific.” Sara refined her goal, “ Three or less.” Candy
quipped from, “Seven errors to four errors.” Donna
interjected, “I think we can be in the game with anyone so
what do you think, first goal?” In unison, “four or less” is
called out from each corner of the beds. Molly chimes,
“Second goal, I think should be get all the signs.” “What if
you don’t?” Questioned Donna. Tina yelled, “Then Molly
has to run” Donna quickly agreed, “OK.” Tina looked
around and said, “ I was just kidding.” The beds shook as
everyone laughed at Tina Donna tried to speak but began
laughing so hard she could not get a word out. As the
laughing turned to gasping for air, Donna said, “We need
one more goal.” Instantly, Cissy yelled, “ To be louder.”
“Yea, that’s a good one. You have been too quiet. You don’t
need to sing and spell.” With her announcement that Cissy
had selected the third goal, the players became extremely
loud Cathy firmly whispered, “Shut up.” Cissy returned
the directive, “You shut up.” And the uncontrollable loud
giggling started again. Out of the blue, Candy stated, “I fart
in my sleep.” Tanya’s face became wrinkled with tension.
She started screaming and whining, “Don’t say that.”

 

164

Donna could hardly keep herself from falling off the bed
with laughter (Fieldnotes 5/10/91).

Donna was providing the players with an opportunity to negotiate the “team” goals.
She was not mandating them. They were everyone’s goals, not just hers. Through the
laughter they came up with three team goals, personal goals, and discussed situations tint
had arisen in the week tint needed clarification or further instruction. They left at 11:15pm
without their drinks and cookies but still full of noisy chattering. Donna left and visited
with the parents for about five minutes. The first thing out of her mouth when she returned
was, “Gotta love them.” This was the first time in a week tint they had gotten together in a
noncompetitive team setting. They had played nine games in six days and were getting
ready to play five more tomorrow.

We met at six forty-five in the morning for breakfast. The first game was at eight.
Everyone was as chipper as could be expected after going to bed at midnight, and up at
6:00am. The softball marathon was about to begin. After losing three games, there was a
picnic with parents, friends, and siblings. We spent an hour playing football, cooking hot-
dogs, eating, and hanging out together. In the fourth game, Donna was listing the players
in the scorebook by either nicknames she had created through interactions with the players
or nicknames the players used for each other. From tint day on, the interactions amongst
and between the players and Donna suggested that the subgroups that existed within the
varsity had merged into “the team” at the banquet.

Summary of Chapter

In this chapter, the Torrey West Varsity softball team was transformed from a
group divided by differences in how the participants’ perceived they should and/or would
experience being members of her team into “the TEAM” at the banquet. Even though the
reduction of the participants’ differences was an ongoing process, the players mentioned
three specific events that they believed helped in the integration of Her, Them, and Us into
“the team” at the banquet; the practice after the first game, the Bicknell Incident, and the

tournaments. I would like to use the players’ reflections on the events to summarize the

 

165
evidence within this chapter that supports the premise tint team culture and team are

residues of the social interactions within the setting. Coaching and team seem almost
synomous with communication.

Communication is the process of interpretation. Communication takes place after
one has gathered information by attaching meaning to a situation of the verbal and
nonverbal behaviors of someone (Berger & Luckman, 1967; Krebs, 1990). The meanings
tint the players and Donna attached to team events and the behaviors of the other were
influenced by their past sport experiences, past interactions within the setting, the context,
one’s position on the team, etc. The descriptions of the dynamics of the relationship
between Donna and the players lends support for another major premise of the symbolic
interaction perspective: the meanings people attach to behaviors events, objects, and others
are social definitions, not social facts (Louis, 1981). The meaning of an event or object is
dynamic and ever-changing. This tenet is supported by the modifications of individual and
group definitions of team, fun, “Coach,” as well as the team climate throughout the season.
People behave in reaction to the meanings they attach to an event or to the other (Blumer,
1969; Berger & Luckman, 1967). As the meanings and perceptions tint the participants
attached to events (huddles), objects (third base coaching box), and behaviors (Donna’s
yelling, the players’ goofing off) were modified, people reacted differently to the same
events, objects, and people. If this study had reduced communication to a concrete act,
there would have been a distinctly different portrayal of “the team.” Not only do the
players’ recollections of these specific events support the principles of the symbolic-
interactionist perspective, but their descriptions also highlight the complexities involved in
understanding the interplay between the multiple realities of the participants and the context.

The first event was the practice after the first games. They had committed fourteen
errors and lost both games. All of the players, returning and new, expected to run forever
after such a dismal performance. In chapter three, Donna and most of the players provided
detailed accounts of their memories of Donna standing in the middle of the field yelling at

166
the previous varsity team as they ran and ran for their game errors. This one event was
critical in the development of the fearful preinteraction expectancies the new players had
concerning their interactions with Donna. As the evidence in this chapter illustrated, the
players’ worries were for rnught. Donrn had a calm, instructional meeting, no yelling, no
running. Donrn was calm, presenting the positive and negative aspects of the game.

Based on the players’ formal interviews, the difference between what they expected
and what happened was significant in the reconstruction of the players’ expectancies of
Donna. Eight of the ten newcomers identified this incident as one of the times tint made
them see Donna in a less strict or fearful light. In her response about when she thought they
began to accept Donna, Popeye laughed and joked about how they began to redefine
Donna’s yelling.

Not having to run after games. She liked softball a lot, not
just coach. [accept her part team] After we figured out, we
didn’t have to run laps for making mistakes. Then I mean it
was a lot easier. We accepted her more. I mean we knew she
was going to yell. We just had to deal with it (laughs) Her
yelling was helpful in a way. It made you do better so she
didn’t yell at you anymore (laughs) (Transcription of taped
interview 8/28/91).

They had to deal with it. She was going to yell. But she was not going to focus on
every little error. Some of the pressure was off. Sara’s recollection of the event highlighted
how important the meanings the players’ attached to Donna’s behavior were in the
reconstruction of coach-athlete relations. Sara touched upon the tension associated with the
players’ fears of Donna. Sara was specific in explanation of how she perceived how the
meeting influenced their perceptions of Donna:

Yea I think everybody was with tint many errors and all the
things tint we did wrong everyone thought we'd be paying
for it the next day. That's all we talked about in school. We
thought we were going to be running our butts off and then
we didn't even do anything. And that's what made everyone
think about coach in a different way. She doesn't work you

to death when you make mistakes (Transcription of taped
interview 7/23/91).

 

167
In her first interview, Sara had identified tint she was more concerned about

making errors than making the play. Now she believed that they could focus on making the
plays. These recollections of the event revealed tint this event was important in the process
of reconstructing the players’ preinteraction expectancies of Donna as a unrelenting,
frightful coach. Popeye perceived that everyone was coming to terms with Donna’s yelling.
They knew they had to live with it. Donna told them so in tint very meeting, “If you don’t
like to (inaudible) yell you probably don’t want to play for me.” They did not have any
power to change Donna’s directive. Yet, in the end, they did seem to have an impact in
modifying Donna’s game behaviors.

Sara and Popeye’s responses closely matched those of many of their peers. They
were beginning to be less intimidated by Donna Yet as Candy’s response indicates, even
with the players’ reconstructing their perceptions of Donna, there were still some
unexplainable reasons for the preinteraction expectancies to mediate their interpretations of
her behavior.

OHHHH, we were like, I don't want to go to practice. She's
going to yell. She's going to yell. She's going to yell. [she
didn't yell did she?] She didn't yell. We were all like, oh my
gosh. [surmised] Yea, me and Cissy talked about tint We
were like. We thought that was kind of cool that she didn't
yell. We were kind of shocked. We were like OK. We were
really shocked. It was like maybe there's some good in her
you know. She didn't yell. Maybe she has some kind of
control. But...(Transcription of taped interview 7/24/91).

Even though Donna accused Candy of having an attitude that practice, the
difference between what she expected from Donna and what Donna did had a fleeting
positive influence on Candy’s perceptions of Donna The players’ interpretations of
Donna’s behaviors within this context played an integral role in modifying the players’
expectancies of Donna. Yet, there was a hesitancy in her trust of Donna’s cinnged ways.
When I asked Candy about her pause, “but,” she alluded to the confusion they were feeling

over Donna’s inconsistencies in behavior. One minute she was joking with them. The next,

 

168
she was “rnh, nah, nah.” These inconsistencies in Donna’s interactions with the players

were mentioned by every player.

As one read tirrough this chapter, it was easy to detect the inconsistency in Donna’s
behavior. This inconsistency existed at two levels. First, it was virtually impossible for the
players to predict accurately when Donna would blow up about something or when she
would ignore and accept the same situation. One minute she was one of the “gang,” the
next she distanced herself and became the boss.

More importantly, Donna’s game behaviors seemed to be inconsistent with Donna’s
expressed expectations for members of her team and with the players’ expectations of
Donrn in relation to their negotiated understanding of acceptable team behavior. Although
her game behaviors did not fall within the parmeters of acceptable teammate behavior, most
became normalized because they were predictable, making them in some ways acceptable,
“that’s the way she is.” There seemed to be two Dormas: Donna, their Coach and
teammate, and Donna, the authoritarian tint seemed to distance herself from the players
through control measures.

The effect of Donna’s approach-avoidance behavior is illustrated on a timeline (see
Appendix H) of the season. When Donna was providing the players with some investment
in the team (sign day, practices, tournament, etc.), there seemed to be reciprocal
negotiations of “team.” They seemed to be a team. However, during games or when Donna
felt she had crossed a boundary line, Donna controlled the players and the team. As the
timeline shows, the participants’ struggle for a team identity was directly related to Donna’s
wavering between being a member of “the team” and being in control of the team. As the
boundaries between Donna, the coach, and Donna, the person, seemed to dissolve, the
boundaries between Donna and the players strengthened The development of a shared
understanding of “team” would take one step forward and then two steps backward. It was
not until the players confronted Donna at the Bicknell meeting tint the boundaries between

 

169
Them, Us, Donna, the coach, and Donna, the person, broke down enough to make every

day a step forward in the development of “the team.”

The findings in this study provide support for Gersick’s (1988) findings that
groups do not follow prescribed stages, sequences, or phases as they evolve into a
collective “we.” Gersick (1988) pointed out that it would be virtually impossible for every
group to go through the same stages. After all, the interplay between the social intereactions
within a group (athlete-athlete relations, coach-athlete relations, player-coach-parent
relations), environmental constraints (number of practices, games, etc.), group resources
(qualified coach, players), and requirements of success are different for each and every
group. In Gersick’s (1988) study the decision making groups went through transitional
pinses of “punctuated equilibrium.” Groups enter into one of these phases when the group
members assess that they need to bring themselves into a state of equilibrium in order to
accomplish their task in a timely and successful manner.

Although the concept of “puncttnted equilibrium” seems to describe the ups and .
downs of the development of “the team” in this study, there are some distinct differences in
the groups studied First, the groups studied by Gersick ( 1988) were decision making
groups. Members within these groups had some decision making power, unlike the
athletes. Second, the groups’ progress toward their ultimate goal was triggered more by the
members’ awareness of deadlines and time than by how much work they had completed
toward their goal. In the case of a competitive sport team, a team’s success is measured by
each and every game. If progress were triggered by deadlines and time, the team’s highs
would seem to correlate with games and go into periods of inertia during practices. In this
study, the players seemed more cohesive and in tune with each other, on and off the field,
and during practices. The team’s progress toward becoming a unified group working
toward the same goals was more evident during team events such as sign day, than on

game day.

170

In order to generate theory tint pertains specifically to the competitive sport setting,
we must follow the lead of researchers in the area of team building and spend more time in
the field observing and interviewing members of teams to find out the “bows” and “whys”
associated with individual decison making and team development. We need to find out
what factors trigger the “punctuated equilibrium” tint was evident in the development of
“this team.” Moreover, we need to understand the processes underlying the decisions that
players and coaches make that effect team development, performance, and satisfaction.

In the instance of the meeting after the Bicknell incident, Donna decided to address
the incident in that meeting and the players decided to challenge Donna’s authority and
bring up the issue of her inconsistencies. They wanted her to be included in “the team.”
The players (mostly members of the Us group) had discussed it amongst themselves and
decided the repercussions would be worth “getting it out in the open.” Both of these
decisions were crucial to the development of “the team” at the banquet.

The Bicknell Incident was the event that every player mentioned at length as a key
turning point in their perceptions of Donna as a coach and member of their team. This was
the one topic that elicited pro-Us group views from the returning players. They had seen it
happen the year before, none of them questioned it. In the following quote, Tanya
expresses her belief that Donna’s behaviors hurt them because her behaviors contradicted
her verbalizations about what she considered appropriate member behavior.

Oh yea, I expected that from her, because I think she did that
a couple of times last year. It’s kind of like she wants to
keep to herself away from us because she doesn’t want to
get mad and ruin our... You know like hurt us more and put
us in a more negative perspective or whatever. But then she
doesn’t hang with us. I could see the coach’s reasons behind
why she didn’t do it. I just wish she would have tried you
know.[what happen to one of you not go to huddle]
Probably pull us right in, because she’s done tint to me
before. She pulled me by my right arm, right in
(Transcription of taped interview 7/22/91).

Tanya had seen it happen last year. She expected it. However this year she was

willing to express her displeasure. Due to the changes in personnel, the social interactions

171
within the setting had changed and so had the meanings tint she attached to Donna’s

decision to not go to the huddle. In Cathy’s discussion about her disappointment in
Donna’s decision to not attend the huddle, she pointed out that last year’s team members
would not have challenged Donna. All and all, she agreed with Candy, Cissy, and
Popeye’s perceptions that Donna’s behaviors signaled her lack of involvement in the team:

I noticed right off. People got mad because she had an
attitude. It surprised me. I didn't think it was good, but we
did it ourselves. It's not up to her. We had to realize the
reason that she was mad, because we couldn't do good.
[when came in how feel] Didn't know what to do. We
needed a huddle. [why] Because brought us together. It kept
people's minds on the game. It made me mad after. I didn't
think anyone would say anything. But, we had a more vocal
teamthis yearthatsaid whattheywanted I agreedinpart
but then THAT'S HER I think it came off rude. They got
their point across. I don’t like to say anything. I think that it
helped that they did say it. But at the time, it added to the
frustration. I think it made her more aware of her behaviors
and it seemed like she did try and keep them under control.
But it's JUST THE WAY SHE IS . You know tint's just
what's going to happen..(Transcription of taped interview
6/20/91).

Tanya and Cathy agreed with Candy, Cissy, and Popeye; however, they defended
Donna: “That’s her.” The meanings they attached to Donna’s behaviors were similar. Their
interpretations of Donna’s behaviors were different. Consequently, their reactions to her
behaviors were different. They had two full seasons of repeated social interactions with
Donna. They only had a few weeks of integrated interactions with everyone. As hurt and
angry as Tanya and Cathy were about Donna not attending the huddle, they publicly
accepted her behavior. Even thougir members of the US group understood “that’s the way
she is,” they wanted more unity. They wanted an inclusive team, a group that valued and
accepted each others’ differences as well as their similarities. Cissy’s recollection of the
event supports the assertion tint they wanted to include Donna, not exclude her as she
thought.

That was the day, we were all looking at the letter. Because
Candy had written this letter and she found me in the

morning. She said Cissy I wrote this letterI want you to
read it. We had 7th hour together. Sol read this letter and

172

said yea yea get her. (laughing) And I remember saying you
know what we need to is we need to.. It was really ironic
because that's what we did I said what we need to do I said
Candy. It can't just be YOU because a lot of people feel this
way. And I said you‘ve got a major (inaudible) over it. I said
we need to sit down and talk about it. And I said I guess
nobody needs to afraid of what Coach thinks because

nobody is going.. Nothing is going to get accomplished
unless we actually talk about this. I said maybe she doesn't
realize I said maybe she does and doesn't care you know.
We're never going to know. And we sat down and Candy I
love Candy She sits right next to me (chuckles ) and she
said something about "well this is how I feel blah blah blah”
and I think I think Popeye said something and I was like oh
hell here we go.(laughs) It did it started up and I think
Coach was kind of surprised I don't think she knew we
thought that way (Transcription of taped interview 7/5/91).

Candy and Cissy had decided that the issue had to be discussed Cissy pointed out
tint nothing was going to get accomplished until they addressed the issue, talked to her.
Cissy seemed surprised that Donna apparently did not know they felt that way. Yet, Donna
was an outsider to the US group. She was not aware of the existence of the well organized
and powerful US group. Donna believed tint through her negotiations with the players they
had developed a collective understanding of the differences in expectations between coach
and athlete. The evidence in this chapter supports the research showing that coaches are
less cognizant of the team climate, cliques, and their own leadership style than the players
(Chelladurai, 1984; Kenow & Williams, 1992; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978, 1979). The
players thought that they had constructed meanings similar to Donna’s about the rights and
responsibilities of a member of their team. The depiction of the incongruencies in
perceptions between Donna and the players concerning factors such as the team climate, the
existence of cliques, and coach-athlete relations provide support for the assertion tint the
magnitude of the incongruencies effects the cohesiveness of the team (Canon, 1982;
Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). The following quote by Nan echoes the assertion tint the
players wanted Donna to be part of “the team” as much as she did

Oh yea, gosh, that's what made me change toward her. I
mean gosh that was some of the things tint you just wanted

to hug her or something and say I'm sorry you know. I
mean, I didn't know she felt tint way because she surely

173

didn't SHOW IT. I mean she should have tried to be more
friendly toward us in the hard times of the games to make us
feel like we could fit in with her. I mean because I think too
after one of our games after we lost we were all trying to
cheer up on the bus and she yelled at us for cheering up.
We're like it's OVER. If you would have practice, then we
could talk about the things that we did bad. But we aren't
going to sit around here and mop around for the rest of the
day like you're going to do (Transcription of taped interview
7/23/91).

Each and every player felt differently toward Donna after tint meeting. She had
pleaded with them to treat her as a member of “the team.” To them, her nonverbals in game
situations always conveyed the message that she was a fair weather teammate. That was not
what they had negotiated with her. That was not the message conveyed by her leather
ritual, huddles, expectations meetings, and most of her verbalizations. Their understanding
was that “never say die” applied to everyone and represented the attitude of the fun loving
team they had all come to know, like she said at the Bicknell Incident.

When asked if they believed Donna changed her behaviors after the “Bicknell
Incident,” the responses ranged from Candy’s skepticism as to why her behaviors changed
to strong affirmative responses. As the following quote indicates, Candy thought her
behaviors changed because she gave up on the team.

She didn‘t yell as much but I think it was just because she
gave up. I mean she yelled I mean the last game she's like
she said what have we got to lose? Just go out there and you
know any other game and tint would have been a totally
relaxing thing but to me it was like she'd given up on the
whole team like we'd lost so much there's nothing more we
can lose I mean it was like she didn't even care. Yea that
would be one thing she'd get less intense. I totally
disrespected her. I just had no respect for her. In the
beginning, I was unsure I didn't know what to think. She
kept throwing different things. She'd throw this poetry crap
at us and then she'd sit there and scream at us. I mean what
are you suppose to think ? I mean you're confused So in
some ways, I think she's good and in some ways I think
she's really bad (Transcription of taped interview 7/24/91).

Candy was sure that Donna’s mannerisms changed after her challenge at the
Bicknell Incident. She was confused by Donna. On one hand, she had no respect for
maria On the other hand, she believed tint Donna had both good and bad qualities. Later

174
in the interview, Candy attempted to explain how she knew Donna’s behavior changed

after the Bicknell Incident.

She said she was going to try and do better. I mean coaches
aren't perfect. I know that. They're people too. Just that she
tried I mean tirat says something. [what made you think she
tried what happened] I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I
can't tell you why, but in my mind, she tried, in my mind
(Transcription of taped interview 7/24/91).

Candy and Donna still had issues to resolve. But throughout most of the interview,
Candy spoke about Donna the way one would speak of a friend, by pointing out the
negative, but somehow making it known that you take the bad with the good. She
acknowledged that she liked Donna. She just didn’t always agree with her. There were no
more discussions of being treated like a dog or accusations tint Donna did not care about
them as team members. She, like all of her former Us members, knew “that’s the way she
is.” Yet they all wanted to play for her the next year.

Cissy thought that the real event tint brought the team together was the
tournaments. Cissy had the pleasure of riding with Donrn to one of the tournaments. That

experience is what convinced Cissy to turn in her US group membership card.

Probably just because of everything, just everything I think
the team finally got suddenly organized, Coach A kind of
opened more, and she I just I totally saw her in a different
light when we went up to when we went to the tournaments.
Because we drove up with her I think it was the first one but
I totally saw her in a different light. [More as a person] Uh,
uh, exactly !!! Oh that was exactly what I wanted to say and
I was trying to think how to say it (excited) because when
you're on the field you see her as oh god I messed up let's
not look at the coach maybe she won't look at me
(intonation) laughs and then when you're riding somewhere
with her and then she's joking around with you and like we
were in the back seat You know it was cool and so
(Transcription of taped interview 7/5/91).

Cissy’s responses to questions about “the team” seemed to synthesize the less
descriptive responses of her US group peers. Everyone of them brought up the meeting
after the first practice, the Bicknell Incident, and/or the tournaments as influential events in

the process of breaking down the barriers of the Coach, Them, and Us subgroups. As the

175
barriers broke down between Donna and the US group, the players felt connected to Donna

as one of them, a teammate. The following quotes support the assertion that in the players’
minds the barriers separating Donna and the US group did not exist at the end of the
season.

I liked our team and I liked how we were. We had so much

fun when it was like tournaments. We had so much fun

because everyone was good friends and I mean EVEN

Donna (Transcription of taped interview 7/23/91).

I’m glad I tried out Just all the fun we had. A lot of things.

I learned just from playing softball about TEAM

(Transcription of taped interview 7/16/91).

The players’ interpretations of Donna’s actions in the Bicknell Incident and of her
behavior after the event led them to believe tint they had finally negotiated an understanding
of what it meant to be a member of “the team.” To them, the war was over and everyone
won. The players had such a good feeling about the team that two of the seniors discussed
their feelings of sorrow that they would not get to be a part of the team next year. Their
major regret was not being able to play for Donna. The rest of the players, even Kelsey,
were eager for their next experience with Donna I say Kelsy, because Donna’s
expectations of Kelsy led to her having such a bad experience eariy in the season tint she
considered moving down to the JV .

The following chapter examines the dynamics surrounding Donna’s selection of the
starting catcher and the catcher rotation. Kelsy was one of three catchers. The evidence will
substantiate the claim tint Donna interpreted Kelsy’s natural overt behaviors as incongruent
with those of a catcher on her team. Consequently Kelsy was not given a fair chance to
work her way into the rotation. Not only did Kelsy identify Donna’s differential treatment
of her, but so did her teammates. This chapter, along with the description of Donna’s
presentation of Kelsy at the banquet suggests tint Donna’s low expectations of Kelsy’s
performance at catcher were as persistent in the face of disconfirming evidence as the

players’ fearful preinteraction expectancies of Donna as a coach.

Chapter 5
KELSY’S STORY: THE EMERGENCE OF EXPECT ANCY EFFECTS IN THE
SELECTION OF A CATCHER

One of the most consistent and supportive social networks within the organization
of the team was the threesome of Kelsy, Babs, and Sara These three players were
members of the Us group and vying for the position of catcher. Due to two logistical
factors, I had more contact with these three players than anyone else on the team, besides
Donna One reason for their prominence in my fieldnotes was the proximity of their drills
to my observational vantage point during outdoor practices. I conducted my observations
along the third or firstbase line, consequently, I was always within range of hearing as well
as seeing their interactions. The second factor tint led to these three players becoming my
key informants was tint at least one of them was always on the bench with me during the
games. Although the story of Kelsy’s struggle to be a catcher did not directly affect all
members of the team, this story illustrates the interplay between team development and
dyadic relationships, be they coach-athlete or athlete-athlete.

From previous descriptions of the strong bond amongst the Us group, one would
expect these players to find common ground even as they competed for the same position.
Indeed, these three players, as a group, seemed to epitomize the fun loving supportiveness
that I witnessed and illustrated throughout this paper. Not only had Babs, Sara, and Kelsy
become my gatekeepers to other players and insider information, but their fun loving
attitudes made my hours of observations interesting and enjoyable. Their “let’s try this
while she’s not looldng” spirit permeated the whole culture of the team. In her team
discussion about the Bicknell incident, Donna acknowledged tint she also enjoyed being
entertained by the fun loving beinvior of members of the Us group, the catchers in

176

177
particular. Because of the spirit and joy that seemed to be transmitted from the antics of this

group of players to myself and the rest of the team, it was difficult for me to witness the
following process that was involved in selecting a catcher and the catcher rotation.

From the first day of practice until the last game, I never witnessed any sign of
jealousy or disdain toward each other on the part of Babs, Sara, or Kelsy as what 1 labeled
“the catcher controversy” unfolded During indoor practices, I had identified that Sara,
Babs, and Kelsy were all vying for the position of catcher. As a former softball coach, I
perceived tint each player had different strengths and weaknesses with no one jumping out
and capturing the number one spot without a challenge. However, Donna had no difficulty
selecting her number one catcher.

Of the three catcher hopefuls, I knew the least about Kelsy until her first formal
interview. She seemed introverted around people she did not know. I had ascertained that
she and Tina were good friends. She warmed up with Tina, caught for Tina, and messed
around with Tina Other than her jovial, prankster behavior with Tina, Kelsy just seemed to
blend into the setting.

I knew about Sara because of Donna’s attempts during tryouts to convince Sara to
move up to varsity as a sophomore. In Donna’s first interview, she indicated that if Sara
had not been so hesitant about taking the leap from the freshman team to the varsity Donna
would have made her captain. Hence I assumed tint Donna perceived tint Sara would be a
talented and valuable asset. Sara continually asked questions of Donna and occasionally
challenged her ways of doing things. Although she stood out in the crowd, Sara was an
outlier within the Us group and the team. In the final interviews, every person, including
Sara, identified her as having an bad attitude.

Babs appeared to be a very likable, gregarious person. She was always joking and
playing around with anyone who would engage in such behavior. Babs always smiled and
seemed eager to get on with it whatever it might be. Countless were the times when she

was willing to test Donna’s ability to “hang loose” by exhibiting such behaviors as

178
belching, goofing off, not tucking in her shirt, or not paying attention. Donna spent much

of her time following Babs around to correct her seemingly unsoftball-like behaviors. Babs
always complied to Donna’s requests with a smile.

An examination of the sport backgrounds of the three catcher hopefuls paints a
picture of three self-motivated students who enjoy participating in competitive sports.
Kelsy had been the starting catcher on the freshman and JV softball teams at Torrey West.
During tint time frame, the teams tint she caught for lost only four games. To fine tune her
skills, Kelsy played softball in the summer and attended summer camps. She played on the
JV and varsity tennis and volleyball teams at Torrey West. Kelsy was a three sport athlete
at Torrey West.

Babs started playing softball her sophomore year. She was Kelsy’s understudy as
the catcher on the JV team. Her sport was basketball. She made the varsity team as a
freshman. This year she was captain of the varsity basketball team. Her goal was to play
basketball in college. Babs perceived that volleyball did not have enough action,
consequently, she limited her participation to softball and basketball at Torrey West. She
was the junior captain on the softball team.

Sara had played softball since she was six years old Her goal was to play softball
in college. Like Kelsy, she played in the summers and planned on attending softball camps.
Her original position in softball was left field. Sara played on the freshman and JV
volleyball and basketball teams, as well as participated in band. Sara, like Kelsy, was a
three sport athlete at Torrey West. Unlike the other two, Sara, did not consider herself a
good student. All of these young women valued their sport experiences. Kelsy had played
on teams with both Sara and Babs. Kelsy was the only one of the three who did not have
aspirations of playing a sport in college. She was also the only one who had not been a
member of a varsity team as a sophomore. The feeling one got from watching and listening
to the catchers was that they viewed themselves as package deal: they got yelled at as a

group, they messed around as a group, and they were ignored as a group. But whether

179
they were in the group or being evaluated separately, a pattern was emerging that directed

my observational focus toward the interactions or lack of interactions between Kelsy and
Donna

I perceived that Donna was marginalizing Kelsy’s effort and ability. The cues were
so subtle during the indoor practices tint I could not find enough evidence to support my
tentative assertion tint Donna was differentially reinforcing Kelsy in relation to Babs and
Sara As a former coach, I found a distinct difference in the way I viewed Kelsy’s ability
and effort and Donna’s treatment of Kelsy’s throwing and catching attempts in relation to
Sara and Babs. But until practices were moved outdoors, the tentative assertion that Kelsy
was being marginalized was loosely held together with circumstantial evidence of Donna’s
lack of interaction with Kelsy or her use of a particular tone when interacting with Kelsy.

Eadier evidence supported the assertion tint Donna valued noise and rambunctious
behavior. Sara and Babs stood out. Babs was the team goof -of f . Sara was seemingly
confident enough in her skills to challenge Donna. With the exception of Kelsy’s joking
around with Tina or the other catchers, Kelsy just did what was asked of her and blended
into the group, the setting. She was not overtly loud or seemingly entirusiastic in relation to
Sara and Babs.

As stated earlier, the tentative assertion that Donna was marginalizing Kelsy was
based more on supposition than evidence until the practices moved outside. The following
vignette is an excerpt of the first outdoor sessions tint led to the emergence of identifiable
indicators tint provided substantial evidence tlnt Donna marginalized Kelsy’s effort and
abilities as a catcher. This vignette provides evidence tint Donna’s interactions with Kelsy
were qualitatively different than those with Babs and Sara.

In the first drill in practice, Donna has Sara and Kelsy
catching for her as she hits both to the infielders and
outfielders. Donna has Kelsy practice picldng up a bunted
ball and throw it to first. On her first few attempts, Kelsy
scoops up the ball and raises up on her tiptoes as she tirrows

high arching balls to first. Donna is continually talking as
Kelsy does one after the other, “What are those rainbows?

180

Better low than high...Get off your tiptoes!” (fieldnotes
3/20/91).

Kelsy’s throws were looping, but accurate. She did appear to have a peculiar way
of stepping into her throw in relation to Babs and Sara. Yet, she was accurate. When Babs
and Sara attempted the same drill, Donna provided an occasiornl comment but not the
continual chatter she provided Kelsy. The tone, the frequency, and the type of comments
tirat Donna directed toward Kelsy were qualitatively different, but not enough to make a
valid claim tint Kelsy was being discriminated against in her attempt to be a catcher. The
players’ responses to Donna’s comments were as different as Donna’s communication with
them.

In my notes, I wrote that “Kelsy seems to pay attention. She adjusts in accordance
to Donna’s comments and instruction; however, there is not any postural or facial changes
that indicate that she is listening. Outwardly it appears the comments just roll off of her.”
In contrast, Sara and Babs either made excuses for their actions or asked questions to
clarify. Kelsy’s overt response to Donna’s instructions and corrections was different from
Sara and Babs. Were Kelsy’s overt behaviors initiating a pattern of differential
reinforcement or in reaction to Donna’s differential treatment? In the expectancy literature,
we do not address whether the coaches are differentially reinforcing players based on their
early perceptions of a player’s ability level; a player’s changing ability; or on an assessment
of the coachability of a player (Horn, 1986.

In the same practice, the catchers found out tint their secondary position would be
right field. I never heard Donna specifically discuss the issue with the catchers. She just
placed each and every one of them in right field during the course of the practice. Sara was
a left fielder turned catcher. Babs had been a utility player as well as Kelsy’s understudy.
Kelsy had never played field. The following vignette suggests tint Donna’s differential
treatment of Kelsy was not solely related to Kelsy’s seemingly aloof attitude in reaction to

Donna.

181

After Sara’s third successive missed balls, Donna slams the
bat on the ground and yells out to Sara, “Come on you can!”
Sara finally catches one and then overtirrows it. Donna
appears to be frustrated as she pounds the bat on the ground
and yells, “Overthrow and they get two!” I hear her say to
herself, “They’re a lazy bunch.” Sara comes in and Kelsy
moves out to right. Now all of the catchers have played right
field. Donna hits a grounder to Kelsy and it goes between
her legs. Donna gets quiet. Sara starts chuckling as Donna
puts the bat on the ground and asks Parn, “Have you done
the drill..? (Fieldnotes 3/20/91)

Sara missed several balls prior to the overthrow that seemed to upset Donna. Even
then, Donna used supportive statements such as “You can” to push Sara to continue.
Donna hit the bat on the ground and yelled in frustration at Sara’s overthrow, not at Sara.
Sara was called in to play catcher. Donna’s frustration after one miss by Kelsy stopped the
whole practice for a few seconds. Although Donna did not pound the bat in frustration, she
discontinued the entire practice because the ball went through Kelsy’s legs. By asking Pam
if she ind worked with the fielders on blocking the ball with their body, Donna displayed
her sense of frustration in Kelsy. This was the first practice outdoors. Pam had not taught
the f ielders anything. As the drill continued, Donna’s comment to Nan about Kelsy’s lack
of abilities suggests that Donna did not have much confidence in Kelsy’s throws from
outfield, providing more evidence to substantiate the assertion tint Donna was differentially
reinforcing Kelsy.

After the outburst, Kelsy completed all of her catches and
throws. Donna calls out, “Fielders to three!” The ball goes
to Kelsy and she tosses a high dying throw that makes it to
third, but not crisply. Her second attempt is better, but still
barely makes it to third. The throws are accurate but slow.

Donna calls out to Nan at second, “Nan keep in mind tirat
Kelsy can’t get it to third so cut it off.” Babs misses the
catch. Her throw rolls to third and nothing is said. When
Donna calls, “Outfielders to home!” All but one of Kelsy’s
throws were good enough that a cut off was not needed
Donna tells Kelsy, “nice job Kelsy.” Bab’s throws were not
as accurate but much faster. (Fieldnotes 3/20/91).

This had been a practice of error after error on everyone’s part. The comment about
Kelsy not being able to get the ball to third was said in front of the entire infield Donna had
not pointed out the inadequacies of any other player. This was the first time tint the

182
catchers had been asked to play in the outfield. Bab’s throws were more crisp. Her body

movements appeared quicker than Kelsy’s. Yet, overall, Kelsy had been more accurate.
Kelsy had never played field while Babs had There was a definite difference in Donna’s
treatment of Kelsy in relation to Babs and Sara in both positions.

Donna did provide a favorable comment for Kelsy’s throw to home, but she never
mentioned Bab’s mistakes. Sara had spent the rest of the practice catching due to her
inability to follow orders and her lack of enthusiasm to play right field. Consequently she
was being rewarded for making mistakes and not trying while Kelsy was ridiculed for
making the effort to play a position tint was foreign to her.

At the end of practice, Donna sat beside me and discussed the events of the day.
The first words out of her mouth were, “We are defensively weak.” She continued by
expressing her surprise at the players’ lack of defensive skills. I prompted her to talk about
the outfield positions. Her statement about right field provided more evidence to support
the assertion that Donna was marginalizing Kelsy: “Mentally, Sara was my first choice, but
not in skills. Babs would be my first choice, but Babs is the first catcher.” Donna never
mentioned Kelsy during the discussion either as a catcher or a fielder. Much like at the
banquet when Donna acknowledged Kelsy’s efforts at catcher while providing a running
commentary on the contributions of Babs and Sara

There were only two other practices outside prior to spring break. During those two
practices, Kelsy spent more time in right field than at the catcher position. During break,
the players were placed in groups for circuit training. Some groups were for the
development of physical fitness, others for skill training specific to one’s field position.
When Donna spent time with the fielders, the catchers spent their time alterrnting between
on task behaviors and messing around behaviors. To date, the cues that implied that a
pattern of differential reinforcement was emerging included Kelsy’s lack of practice time at
catcher, the difference in how Donna addressed Kelsy’s mistakes, tone and inflection in

verbal interactions, and Donna’s lack of interaction with Kelsy.

183
On several occasions, Sara and Babs had demonstrated an ability to get down on

themselves and seemingly give up when not performing a skill well. Additionally, from
their body posture and argtunentative behavior when in right field, it appeared that they did
not want to play the position. Kelsy seemed to try equally as hard at catcher and right field.
It was not until after the fourth game tint Kelsy seemed to get down about Donna’s
differential treatment. From my notes and comments by her teammates and Donna, it never
appeared to anyone tint Kelsy tried harder at catcher than at right field.

On April 8 while the girls were warming up their arms, I heard several girls
discussing how well Kelsy was doing. From the tone and inflection of their voices, it
seemed as though they were surprised that Kelsy was doing so well. Yet, she did not play
catcher until April 22. This discussion was interesting in the sense that all of the people
involved were on the freshman and JV team with Kelsy. They had played on league
winning teams with Kelsy catching. I wondered why they were surprised at her ability.

Two days later, Donna walked over to a group consisting of Tina, Kelsy, and Babs
and asked, “Let me see your glove.” The following vignette was not important in itself.
However, the state of Kelsy’s glove and further interaction between Kelsy and Donna
concerning the glove are important in understanding how players interpret coaches’
behaviors as a sign of support or lack of support of one’s efforts and ability.

Babs proudly holds hers up and announces, “Mine is the
best.” Tina chimes in with, “Mine’s sweet.” Donna turns
toward me and laughs at the girls eagerness to display their
gloves. Donna takes Kelsy’s glove and suggests that she oil
it. Loudiy and proudly, Kelsy announces, “I love this glove
guys!” As Kelsy demonstrates tint she could turn the glove
inside out, Babs is laughing so hard she can barely her
words out, “She loves this glove.” Without any hint of
defending her attachment to her glove, Kelsy questions the
otirers, “Don’t you love my glove? It’s been through a lot.
I’ve had since fourth grade.” Donna casually walked away
from this interaction and told everyone to take down the
equipment (Fieldnotes 4/10/91).

This was the first time that l ind observed Kelsy be so aggressive in front of

Donna. Typically, the outward appearance of any assertive or animated behavior from

184
Kelsy inppened either before Donna came onto the floor/field, when the catchers were

horsing around, or when Tina and Kelsy were doing their pitcher/catcher rituals. Never
before had I seen Kelsy so animated with such a confident body posture while in Donna’s
presence. Donna’s response to Kelsy’s directed interaction was to walk away without
comment. The next day, the day before the first non-league game, Kelsy spent the whole
practice in right field. Two times when Kelsy made mistakes, Donna literally screamed
directly at her. Babs and Sara alternated between playing catcher and messing around on
the bench with the pitchers. I wondered who would be catching the next day.

Donna made it perfectly clear who would not be catching as we sat on the bench
watching the girls warm their arms up for the first game of the season. Donna was sitting
on the end of the bench working at the batting lineup when she turned to me and said,
“I’m afraid to let Kelsy catch. She’s too slow for my blood.” Babs caught both games.
Kelsy played right field the first game. Sara did not play at all. The team lost both games.
In one game, they had fourteen errors.

Two days later, we traveled to a game site where the backstop seemed miles from
home plate. I noticed the distance as soon as I walked onto the field. As we were sitting on
the bench watching the players warm up, the scorekeeper asked Donna, “Kelsy catching?”
While looking out at the players, Donna answered, “She wants to be catching, but a little
too slow for me, especially with the backstop so far.” So Kelsy played right field in the
first game. Sara played catcher for the last few innings of the second game, while Babs
remained unchallenged as the starting catcher. The team lost both games.

At the next practice, Donrn commended Sara on her first varsity game as a catcher.
Prior to the start of practice, Donna had confided in me tint she was pleased with Sara’s
performance, but Sara needed to work on her throws and coachability. While all of the
players were warming up, Donna ind a discussion with Sara about her attitude. The

following vignette, of a drill conducted after their discussion, illustrates tint Sara continued

185
exhibiting inappropriate behaviors. Moreover, Kelsey was beginning to exhibit some

behaviors that could be construed as an attitude.

Donna told everyone to get to their positions. Kelsy goes out
to right field. Donna calls out, “Kelsy come on in here.”

The drill begins with Donna pretending to pitch to the
catchers so they can practice throw downs to first base. Babs
goes f irst Babs makes an accurate throw. Kelsy moves into
position and overthrows first base. She tries again and
overthrows Coop again. I hear her say, “What the bee .”
This is the first time that I observed Kelsy show any sign of
not caring if she executed properly. Sara moves into position
and catches the ball. She fumbles around with the ball and
looks to Donna, “I can’t get the ball out of my glove.” Pam
quickly and firmly replies, “You can!” Questioning, maybe
even challenging Pam’s statement, Sara snaps back, “I can?
I didn’t!” The drill continues without participation of the
catchers. Consequently they revert to their horsing around
behaviors. Donna hears them using Kelsy and Keslie
interchangeably, she tums to Sara and Babs and says, “Look
you have me calling her Keslie.” With a twinkle in their eye
and a fairly straight face, they say, “That’s her real name.”
“Is it? Donna asks with much smprise. “Yea it’s on her
birth certificate.” Donna tums to Kelsy and asks her.
Everyone that has heard the discussion is almost rolling on
the ground with laughter. Donna really was not sure whether
Kelsy’s name was Keslie or Kelsy. After that exchange,
Donna sent Kelsy out to right field (Fieldnotes 41 17/91).

This vignette provides evidence to substantiate the claim tint Kelsy was being
affected by Donna’s differential treatment. Kelsy’s attitude seemed to be changing. She did
not appear to strive to master the task at hand. Although she never looked excited when she
practiced, I had never heard her verbalize any negative comments regarding her prowess.
Sara, on the other hand, continued to exhibit the very behavior tint Donna had just
cautioned her about, defensive, sometimes challenging statements. Pam had repeatedly
complained about Sara’s attitude. This time apparently Pam decided to challenge it, to no
avail. Sara could or would not curb her frustrated outbursts.

One other issue arising out of this interaction was tint Donna did not know whether
Kelsy’s real name was Kelsy or Keslie. They had been together as a team for over a
month. I wondered how that made Kelsy feel. Within a half an hour of the aforementioned

incident, Kelsy kicked a post as she came in from right field. Her body posture and overall

186
withdrawal from all interaction suggested that she was unhappy. Except for that one drill,
she had been excluded from participating with the catcher group.

Donna gave Sara and Babs pointers on catching technique without looking to see if
Kelsy was anywhere to be found. Kelsy’s statement, “What the heck!” and the post
kicking supported the statement made by Babs two days earlier that Kelsy did not feel tint
Donna was giving her a fair chance at catcher. In her first formal interview, Babs voiced
her concern tint Donna was not giving Kelsy a fair shot at catcher. She told me, “Kelsy
wants to go on the JV. Yea, she has a hard time with the coach not giving her a chance.”
Two days later, the tentative assertion that Donrn seemed to be differentially reinforcing
Kelsy as a catcher was transformed into a valid assertion.

The rain had made the road to the varsity field impassable so practice was moved to
the freshman field. It was the warmest day since the season had begun. The practice began
with Donna showing more camaraderie with the players tinn she ever had before. Donna
seemed more relaxed than usual, less distant. Two things happened tint were out of the
ordirnry. First, Donna asked Kelsy directly which position she preferred, catching or right
field Second, Kelsy initiated conversation with Donna to discuss Donna’s suggestion tint
she get a new glove. As I watched these interactions unfold, I was elated at the prospect
tint Donna and Kelsy were conversing. However, I was saddened by my interpretation of
Donna’s actions and wondered how Kelsy had interpreted their interaction.

Donna calls out, “Get in your positions.” Sara, Kelsy, and
Babs hang back to catch for Donrn as she hits to the infield
As she hits to the infield, Donna asks Kelsy, “How do you
like right field? Do you prefer catching? Kelsy sullenly nods
her head to acknowledge that she prefers catching. A few
words were exchanged during this interaction that I could
not hear. Later the pitchers and catchers were sent to work
together. Kelsy and Tina pair up as usual. Candy and Tina
decide to practice catching so they reverse roles with Kelsy
and Babs. Bails are going over the backstop. Donna makes
her way over to the dirt area where the pitchers and catchers
are supposedly practicing. Kelsy, making full eye contact,
walked toward Donna and said, “I talked to my mom about a
glove and she said tint if I’m not catching, I can’t get a new

one.” Reaching out for Kelsy’s glove, Donna says, “OK.”
Once Donna had sole possession of the glove, she began

187

tightening and adjusting the laces on Kelsy’s glove she’s had
since fourth grade” (Fieldnotes 4/19/91).

Kelsy seemed confident in her attempt to discuss her glove with Donna. One
interpretation of Kelsy’s forwardness is tint she was reacting to Donna’s direct question
that seemed to signal that Donna was interested in Kelsy. Another interpretation of the
incident is that Kelsy was testing Donna to see if she had a chance at being a catcher. My
interpretation of Donna’s fixing Kelsy’s glove was tint Kelsy should not waste her money
on a new glove. She was not a contender for catcher. As the evidence will show, my
interpretation of Donna’s actions was similar to Kelsy’s. Kelsy’s first forrnai interview was
three days later.

e1 ’sIte ta' ’sCo u' ti viors

Kelsy’s main topic of conversation was her perception that Donna did not have any
confidence in her as a catcher. Kelsy and I had already developed a rapport through our
inf ormal discussions and my closeness to the catcher group. We discussed her past sport
experiences and her family. Then I asked her about Donna’s request tint she get a new
glove. Her reply substantiated the tentative assertion that Kelsy was losing hope for playing
catcher after her interactions with Donna such as those described in the previous vignettes:

Well, I’ve been catching for the last two years. And I’ve

been kind of shut off and she doesn’t look at me basically
for catcher. I’m just there you know. And she’s like telling

me to buy this $100 glove..I don’t think I want to spend a
$100 for a position I’m never going to play. She said she’d
like me to..not like GO or make a command...I always feel
bad enough not catching. She wasn’t even thinking of
playing me (Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy made it clear tint Donna suggested tint she get a new glove, not directed her
to do so. Kelsy did not believe tint it was worth buying a new glove. She perceived that
Donna was not even considering her for catcher. She was never going to play catcher.
Kelsy’s recollection of her discussion with Donna about her preference for right field or
catching illustrates that players perceive that they can identify when a coach has confidence

in them.

188

Yea, I told her catcher that’s what I’ve been doing. I’m
confident in thatl mean outfield. I’ve never played outfield
before. You have to build up confidence for that..But so in
catching, I’m losing my confidence because I haven’t done
it. And she doesn’t have any confidence in me. I can tell she
hasn’t had any (Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy perceived that she was losing her confidence in catching because she was not
doing it Donna did not have enough confidence in Kelsy to play her. Kelsey’s lack of
confidence in catching seemed directly related to her perceptions tint Donna did not expect
her to be a catcher. They had played four games and she had not caught in any of them. In
practice, she spent most of her time in the field Events such as the glove incident, provided
Kelsy with enough evidence to assert tint Donna did not have any confidence
(expectations) in her as a catcher. 1

I don’t know. I can’t quite describe it in like exactly how I
mean. But I know she doesn’t. I mean especially for a
sophomore to play over me. It’s just like sometiring is
always wrong. I don’t..I don’t..I’m not really bursting with
confidence and she can read tint and so she feels she knows
tint. I feel like she hasn’t given me a fair shot. I have not
even worked I feel like I’ve even gotten worse at catching.
Because last year Babs and Marlene played on the JV right?
I caught..l think Babs caught two games. I caught all the rest
of the games. And I mean it was like it was just like OK!
(Transcription taped interview 4122/91).

Kelsy’s tone of voice during her discussion of Donna’s lack of confidence in her
ranged from despair to anger. She could not put her finger on all the factors tint made her
think the coach did not have confidence in her, but she knew. In her mind, a coach’s
expectations could influence the way in which a person perceived herself as a person or
player. Kelsy perceived tint the primary reason Donna did not have confidence in her was
became of Donna’s perceptions tint Kelsy was not bursting with confidence.

It’s how I am. I don’t have... I think cockiness is like the
worst thing. I’ve gotten out there and made a catch and
she(Donna) is like oh be a little more excited Kelsy. She
came and watched me play this summer. She was like “oh
good job catcher.” And stuff like tint and she watched me
play before and she liked me...She said, “You did a pretty
good job.” And then Babs comes in loaded with confidence
and just knocks me down. I think she likes people tirat have
(inaudible)..It doesn’t mean I can’t be a good player just

189
because I don’t. I mean. That’s when I enjoy being catcher

because you get behind the mask and no one can see you
(Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy’s perception was tint Donna placed a great deal of value on one’s overt
cockiness or confidence. This supposition is supported by the evidence in the earlier
chapters. She did not feel tint Donna selected Babs over her because she was more skilled,
but because she carried herself more confidently. From Kelsy’s perspective, Donna did not
have any confidence in her because she did not posture herself confidently. As Kelsy
continued with her assessment of the situation, she provided me with some valuable
information about herself. She needed assurance from coaches that they had confidence in
her. Other coaches had provided her with the support tint she needed Kelsy’s past
experiences with coaches was mediating her interpretation of Donrn’s verbal messages:

You know it’s like well. I don’t know. I do my job and I
don’t expect to get paid, but I don’t expect to get knocked
down either for what I do. I’m not a real confident person. I
need coaches to give me confidence. That’s what Milly did.
She knew what she wanted me to do. It’s like when I did
things wrong it wasn’t like I didn’t know what I was doing.
I knew I did it wrong. The coach is acting like I don’t know
(Transcription of taped interview 4122/91).

To Kelsy, you are on the field to do a job and you just do it. She did not expect any
special recognition when she excelled or degradation when she made a mistake. The
distinction tint she made between the way she interpreted Donna’s correction of her
mistakes and former coaches was succinct and to the point. On one hand, she perceived
tint Milly knew tint she could do what was asked of her. She just made a mistake. On the
other hand, Donna did not think Kelsy knew what she was doing. Donna was treating
Kelsy differently than former coaches and differently in relation to Babs and Sara.

Kelsy continued to explain what affect Donna’s differential reinforcement was
having on her. She had already mentioned that she believed she was getting worse. The
following statement seemed to explain why she kicked the post and made her “What the

heck!” statement. This quote supports the tenet underlying expectancy effects. If a player

190

perceives that she is being marginalized, it can have an adverse affect on the player’s self -
perceptions about her capabilities (Horn, 1984).

It’s like I don’t think I’m gaining anything this year. I’m

getting scared to death to catch. I’m really scared you know.

She says I turn away and stuff. It’s because I haven’t caught

I’m scared of the ball. I’m just going to take it now, you

know. I’m just going to play softball because I like the

game. I guess I don't know what I’ll do next year

(Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).

Babs and others had alluded to Kelsy’s desire to move down to the junior varsity.
She never mentioned it. Kelsy was giving up on playing catcher. The evidence seemed to
substantiate her claim that Donna did not expect much from her. And from her own
statement, as a result, she felt less confident in her own skills as a catcher. She perceived
that she was getting worse.

This was a difficult interview to conduct. From my observations as a former coach,
Kelsy appeared to be more consistent and less disruptive and moody than Sara and Babs.
As a participant observer, I ind insider information that may have helped bridge the gap
between Donna’s perceptions of Kelsy’s intensity and the researcher’s version of the reality
of the situation. Yet, I was unable to step in and clear up a situation tint eventually led to
negative experiences for Donna, Babs, Sara, and Kelsy.

I asked Kelsy if she thought anyone on the team had an attitude. This question
arose from her discussion of Donrn’s favoring people with outwardly confident and cocky
body language. This discussion led to more details about how players detect when a coach
has high or low expectations of a player.

Maybe Marlene. We were really good friends. I think it’s
because Coach likes Cathy a lot and whatever Cathy does
she’s (coach) not going to think any less of her. We all
know that so Marlene, OK so I guess I don’t have to try
because I won’t ever play short. That could be basically it
(her attitude). But I guess I do the same thing too. I’m never
going to catch. [how do you know tint] Because she told me

I would catch the second Loa game (Transcribed from taped
interview 4122/91).

191

Kelsy perceived tint Marlene had an attitude. Kelsy perceived tint Marlene’s
attitude was a result of believing that the coach was not playing her at short stop because
Cathy, Donna’s favorite, also played that position. She mentioned tint Sara was
developing an attitude due to her lack of catching time. Kelsy continued this discussion by
describing how she could tell who a coach’s favorite players might be.

Like when they do something really bad, it’s like “Oh come
on you can do it.” Her tone and intonation suggests a plea to
keep trying. They (coaches) never lose confidence in them.
[on this team?] Yea, Cathy and Sara. I think botir of them
have the same confidence tint she (coach) likes. It’s one of
those things (Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy began her description of how one can tell a coach’s favorites in general
terms. Then she made specific references to players that she perceived to be Donna’s
favorites, Sara and Cathy. As we continued our discussion, I reminded her of the many
instances when Donna had yelled at these two players. Kelsy’s comparison of Donna’s
yelling at the perceived favorites and her focused on the differences in tone and quality of
the interactions.

It doesn’t seem like the same way. She’s yelling at tirem it
just seems different. The way she YELLS. It’s like I
remember when Cathy missed a grounder. It’s like, “Come
on Cathy, I know you can do it. What’s wrong? What’s
up?” It’s like yes, she’s mad but she KNOWS she can do it
(raises voice to make point). I mean if she got mad at me
she’d be like acting like “Don’t you know what you’re doing
out there?” (sarcastic tone). WHEN SHE yells at Cathy, I
feel she’s yelling for her, but when she yells at me, it’s to
put me down (Transcription of taped interview 4/22/91).

Kelsy perceived tint Donna used a different tone and type of message when she
yelled at her favorites. To Kelsy, Donna seemed to be yelling at and for the favorites while
she yelled at Kelsy to put her down. In Kelsy’s mind, Donna was putting her down in
relation to the favorites and the other catcher hopefuls. Interestingly, in her final interview,
Kelsy told me tint she believed Donna had been supportive of everyone in her yelling.
“You just had to get used to her way.” Kelsy’s interpretation of Donna’s yelling had

changed in a month.

192
Kelsy seemed to have a negative attitude toward Donna I decided to engage her in a

conversation that would demonstrate if she perceived that there were other players being
marginalized or if she believed tint Donna was only picking on her. Kelsy mentioned a
number of instances that she perceived to be cases of Donna’s diff erentiai treatment of
players. The following statement about Donna’s treatment of Molly was the most detailed
of her illustrations. Her explanation of Donna’s substituting Tina for Molly in the batting

lineup illustrates how powerful Kelsy perceived the expectations of a coach were on an
athlete.

Molly, she just took Molly out of the batting order and put
Tina in. I’m sorry, I’m sorry but if she (coach) keeps
repeating tint Tina is a power hitter and Tina IF YOU
KIEP TELLING SOMEBODY THAT YOU KNOW
THEY’RE GOING TO BE A GOOD HITTER, it’s how you
look at something. I mean, I could be a (inaudible) if ..I
don’t think a coach should have expectations of a person.
Basically people used to tirink I was good, “Oh yea Kelsy
doing a good job.” Then everybody’s attitudes changed
about me (Transcription of taped interview 4122/91).

 

Tina was Kelsy’s best friend. Yet, she vehemently and almost jealously believed
tint Tina would become a good hitter because “Coach” kept telling Tina she was a hitter.
Altirough inaudible on the tape, my notes indicate tint Kelsy said she could be good at
anything if those were the expectations. Kelsy perceived tint the players’ attitudes changed
toward her abilities based on Donna’s expectations. Earlier in this section, a passage
highlighted Kelsy’s peers, her teammates for two years, being surprised at how well she
was doing. Kelsy perceived that her demise in the eyes of her peers was related to Donna’s
differential treatment of her in relation to the other catchers. Kelsy assumed tint Tina would
become a good hitter because of the messages Donna sent to Tina by replacing people in the
batting order. Kelsy perceived tint she was getting worse at catcher because of lack of
playing time. Kelsy believed that her lack of playing time was a direct result of Donna’s
lack of confidence in Kelsy as a catcher.

An overwhelming amount of evidence was surfacing to support Kelsy’s assertion

tint Donna was marginalizing Kelsy in relation to Sara and Babs. Why did she suspect tint

193
Donna was marginalizing her? Kelsy suspected that Donna did not have any confidence in

her as a catcher. Donna used a different tone, a different style of structuring her sentences.
She vacillated between either ignoring Kelsy’s attempts or focusing on Kelsy’s mistakes.
More importantly, Donna was not playing her at catcher. Kelsy spent more time practicing
at right field than Sara and Babs. Kelsy perceived that Donna’s differential treatment of her
in relation to Sara and Babs had to do with personal characteristics, not ability.

Kelsy never complained, nor did she seem to find playing right field to be
demeaning. The other two players, Sara and Babs, seemed to haif-heartedly take their turns
at right. There were times in practice when either Pam or Donna would allude to their
suspicions that Sara, in particular, but also Babs, may not have tried as hard in right field
so they would not have to play the position.

I_-Ier jijgammates’ Views on the Catcher Controversy

Was Kelsy less skilled than Babs and Sara? As illustrated earlier, Donna thought
she was too slow. Donna’s basis for that belief may have been what Kelsy perceived as
Donna’s attention to one’s overt eagerness; facial expressions, noisy support, nonverbal
behaviors. The following speculations by other players about why Kelsy did not play early
in the season seemed to confirm Kelsy’s assertion tint Donna’s basis for not playing her at
catcher was related to her lack of outward cockiness or confidence, i.e, personal
characteristics rather than ability. I engaged every person on the team in a discussion about
the catching rotation in her final interview. Without exception, the players believed that
Donna placed a great deal of value on one’s outward appearance of enthusiasm and softball
readiness. The following section will substantiate Kelsy’s claim that Donna seemed to base
her lack of confidence in Kelsy on the difference in her outward signs of enthusiasm,
intensity, and commitment in relation to Sara and Babs.

In the previous chapter, Candy had been accused of having an attitude by Donna,
based on her lack of eye contact. Not one player believed tint Candy or Kelsy had an
attitude. Candy was the informal leader of the team, more importantly, the Us group. Kelsy

194
and Candy spent much of their time together as students (juniors) and in practice because of

the pitcher-catcher relationship. In the following statement, Candy asserts that Donna
misread Kelsy’s intensity level.

Kelsy’s cool. I love Kelsy. As far as a player, she's real
timid. She doesn't have a lot of confidence and so you got to
constantly feed her with confidence. And she's a good
player. She can be a really good player. She never thinks
coaches like her. [fair in rotation?] Yea, I mean she would
try give each one a chance. I think she made a good call with
Kelsy. She kind of said that she didn't think tint Kelsy was
ready. I think if she would have given Kelsy more support,
as far as, I think you can do it . Kelsy needs a lot of support.
I think she started working with her toward the end because
Kelsy starting catching more. Coach is the type of person
that if you're not like YEA I'M READY then she expects
you as not being so supportive. Yea and Kelsy is not tint
way Kelsy would be like, “Yea, I’m ready (low mumble).
But really insick Kelsy would be like, “YEAI! I’M READY
NAH NAH NAH.” Kelsy is just not the type of person that
gets really hyped outwardly (Transcription of taped
interview 7/24/91).

Candy, like Kelsy, believed that Donna placed a lot of emphasis on overt
demonstrations of enthusiasm/intensity. Candy perceived tint Donna had not shown Kelsy
enough support to prepare her to catch early in the season. For that reason, to some extent,
she agreed with Donna’s decision not to play Kelsy early on. Candy believed tint Donna’s
lack of initial support was due to her focus on one’s outward appearances.

In the section about Donna, the evidence supported the assertion that loud signified
intensity and involvement to her. With few exceptions, the players and Donna used “quiet”
in their description of Kelsy. Interestingly, those closest to her used the word in a context
similar to this: “Kelsy is not as quiet as everyone thinks. Everyone thinks Kelsy is quiet.”
Even if a player described Kelsy as quiet, she would mention tint Kelsy was a hard
working, team player who never gave up. Cathy’s description of Kelsy as a teammate was
typical of the players’ descriptions of Kelsy.

I don't know. The biggest word I can think of is quiet
because she never says anything. She’s a good player and
she’s always trying. And she always wants to do as well as

she can do. She wasn’t really upset when she didn’t get
catch she thought everybody has to have a time to try and

195
everything she didn’t mind playing outfield which I don’t
think she ever played before. She’ll go with whatever. If
you tell her to do something she’ll do it. She’s like she
always she wants the team to do well she’s just not loud like
everybody else (Transcription of taped interview 6/20/91).

Cathy described Kelsy as a player who did what she was told without any
discussion or argument. Kelsy always did what was best for the team. Interestingly, Cathy
perceived that Kelsy accepted tirat she was not playing catcher. This perception may due to
the difference in interactions amongst the Them and Us group. Except for the events
leading up to the Bicknell incident, I could not find one instance in my notes where
negative discussions about Donna were made by members of the Them group or by
members of the Us in front of Them. For that reason, Cathy’s views on that particular topic
might be considered an outsider’s perspective. She was not privy to the meanings and
perceptions tint members of the Us group attached to Donna’s behaviors.

Cathy’s description of Kelsy closely matched Kelsy’s own description of herself.
Kelsy saw herself as a team player who did her job without any expectations for extra
rewards. Cissy’s assessment of which catcher was better provides more evidence that
Kelsy was intensely involved in “team.”

Each did one thing better than the other. Totally all and all
probably Kelsy because Kelsy simply because Sara used to
get really mad and she’d let that interfere with her catching.
Babs just kind of did stupid stuff sometimes(laughing). She
wouldn’t really pay attention you know. And Kelsy could be
so mad and she could be getting screamed at, but she would
just kind of zone everybody out. She didn’t really care, and
she would still be able to catch (Transcription of taped
interview 7/5/91).

No matter how disheartened Kelsy got, Cissy perceived tint Kelsy never let outside
factors affect her catching. Cissy perceived tint all of the catchers had their strengths and
weaknesses. The players seemed to have a great deal of respect for Kelsy’s intensity level
and ability. Cissy thought tint Kelsy lacked the “beasty arm” of a catcher. From tint

standpoint, Cissy could understand why Kelsy may not have played early in the season.

196
She lacked the stereotypical aspects of catching- a “beasty arm” and the “Grr” to intimidate

people.

But I tirink everybody was like tint. Because I know I was
like that. Just because Kelsy doesn’t come across as being as
aggressive and as - when you think of catcher, you think of
this person who has this BEASTY arm and GRRR. Sara is
loud and Babs is loud and Babs would give looks to people
on third and Kelsy is so laid back and is so quiet. I think tint
was one of the reasons just because she’s not really

BEAST Y. But she’s good (Transcription of taped interview
7/5/91).

Cissy assumed that everyone, including Donna, had similar expectations of a
catcher. Kelsy did not seem to live up to those expectations. Sara and Babs were loud.
Kelsy was not. Donna believed that “ballplayers” were loud. Yet Cissy believed tint Kelsy
was as skilled as the others. The following quote by Nan provided more evidence to
support Kelsy’s assertion that Donna’s dif f erentiai reinforcement of her was based more on
Donna’s interpretatiOn of Kelsy’s outward appearance than her ability.

I love Kelsy. A remarkable catcher I think. She kind of got
gypped out of her year. She’s a very good catcher Kelsy.
Works real hard, too, at least through my eyes. She’s
always working hard, and Kelsy will get down easily. [Why
think D no confidence?] Yea, and well we were kind of
being mean about this. But I mean Babs is very athletic and
so is Sara I mean Kelsy is, too. But Babs and Sara have
that look about them. The short haired, uh, tough look.
Kelsy is a pretty little girl. She dresses all nifty and stuff you
know. And I think when coaches see tint like maybe for D
that's how I feel that she thought she couldn't expect that
much from Kelsy, not as motivated (Transcription of taped
interview 7/23/91).

Nari was blunt. Kelsy got gypped out of playing. Nan’s best friend on the team
was Babs. If Kelsy played more, Babs would play less. Yet, Nan believed that Kelsy may
have lost out because Babs and Sara “have that look about them,” supporting the assertion
tint Donrn was differentially reinforcing Kelsy because of factors unrelated to catching.
Kelsy dressed all nifty. They had that “short haired, uh, tough loo ” Nan perceived that
Donna expected less from Kelsy because she did not outwardly appear to be as motivated.

She did not seem as involved. Kelsy was not overtly loud as defined by Donna

197
Although Babs did not specify why Kelsy did not play more, she did allude to

Kelsy’s overt calmness. Babs perceived that she had a better arm, but they all had their
strengths and weaknesses. Bab’s discussion of why Kelsy was being marginalized
suggests that Kelsy was not playing because she was not a favorite:

Well, with all three of our catchers there's a good point like I

sort of think I have the best arm going to second and. Quiet

(Kelsy), like do anything told, you can’t tell when do

(Kelsy) sweet play. The coach, well see, Kelsy wasn't like.

You know how most of us joked around with the coach?

And I think the coach like picks the people she likes I mean

she likes everybody, but then she (Donna) has favorites

(Transcription of taped interview 7/16/91).

Kelsy was quiet. She would do what she was told without expecting attention for
doing a sweet play. Babs perceived that Donna had favorites, and Kelsy was not one of
them. She never mentioned that Kelsy was not ready to catch. She just did not interact the
same with “Coach.” In the following statement, Babs echoes Kelsy’s tenet tint a player
lives up or down to her perceptions of the coach’s expectations of her:

Yea, a little bit. She didn't even play Sara I don't think she
had confidence in her. [In you?] Yea, she did. I hope she
did. I don't know. I went up there thinking she did. Because
if I wouldn't have, I would have done worse probably
(Transcription of taped interview 7/16/91).

Babs perceived tint without knowing tint Donna had confidence in her she
probably would have played worse. Kelsy perceived that she was doing worse because
Donna did not have any confidence in her. Babs mentioned tint Kelsy was quiet and that
she did not mess around with coach as much as the others, suggesting a lack of interaction.
She did not directly link those factors to Donna’s selection of favorites or starters, but she
allu®d to those factors as differences between Kelsy and Donna’s favorites.

Kelsy thought tint Donna had a lot of confidence in Tina However, Tina was
never mentioned as one of Donna’s favorites by any player. Most people described Tina as
quiet and a loner. She thought Kelsy was loud She also thought tint Kelsy did not get a
fair shot at playing catcher. In the following quote, Tina described Kelsy and why she

believed tint Kelsy did not get a fair shot at catcher.

198

Everyone thinks she's quiet, but if YOU GET TO KNOW
HER. She's louder than anyone else I know.(laughing)[
treated fairly] NO! But maybe that's just because she's my
friend. I don't know. She, well, she never started her until
like the middle of the year. I don't think. She put her in right

field most of the time which she never played before, but she
did all right. I don't know. It just seemed like she favored
the other ones. I don't know. She just worked with them
more and gave them more chances if they messed up. In
practices and in games (Transcription of interview 7/18/91).

Tina believed tint Donna favored Sara and Babs over Kelsy. She qualified her
statement by saying that she was Kelsy’s friend Maybe she was a bit prejudiced.
However, Tina identified some of the same cues tint Kelsy and other players had in
determining if Kelsy was differentially reinforwd: quality and tone of interaction, playing
right field in practices and not playing catcher in a game until the middle of the season.

Somehow in her discussion, Tina brought up an incident when she stole a base
without permission from Donna. The following quote shows that even though a coach may
differentially reinforce a player in a way tint signals a lack of confidence, players don’t
always live down to those expectations.

Yea, but I'm too slow. Why should I go in the first place?
[who said] SHE (Donna) did !! [do you think slow] I must
be from everyone telling me. I am. I started thinking. Yea, I
think I'm slow. I'm not. I think for my size, I'm not slow.
But I think I'm slow compared to other people. [others look
at your size to determine] I think the way I run. Look like I
run slow to you? (asks me) I run funny. I don't know. [on
BB court] Yea, I run pretty fast. (Transcription of taped
interview 7/18/91).

Tina stole base without permission from Donna. She knew that she would get in
trouble. However, she did it anyway. Tina perceived that Donna would never send her
because Donna thought she was slow. Everyone told her she was slow. Consequently, she
was beginning to think she might be. She decided to go for it. Tina was safe. If she had not
been safe, Tina acknowledged the consequences would have been monumental. Unlike
Kelsy, Tina perceived that she could do it without any affirmation from Donna Tina may
have attempted such a feat because she had been gaining confidence from Donna’s

differential treatment of her as an awesome hitter.

199
To my knowledge, only one other player challenged Donna’s control on the bases -

Cathy. Cathy had over 50 errors at short stop during the season. Every player, with the
exception of Cathy, named Cathy as Donna’s favorite player. Although she was going
against Donna’s control on the bases, Cathy’s past history with Donna may have provided
her with the confidence to attempt the steal or she may have thought that her consequences
would not be as monumental as Tina envisioned. None of the players was allowed to steal
without a sign from Donna Neither one of these players had challenged any of Donna’s
directives previously, but both had confidence in their ability to steal. Donna’s high
expectations for their hitting or leadership skills may have given them the confidence to
challenge Donna.

Donna’s firceptigns of me “Catcher Controversy”

In her final interview, Donna candidly discussed the catcher situation. As with the
players, I asked Donna to describe each player. The following was Donna’s description of
Kelsy. The quote provides evidence to support the assertion that Donna seemed to
differentially reinforce Kelsy because of her perceptions tint Kelsy lacked the enthusiasm
and intensity to play catcher.

Slow (drop out low tone) slow in aggressiveness. I guess.
She’ll get up, and she’ll make the throw. She won’t be in a
particular hurry, and she wants to get them out but doesn’t
want it enough to make her do it quicker enough to sweat,
you know. (attitude?) OK except for she wouldn’t look me
in the eye. She was so quiet...I didn’t I don’t have much on
her. I didn’t get to know her a lot. She would never even
look me in the eye. The one time she did come out and give
me a straight answer I asked her “Do you prefer outfield or
catcher?” But that’s because I asked her a very specific
question, and she had to give me an answer. Usually kind of
shrugging her shoulders and tint was that (Transcription of
taped interview 6/19/91).

Donna did not perceive Kelsy eager enough to sweat. She seemed slow in
aggressiveness. She never looked her in the eye. Donna did not feel she got to know
Kelsy. She remembered that Kelsy gave her one direct answer because she asked Kelsy a

direct question. Otherwise, Kelsy usually shrugged her shoulders. That was the extent of

 

200
their knowledge of each other. There was no mention of her lack of skill, only her apparent

lack of intensity.

I pushed Donna by asking if Kelsy’s perceived lack of intensity had anything to do
with her not catching in the beginning. Her response provided evidence to support the
assertion that she differentially reinforced Kelsy because of her outward signs of readiness,
not skill. When Kelsy was finally put into the catching rotation regularly, it was not
because Donna realized that Kelsy was capable. This point is illustrated in Donna’s
discussion of the impact Kelsy’s overt signs of readiness had on her early decision to not
play her.

Thinking of her as so mellow? I think it probably did

influence it. When I saw how quiet and slow she went about

everything I decided there was just no way she could be a

catcher. That’s why she was the one out in right field. And

then I figured out tint Babs was going to be real lazy and

that Sara just wasn’t going to last long. And I tried her

again. I figured, you know, what the hell, nothing to lose by

now after getting whooped so many times. She knocked a

lot of things down. I was pleased with what she did

(Transcription of taped interview 6/19/91).

Donna never mentioned any differences in skill level. Initially, Donna did not play
Kelsy because she perceived tint Kelsy’s overt characteristics were not compatible with the
position of catcher. Kelsy got to play because Sara and Babs had not lived up to Donna’s
expectations. They were not living up to her expectations. Along with all of the inner
struggles within the catching position, Donrn was dealing with the team losing more and
more games with a final record of 8-24. Donna believed tirat she had nothing to lose putting
in Kelsy. When Kelsy played, Donna was pleawd with what she saw. Yet at the banquet,
Donna expressed her glee at Babs being “her” catcher and the prospect of having Sara on
the team for two more years.
Earlier in her final interview, Donna discussed how she would interact with the

freshman and JV coaches differently the next year. I asked her if there were any other
things she would have done differently. The following statement indicates that upon

reflection Kelsy should have been catching earlier in the season. Donna’s perceptions of

 

201
Kelsy had changed, but not drastically enough for Donna to gloss over her

accomplishments at the banquet.

I would have started Kelsy. And from the beginning , I
would have started Kelsy even though her throw was a little
bit weak But at the beginning of the year that might not have
hurt us so much with everybody not quite into it. And
(pause) I may be would have left Sara on JV. And just
worked Babs harder (Transcription of taped interview
6/19/91).

Babs got lazy because she was handed the starting role. Sara may not have been
ready for the move to varsity. Sara’s lack of playing time may have fueled her attitude that
put her out of the rotation. Consequently, everyone involved in the catcher controversy
may have been hindered in their quest to be a catcher.

Kelsy was given a chance, and she came through Donna liked what she saw when
Kelsy caught. Kelsy eventually became the starting catcher. One could see her body
posture and outward demeanor become louder with each game. Donna was finally putting
her in the rotation. Eventually she was playing over Babs and Sara. This must have been a
sign to Kelsy that Donna had confidence in her. However, in her final interview, Kelsy
was not sure why Donna played her more.

I don't think I got better. I think she gave me a few more
chances, and I don't think I was any worse than them. So I
mean, I know I don't have an awesome arm. But I don't
think any of us do. And, urn, [any more fair in end] I
couldn't believe she let me catch for pie-districts. I mean,
she hardly ever let me catch. I'd be like... at first I thought
she's like put the three of us rotating. But then Babs would
get more time. And I'd always seem like I would be the last
one in. I was like I don’t understand why she let me catch. I
mean, I was happy and everything but. [show had
confidence] I wasn’t sure....you know the fielding averages
for the catchers. I sat and there worked it out, and I had
better percentages on amount of bases stolen on me and put
outs. I had a much better percentage on put outs and a little
on bases stolen. And I was the only catcher to throw
anybody out at second even. And it was right there, I had a
better percent. And I only caught two less innings than Sara
and quite a few less than Babs (Transcription of taped
interview 7/23/91).

 

202
Even though she finished the season as the starting catcher, she caught less than

Sara and Babs. Kelsy had done the math. According to her calculations of the catchers’
fielding percentages, Kelsy was more accurate than Sara and Babs. From tint standpoint, it
seemed logical to Kelsy that she was playing. She was not sure that Donna had more
confidence in her, but she was happy that she was catching. Not only did she get to catch
in the pre-district game, she got to catch for Tina in a game. Kelsy’s excitement upon
hearing tirat she got to catch for Tina shone through her mellow, quiet, slow, exterior like a
ray of light from a lighthouse. Whether Donna had more confidence in her or not, the act of
placing her at catcher helped to build back up Kelsy’s confidence in her catching. Kelsy
attended a softball camp tint summer. According to Kelsy, she could hardly wait for
softball to start, to play for Donna Kelsy was eager to show Donna that she should be the
one Donna presents as “her” catcher at the next banquet, not Sara or Babs.
Summary of Chapter

In this chapter, I attempted to provide a detailed description of the pattern of
interaction between Donna and Kelsy that influenced Kelsy’s attitude about herself, Donna,
and the sport. Moreover, I wanted to provide the reader with a better understanding that
communication is not just an observable act, it is the process through which the players and
team coordinate their efforts to become a team. Communication is shaped by team and the
process of becoming a team, a dynamic changing process. Consequently, one’s
perceptions of self in relation to the other can change one’s meanings and behaviors
(Colorny & Rhoades, 1983) as did Kelsy’s and Donna’s in relation to the meanings the
attached to the behaviors of the other. Although Kelsy did not appear to conform to
Donna’s initial expectations of her performance as a catcher and “ballplayer,” her story
provides strong evidence for Hom’s attempt at defining the process involved in some
players living up or down to their coaches initial expectations of their performance, attitude,

or fortitude.

 

203
Through her own research and a review of the literature, Horn (1986) has proposed

the most comprehensive outline for understanding the processes underlying the Pygrnalion
Effect The material in this chapter provides the reader with evidence to support Horn’s
model as well as providing some insight into the mediating factors that influence uses to
illustrate how a coach’s expectancies of a player may influence his/her performance and
psychological growth. Horn divides the process of a coach’s expectations of a player
becoming a reality into four steps. First, a coach develops expectations about the athlete
tint the coach uses to predict the quality of her performance and behavior during the
season. These expectations can be based on personal attributes or performance attributes
and may be accurate or inaccurate. Second, the coach’s expectations of the player affect
his/her behavior toward the player. There will be a pattern of behavior tint signals
difference in the type, amount, quality, and frequency of the interactions between tint
player and the coach in relation to other players. Third, a coach’s differential treatment of a
player can affect the players’ performance, self -perceptions, and psychological growth.
Last, but not least, the player’s conformity to the coach’s original expectations is the final
stage of the self -f ulfilling phenomenon. Kelsy’s story provides us with strands of evidence
to connect Hom’s four basic ingredients into a more precise instrument to analyze,
describe, and predict the existence or potential emergence of expectancy effects between the
coach and a player.

Throughout this thesis, and in this chapter in particular, my description of the
communication within in the setting highlights the basic premise underlying the symbolic-
interactionist perspective. Coach-athlete relations are a series of interactions, not isolated
acts. The dyadic interactions between Kelsy and Donna had an direct impact on Sara, Babs,
Kelsy, Donna, and at times the performance of the team on the field. The trials and
tribulations associated with Kelsy’s quest to catch for Donna paralleled the neogtiations

between Donna’s vision for this team and the players’ vision of a team.

 

204
The findings of this study provide evidence for the premise that the meanings that

members of interscholastic high school softball teams attach to “the team,” the behaviors of
the other, and their behaviors emerge from their interpretations of their perceptions of self
by the other and the meanings that they attach to the behaviors of the other. More
importantly, the evidence in the body of this paper supports the assertion tint context plays
an integral role in one’s interpretation of objects, events, and behaviors of the other.
Consequently, one must hypothesize that the evolutionary process of becoming a “team”
will be qualitatively different dependent on the sport, the level of competition, gender, and
organimtionai factors such as number of games, practices, resources, etc. Based on this
theoretical assumption, the team tint Donna and the nine players are looking forward to

returning to will be qualitatively different than “the team” at the banquet.

 

Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS

Unlike our vision of “coach,” our conceptualization of an interscholastic sport team
seems more perceptible. An interscholastic team is a group consisting of players and a
coach volunteering to work interdependently toward the common goal of competing against
other interscholastic teams within a district/league. While competing, this group expects to
have fun, learn new skills, and develop friendships in their quest to do their best. The steps
to becoming a team are pretty straightforward. It all begins when the administration hires a
qualified coach. From then on, the coach is in charge. She/he designs and prepares to
implement a program that provides the players with the opportunity to develop their
physical, mental, and emotional skills in the competitive arena She/he selects the best
available student-athletes to compete within the structural framework of the school, the
league, and the state association. When the list of selected players is posted, the coach and
the players officially become a team. We envision that if a coach provides clear and concise
messages and more positive than negative reinforcement, she/he will successfully
coordinate the players into a team tint has fun, learns, and wins.

According to this definition, Donna and the players became a team on March 8,
1991, the first day of practice. Donna was hired the previous year to build an
interscholastic softball program at Torrey West High School. She was rehired based on her
desire to continue and her demonstrated ability to coach the previous year. She held tryouts
and selected the best available thirteen players to become members of the varsity softball
team. She posted the list and the next day they met in the lockerroom. Each and every
participant mentioned three specific goals: have fun, be competitive, and learn about

tiremselves and softball. They were a team.
205

206

No one will deny that they were a team on March 8, 1991; however, the body of
this paper presents evidence to support the claim that the team on March 8, 1991 was
different than “the team” at the banquet. The differences were not only in the quality and
quantity of the interactions between and amongst Donna and the players, but also in the
meanings individuals and groups of individuals attached to objects, events, and others over
the course of the season. Through negotiation and renegotiation within the setting, a
collective “we” evolved tint seemed to understand and philosophically agree on what it
meant to be a member of “the team.” Yet as the interviews show, even within the collective
we, individuals behaved differently in relation to the meanings and perceptions they
attached to objects (third baseline, bench), events (games vs. practices, cheering), and
others (Donna, Candy, Kelsy).

Within the body of this paper, there is evidence to suggest that factors such as
“coach-athlete interactions,” “culture,” and “communication,” which have traditionally been
depicted as stable features of a team, are a dynamic set of changing relationships that
shaped and were shaped by the preexisting reality (school, league, district, association
rules, societal stereotypes) of the team (Griffin, Skivington, & Moorhead, 1987). For these
reasons, it would behoove us to apply the conceptualization of organization described by
Shein (1985) to the concept of team. From this perspective, teams would be viewed as
communication phenomena, that is, groups developed and maintained through continuous
communication (interacts and interpretations) among its participants. This corresponds to
the evidence portraying the Torrey West softball team as a result of constant negotiations of
meaning amongst and between the participants. The team on the first day of practice was
very different than “the team” after the Bicknell incident.

This assumption about “team” correlates very well with the basic assumptions of
the symbolic-interactionist perspective tint the construction of meaning is dynamic and ever
changing. We are continually negotiating and renegotiating our meanings and perceptions

through social interaction (Blumer, 1969).We act on the basis of our interpretations of the

207

meanings that we attach to objects, events, and the behaviors of others, not in response to
actual actions. Our meanings are affected by our experiences within a particular reference
group and are constantly being modified through repeated interactions (Berger & Luckman,
1967; Mead, 1927). This was evidenced by the continual reconstruction of the meanings
that Donna and the players attached to team and their perceptions about their experiences
within the team.

One specific example of how the players’ meanings changed through repeated
interaction was the difference in the meanings the newcomers attached to Donna’s
behaviors in the beginning (almost fearful) and in the end (that’s her). Based on this change
in their interpretation of Donna’s behaviors, their behaviors changed. Likewise, as Donna’s
interpretations of the players’ messing around behaviors changed, so did Donna’s
acceptance of such activities as bust a sag and the general jovial attitude of the players. The
fun loving nature of the players became as normalized as Donna’s “look” or her yelling.

From this perspective, communication is the process of interpreting the meanings
tint one attaches to the behaviors of the other. The meanings that one attaches to events,
objects, and the behaviors of the other are mediated by factors such as past experiences
(preinteraction expectancies, socialization through/into sport-coaching, etc.), context
(games, practices, meetings, winning, losing, etc.), and factors such as position, years of
experience, bench or starter, etc.

The findings in this study also provide strong validation for the premise tint
communication is an interpretative process. Viewing communication as a process enables
us to conceptualize “team” as an organization in a continual negotiation of the ebbs and
flows created by the human interactions within the setting. This basic premise of symbolic-
interactionists is the thread that runs throughout the entire body of this paper. From March
8, 1991, to May 29, 1991, the meanings and perceptions tint each participant attached to
objects, events, and the behaviors of the other were interpreted as “reality.” There were

multiple realities and multiple sites of culture on the team (Fine, 1984; Gregory, 1983;

208

Sackrnan, 1992). This supports the premise tint because of the interpretative nature of
communication a situation is created where there may be subcultures within an organization
tint make up the universal culture of “the team.” The universal culture of the team is the
interaction between the assumptions and theories the leader brings to the group and what
the group learns from their subsequent experiences with each other (Louis, 1981; Gregory,
1983; Shockiey-Zalabak & Morley, 1994). Even though, as the coach, Donna held the
most the most influential role in promoting her vision of team culture, the newcomers
played a critical role in the negotiation process leading to the culture of “the team.” In other
words, the culttue is the shared understanding of a symbolic system of beliefs, values,
expectations, and assumptions that allows the participants to coordinate and act as a team.
Culture is transmitted through modeling, imitation, instruction, negotiation, rituals, story-
telling, and confrontation (Harrison & Carroll, 1991).

The collective “we” tint evolved was an outgrowth of the constant negotiations
between Donna and the players, more specifically Donna and the newcomers. The changes
in the socioemotiorni climate of the team paralleled the evolution of a shared understanding
of what it meant to be a member of “the team.” McMurray (1994) found that the
organizational climate directly relates to the communication climate witirin the organization.
The results of this study lend support to this assertion. The satisfaction of the players with
their coach and their experience improved as the sense of “we” began to evolve. The results
of this study make a valid argument for understanding coach-athlete relations as just that,
the relationship between what is observed and what is interpreted by the participants. We
need to acknowledge that the social definitions of the participants are necessary to build our
theoretical “truths” (Fine, 1985).

The initial differences in expectations and assumptions between Donna and the
players were affected by the meanings and perceptions they had developed through past
experiences in sport. Donna’s assumptions about what it meant to be a member of her team

and what it took to be successful were directly related to her past experiences as a

 

209

“bailplayer” and a coach. She learned to coach by playing and coaching. Through those
experiences, Donna had an unmistakable vision of the relationship between the coach and
the athlete. Communication was the expression of clear concise messages by Donna, the
coach. What she said was what she meant, even though she knew her nonverbals
contradicted her verbal messages about yelling, never say die, etc. She was in charge. Her
success as a coach was related to their performance on the field. Athletes did not question
the experience and knowledge of their coach. Athletes showed respect by calling her
“Coach” and making eye contact when she was talking to them. Communication, to Donna,
was the act of Donna coaching. The players nwded to be coached

Based on these assumptions about communication, Donna accused Candy of
having an attitude; marginalized Kelsy’s efforts at catcher; expected the players to accept
her yelling; expected the players’ to accept her exhibiting behaviors that were unacceptable
for them to exhibit; and allowed Cathy to play througirout all fifty errors. Donna’s treatment
of Candy and Kelsy was greatly influenced by Donna’s definition of what it took to be a
“ballplayer.” She believed in the power of clear concise messages, yet her interpretation
about a player as a person and a “ballplayer” was greatly influenced by the nonverbal
behaviors of the player. Horn (1986) addressed the fact that personal attributes of a player
can influence the coach’s expectations for tint person as an athlete. This study shows that
Donna’s expectations for players were based more on the nonverbal indicators (i.e.,
personal attributes size, hair length, etc.) of involvement in the sport than in actual
performance.

Furthermore, this study shows that Donna’s differential treatment of high and low
expectancy players was directly related to the meanings she attached to “ballplayer.” Her
expectations for a player were constructed in relation to others on the team and her
recollection of herself as a “ballplayer.” In the same way tirat the players’ interpretations of
Donna’s behaviors were directly related to their past experiences with other coaches, they

were constantly comparing Donna to Milly and Martha. Moreover, their persistent

210

preinteraction expectancies of what Donna would be like as a coach prevailed over her
actual behaviors. Much like the situation with Kelsy, her actual performance was negated
by Donna’s lack of confidence in Kelsy. In the face of disconfirrning evidence, those
meanings and perceptions bent, but did not disappear. This evidence confirms
Hollingswortlr’s (1989) and Sage’s (1989b) supposition that one’s conceptualization of
coaching/teaching develops through socialization via the system and is fairly resistant to
change. A shared understanding of what it means to coach (occupational culture) evolves
from going through the system, informally discussing the acts of coaching, and observing
others. Both researchers caution tint without an understanding of the strength and origins
of the meanings and perceptions tint coaches attach to their behaviors, it will be difficult to
change their leadership and teaching styles. With that caution in mind, future research
should focus on understanding the processes involved in shaping coaches tint exhibit
behaviors that are attributed to the stereotypical ranting, raving. Until we understand how
coaches interpret and justify their own behaviors, our abilities to change their behaviors in
coaching education programs will be limited.

One of the most pervasive findings within the body of this paper was the role
nonverbal behaviors played in dyadic and team relations. From Donna on down, everyone
made judgments about others based on eye contact, “beasty arms,” hair length, looks,
noise level, and perceived speed Not only did the interpretation of nonverbal behaviors
provide instrurnentai information, but more importantly, relational information. The players
seemed to take Donna’s yelling personally even though she stated otherwise. Many times,
her yelling was accompanied by “the look,” a kick, or change in body posture. In game
situations, when she was not yelling, she became silent, seemingly uninvolved with the
struggles of her players, on and off the field. The players appeared to pay more credence to
their interpretations of her nonverbals than to her verbal behaviors. A future line of research
in the area of communication within the competitive sport setting might focus on possible

gender differences in exhibiting and interpreting nonverbal behaviors. More importantly,

211

we need to pay more attention within the field to the role nonverbal behaviors play in
dyadic and group relations within the sport setting.

Donna perceived tint Candy and Kelsy “had attitudes” toward her and the team
because of their lack of eye contact. Donna’s lack of attention to games, not going to the
huddle, and her kicking during games were interpreted by individual players as a sign of
not caring for them or the team. Based on differences in communication amongst the Us
group and between Donna and the Us group, she felt left out of her own team. In almost
every instance when a player or Donna described a case of feeling hurt or concerned about
what someone thought of them, nonverbal behaviors were mentioned as the main indicators
of their assessment of their relational status with another person.

This confirms the findings of Burgoon and Hale (1984). Nonverbal behaviors play
a key role in the conveying relational information. I would propose that the influence of
nonverbal behaviors in the competitive sport is augmented by the nature of the setting.
First, coaches and athletes are usually not within speaking range. Consequently both learn
to attend to the others’ nonverbals for information gathering purposes. Second, in game
sittntions, people’s f rustrations with themselves and the context are highly visible and open
to interpretation by others who are also influenced by the instability of competition. From
this study, one might claim that nonverbal communication plays a key role in the
development of the team.

The competitive sport setting is distinctly different from all other organizations. We
have done very little to formulate a theoretical framework tint can be used to predict
behavior within the competitive sport setting. We have very little understanding about the
relation between “coac ,” “communication,” “players,” and “team.” This is due in part to
our traditional way of thinking about communication. To date, within our field,
communication has been studied as a concrete variable instead of the process through
which the coach and athletes negotiate the art of coaching. There is no denial tint the coach

is in the most influential position on the team. The role of the coach is the leader of the

212

team. However, there is a lack of understanding on how the coach and players negotiate

that role and how the coach coaches. In this study, roles not only shaped the behavior of

Donna and the players (bench, catcher, favorite, etc.), but the people in those roles

modified them through interactions within the setting (Colomy and Rhoades, 1993).
Team Building Research

In the future, we need to follow the lead of the researchers working in the area of
team building and, like this study, conduct research within the field focusing on not only
the social interactions tint lead to the development of a “team mind,” but also attempt to
understand what type of relationship between the coach and the athletes would lead to
decisions tint effectively coordinate the needs of the team and the individuals (Dyer, 1987;
Hare, 1992). Within the team building literature, there are two main lines of research. One
group of researchers investigates the processes underlying decision making by the leader
and the group (Klein, Orasanu, Calderwood, & Zsambok, 1993). The wcond group within
the discipline focuses on group development (Gersick, 1992; Mohrrnan, Cohen, &
Mohrrnan, 1995). Our knowledge base about the competitive sport setting might be greatly
enhanced if we were to adapt theoretical f rarneworks and methodologies from this
perspective for use in the competitive sport setting.

As the researchers in this discipline have done, we must place equal value on the
results from studies using qualitative and quantitative metirods. More importantly, we need
to be integrating methodologies in an effort to provide a comprehensive triangulation of
data. The results from this study suggest that measures of cohesiveness, leadership
preferences, satisfaction witir team, sport, and/or coach should be given at different points
and time in the season and in different contexts. Consequently, the next step in this line of
research is to use quantitative and qualitative methods equally and in tandem to study men
coaching boys, and men coaching girls/women in an effort to develop sport specific
tireoreticai frameworks pertaining to leadership, organizatiornl development, and the
interplay between the social definitions of the participants and the preexisting reality.

 

213

We know very little about the processes underlying the decisions that coaches make
on and off the field. We do know that coaches seem to view an organization as more
important tint the sum of its parts. Yet, results from studies in the area of team building
suggest tint the most successful groups are the ones where the leader acknowledges the
assets of the individuals within the group and attempts to lead, not control, his/her people
within the group (Gersick, 1988; Hare, 1992; Woodcock & Francis, 1994). I would assert
tint the term Gersick (1988) coined for the transitional periods of group development,
“punctuated equilibrium,” could be used to describe the ebbs and flows of this team’s
development. However, the factor that seemed to trigger the transition periods was not time
as in Gersick’s (1988) research. As illustrated on the timeline (see Appendix H), the highs
(periods of negotiated “tearn”) corresponded to events when Donna either crossed the
boundary between Donna and “Coach” or when she provided the players with more
opportunity to feel as though the team belonged to all of them (Donna and the players). The
lows seemed to correspond to times when Donna exerted authoritarian control and
distanced herself, as “coach” from the players.

Approach-Avoidance
of in led

There are a number of possible explanations for Donna’s approach-avoidance
behaviors. The first explanation is related to gender. I had notiwd throughout the study tint
Donna very rarely touched the players. Attire banquet, she stated tint the players were to
shake her hand and hug Pam. That request by Donna surprised me. Pam had not been
present for most of the practices and games. Her career had kept her from fulfilling her
duties as an assistant coach. One would expect that Donna was closer to the players than
Pam and that the players were closer to Donna than Pam. If there was going to be hugging,
why not between Donna and the players? Although I did not ask tint specific question,
Donna did provide one explanation for her distancing Donna, the coach, and Donna, the
person, from the players. The following quote is of Donna trying to recollect why she

 

 

214

accused the players of not including her as a member of “the team” at the meeting after the
Bicknell incident.

There must have been something specific that they were
doing that they..I guess, you know? I have this whole
paranoia tint they all want to stay this far away from me
because they’re afraid. Uh..of me being gay. Like I say it is
a paranoia. I think In fact we were talking about tint at the
banquet. The reason that I sinke their hand and I don’t touch
them is because I don’t want any of their parents to think
anything whatsoever about anything I do or say. And so you
know there’s always going to be and even if it’s only
because of me and what’s in my own mind. There will
always be a gap but I want to make it as small as possible
(Transcription taped interview 6/19/91).

Donna continued this discussion by describing the measures tint she perceived tint
she had to take to dispel what she considered the natural assumption tint softball coaches
were lesbians. Not only did her paranoia of being labeled a lesbian affect her relationship
with the players, but the paranoia dictated the style and length of her hair, how she dressed,
and her topics of conversation. In the following quote, Donna explains tint her paranoia
was out of fear of being labeled a lesbian, possibly leading to losing her job as a teacher.

And I think if I weren’t a teacher, I wouldn’t be as paranoid
as I am. In general, people expect it from a coach....They
expect a teacher to be a square..pure, honest, true
(Transcription of taped interview 6/19/91).

Donna knew of coaches, softball coaches in particular, where the assumption of
being a lesbian cost them their job. She liked teaching and coaching. But teaching was her
career. Donna’s perceptions tint people assume tint softball coaches are lesbians affected
not only the dyadic coach-athlete relationships, but also seemed to affect the team
development The evidence shows that every time Donna and the players began to make
headway in negotiating their relationship, Donna would pull bmk when she caught herself
joking, touching, and becoming close to “the team.” They wanted to include her. She
wanted to be included. But, in her mind, the gap between Donna, the coach and person,
and the players could never be closed, just narrowed. Her paranoia prevented her from

giving the players what they seemed to want, a part of her. Each time tint she gave them a

 

215

little glimpse into the human side of Donna, the negotiations toward “the team” seemed to
progress (i.e., day selected captains, sign day, Casper incident, Bicknell meeting,
tournaments). Then without notice, Donna would distance herself from the players, “the
team,” and turn into the authoritarian coach.

In chapter four, Donna seems to be the female version of Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde.
Her paranoia of being labeled a lesbian seems a viable explarntion for her approach-
avoidance behaviors. Donna’s own words, “I don’t want any of their parents to think
anything whatsoever about anything I do or say,” seem to explain why she was so adamant
about keeping a boundary line between Donna, the person, and Donna, the coach thus
widening the gap between coach and player. Donna’s behaviors clearly had an affect on
coach-athlete relations and on player satisfaction with their experiences and with her.
Moreover, her behaviors seemed to be critical to the “punctuated equilibrium” of team
development documented throughout chapter four.

In 1988, Pharr proposed that we view homophobia as a weapon of sexism. She
pointed out that the fear of being labeled a lesbian impacts not only the behaviors of
lesbians, but also straight women, especially in nontraditional areas where women may be
challenging male power and masculinity. Sport is one of those areas. Donna was a victim
of homophobia As she said, real or not (the assumption tint softball coaches are lesbians),
in her mind, she had to distance herself from the athletes in order to protect herself from
being labeled a lesbian, from possibly losing her job.

In the future, we need to examine what roles sexism and homphobia play in
keeping women from coaching, driving them out of coaching, and/or shaping their
leadersirip styles. Donna’s fear of being labeled a lesbian led to her distancing herself from
the players and “the team.” When Donna relented and narrowed the gap, the players were
more satisfied with their experiences, with Donna and with “the team,” and so was Donna.
Prior to that, Kelsy, Candy, Sara, and Cissy had considered quitting. As responsible

researchers, we need to begin a line of research that acknowledges the existence and

 

216

prevalence of homphobia in sport More importantly we must attempt to understand how
homophobia is used as a weapon to shape the experiences of women. This will help us to
understand how sexism and homphobia affect the experiences of all participants in the
competitive sport setting, female and male.
Leadership Sgles

As I stated earlier, very few systematic lines of research have been conducted in the
area of coaching. For tint reason, there is not any evidence to support predictable gender
differences in preference for leadership styles (Chelladurai, 1984), cohesiveness (Carron, m
1982), or socialization (Sage, 1989). However, each of these researchers has proposed tint
the design of future research in those areas include the assessment of gender differences. In
1989, Eitzen & Pratt designed a study specifically to address gender differences in
coaching philosophy. The results of their study provide another possible explanation for
Donna’s controlling authoritarian behavior. In their study, they found that women were
more conventional than men in their coaching pirilosophies. Women coaches placed more
importance on players controlling their emotions and giving 100% than did men. Women
coaches, as well as any woman who attempts to contest the male power structure, are
placed in a position where they have to “be one of the guys” just to considered for the
position. Women must continue to “be one of the guys” or be perceived as weak, as
female, no longer qualified to coach.

Donna wanted to be more like her female college coach. Yet, she could not bring
herself to have one on one conferences with the players or just act as a friend and
counselor. She seemed to emulate the authoritative behavior of the male coaches that she
described. How much of her behavior was influenced by the pressure to be “one of the
guys?” How much of her behavior was influenwd by the fear of being labeled a lesbian?”
According to Pinrr (1988), these issues are related to the institutional sexism tint exists in
our society, and in sport. Without sexism, Donna would not have to worry about being

labeled a lesbian. If we judged people’s abilities to perform a task on their qualifications,

217

not gender, Donna would not have to worry about being viewed as a weak women if she
reached out to her players. She would be viewed as a caring coach. In the future, we need
to focus more attention on the experiences of women in sport. We need to understand the
role gender plays in shaping the behaviors and choices of women within the sport setting.
More importantly, what is the relationship between gender and socialization into, through,
and out of sport?
In Conclusion

This study was an investigation into the role of communication, more specifically
the coach’s communication behaviors, in the development of a team. The findings suggest
tint Donna’s communication behaviors provided sites (rituals, meeting, huddles,
tournaments) for the successful transmission of a strong team culture (Harrison & Carroll,
1991); nevertheless, “the team” at the banquet was a result of the interactions between the
individual and the reference group meanings and perceptions of the players, Donna’s vision
for team, and the experiences they shared, not Donna’s actual communication beinviors.
With these results, we have a better understanding of the role of communication in the
development of team and in the art of coaching. The findings of this study suggest tint, at

99 ‘6

some level, “communication,” “team, culture,” and “coaching” are synonymous. More
importantly, communication is a process tint involves the creation of meaning through
social interactions; interpreting objects, events, and behaviors based on those meanings;
and then acting toward the meanings one attaches to the behaviors of the other.
Communication is not solely a matter of observed behaviors or the existence of patterned
behaviors. Communication is synomous with coaching and team development For these
reasons, we must continue using methodologies tint allow us to bridge the gap between
our traditiornl theoretical “truths” about communication and the “reality” of communication

within the competitive sport setting as presented in this thesis.

APPENDIX A

218
APPENDIX A

COACH’S INFORMED CONSENT

l. I have been informed of the reasons behind the study. I understand that the focus of
the study is the role of communication in the development of the team.

2. I understand that Linda Lyman will observe most of my practices and games.

3. I understand tint Linda Lyman will observe various formal and inf orrnai team events
that may help in understanding the role of communication within the team.

4. I understand that she and I may have formal discussions before and after some of the
practices and games. These discussions will be at my convenience and with my
permission.

5. I understand that I will be formally interviewed three times during the season. I also
understand tint these interviews could last up to two hours and they will be at my
convenience.

6. I understand that if I agree, the interviews may be tape recorded and tint the tapes will
be destroyed after the final transcriptions have been made.

7. I understand that I have the right to refuse to participate at any time during the course of
the project.

8. I understand that a fictitious name will be used in the recording of the interview and
observational data.

9. I understand tint the final reporting of the data will be done in a manner tint will make
it impossible for anyone to ascertain my identity through links with the league, the
school, or personal attributes and actions.

10.1 understand tint I have the right at any time during the study to clarify issues
concerning the project and my participation.

1 l. I understand tint Linda Lyman will be collecting written materials such as rules, game
plans, and memos.

12.1 understand that due to the nature of the research there may be times when Linda
Lyman may ask for different types of access and I have the right to refuse such access.

13. I also understand tint I have the right to maintain control over the amount of access that
Linda has within the setting and with the athletes.

14. I understand that at the end of the project I have the right to any information gained
from this project tint will help my future in coaching.

I have read and understand the above statements. I have decided to participate in the project
with the understanding that I am free to withdraw my consent without prejudice at any
time. Coach’s Si grnture Date

 

APPENDIX B

 

219
APPENDIX B

PARENT LETTER

Dear Parent:

My name is Linda Lyman. I am conducting a study about the role communication plays in
bringing your daughter’s softball team together. Your daughter’s softball coach, Dawn
Amett, has given me permission to observe her coaching during practices and games. I
will be conducting the study in partial fulfillment for my doctoral degree at Michigan State
University. I am interested in understanding the role the coach’s communication plays in
bringing the team together.

The coach and the athletes are not the focus of the study. However, in order to understand
the role of communication, I must observe interactions between the coach and the athletes.
The observations will include games, practices, and other team gatherings that may help in
understanding the role of communication in bringing the team together. Additionally, I
believe that it is necessary to interview your daughter and her teammates. The focus of
these interviews will be to understand the athletes’ perceptions about their team.
Consequently, I need your permission to observe interactions tint may involve your
daughter and to interview her.

I would like to interview your daughter early in the season to get a sense of who she is and
what she expects from the upcoming softball season. This interview will last
approximately one hour. Furthermore, I would like to interview your daughter after the
season to debrief her and ask her views about some of the tentative findings of the project
I assure you that your daughter’s identity will be kept confidential. Each athlete will be
given a fictitious name. The athlete’s fictitious name will be used on all of the collected
data Additionally, all reporting of the data will be done in such a manner that the identity
of your daughter cannot be linked to the school, the team, or any personal characteristics.
No one, besides me, will see the observational fieldnotes or the interview transcriptions.
The coach will not have any access to my data, nor will I discuss with the coach anything
tirat your daughter discusses with me. You or your child are free to decline participation in
this project at any time without penalty.

I hope that you will allow our daughter to participate in this project I am conducting this
study in the hopes of learning more about the role of the coach’s communication behaviors
in bringing together a team. This type of information may be very useful in developing
more effective coaching education programs. If you do not give your consent, I will not
use your daughter or her behaviors in the reporting of my research.

The possibility may exist that I may need to talk to you to get a better understanding 0 the
experiences that may influence team events. If this becomes the case, I will contact you
personally for permission to discuss the possibility of your participation. If you have any
questions or concerns about this project, feel free to contact me at 339-2736 in the
evemngs.

Please sign the attached consent form and send it with your daughter to the next practice.

 

APPENDIX C

220
APPENDIX C

ATHLETE/PARENT INFORMED CONSENT

1. I have been informed of the purpose of the project I understand that the focus of the
study is the role of communication in the development of the team.

2. I understand that Linda Lyman will observe most of the practices and games in which
my daughter will be a participant.

3. I understand tint these observations may involve actions by my daughter.

4. I understand that Linda Lyman may have informal discussions with my daughter.
These discussions will be at my daughter’s convenience.

5. I understand tint my daughter may be formally interviewed two times during the
season. I also understand that these interviews could last up to ninety minutes and will
be at my daughter’s convenience.

6. I understand that I have the right to require the interviews be conducted under my
supervision.

7. I understand that if I give my consent, the interviews may be tape recorded and tint the
tapes will be destroyed after the final transcriptions have been made.

8. I understand tint my daughter or I have the right to refuse to participate at any time
during the course of the project

9. I understand tint a fictitious name will be used in the recording of the data collected in
observations and interviews with my daughter.

10.1 understand tint the information gained from this project will be reported in a manner
that twill make it impossible for anyone to ascertain the identity of my daughter through
links with the league, the school, or personal characteristics.

1 1. I understand tint at any time during the study my daughter and I have the right to clarify
issues concerning the project and our participation at any time.

12. I understand tint the coach will not have access to any of the data collected during this
project I also understand that Linda Lyman will not discuss my daughter’s responses
with the coach or other athletes.

13.1 understand that in the future I may be asked to give my permission for a formal
interview.

I have read and understand the above statements. I have decided to grand permission for

my daughter to participate in the project with the understand that my daughter and I are free
to withdraw our consent without prejudice at any time.

Athlete’s Signature

 

Date

 

 

APPENDIX D

22 1
APPENDIX D

W

I care about and respect each of you as individual persons with needs, wants, capabilities,
and limits.

Care about and respect yourself, your teammates, your sport, and others at all times.

Winning is great, but even if we lose there will be valuable things to gain:
Self-respect - for participating, for effort readily given. h
Friendships - maybe lifelong. E

Teamwork - for never letting teammates feel alone in our endeavor.

 

Physical improvements. h
Knowledge of the sport and of yourself.

Memories.

FUN!!!

Since we work together in practice as a team, we win and/or lose w. No one person
is ever the sole victor or the only cause for a loss.

I believe that we all will get back only what we are willing to give. I’m willing to give
100%, are you???

As a team we all rely on each other for many things, and as a team we all respectfully and
willingly give those things:

Reliability - be prepared, be on time.
Sensitivity - remember tint we all have feelings.

Encouragement - remember that we all need help sometimes (physically,
academically, personally, socially).

Effort - Not trying cheats everyone on the team, not just yourself.
We’re involved in an athletic activity, but academics come first.

Our team goal is: Showing a temper is disrespectful to me and to your teammates. Don’t
do it!! Be patient with yourself and others.

Breaking rules in the conduct code is also disrespectful. Skipping, drinking, smoking,
using drugs, etc. will result in removal from the team. Remember, your teammates rely on
you all the time. We’re playing softball to have fun. Respect your sport and you will enjoy
it!

APPENDIX E

 

222
APPENDIX E

TEAM PURITAN CREDO WITH MY NOTES

I care about and respect each of you as individual persons with needs, wants, capabilities,
and limits.

most important, I do not do job for money
I ’m coach but a person too
know enough about you ????? care
Care about and respect yourself, your teammates, your sport, and others at all g'mes.
rely on you both on and of field - if messing around in class, I ’11 find out about it.
Winning is great, but even if we lose there will be valuable things to gain:
Self-respect - for participating, for effort readily given. satisfied with efi'ort
Friendships - maybe lifelong. “I hope to becomefir‘ends with you.”
Teamwork - for never letting teammates feel alone in our endeavor.
Physical improvements. Six minute wall sit / Heather
Knowledge of the sport and of yourself. What challenges reach
Memories. Whether win/lose
FUN!!!

Since we work together in practice g a team, we win and/or lose as a m. No one person
is ever the sole victor or the only cause for a loss.

Ihopeafierloss noone will ifIhadjustorsoandsohad
If we lose - takes all, everyone

I believe tint we all will get back only what we are willing to give. I’m willing to give
100%, are you???

Idea of reciprocity - get what you give
If I see you at 70% only give you back 70%.

As a team we all rely on each other for many things, and as a team we all respectfully and
willingly give those things:

I want you to really mesh here.
Reliability - be prepared, be on time.
Sensitivity - remember that we all have feelings. including me and Pam

223

Encouragement - remember that we all need help sometimes (physieally,
academically, personally, socially). Be willing to give - be
willing to ask. Come to me.

Effort - Not trying cheats everyone on the team, not just yourself. Everyone
relying on 100%.

We’re involved in an athletic activity, but academics come first.

Our team academic goal is: C or better. Last year was 2.5 or above. Reminds them of all
academic.

Showing a temper is disrespectful to me and to your teammates. Don’t do it!! Be patient
with yourself and others.

We’re gonna get some crappy umpires ........ I ’ll talk to umpires

Breaking rules in the conduct code is also disrespectful. Skipping, drinking, smoking,
using drugs, etc. will result in removal from the team. Remember, your teammates rely on

you Mm.

You can go to a party if I find out you drink you will be ofl my team - quiet.
Make the right choices.

We’re playing softball to have fun Respect your sport and you will enjoy it!
Kind of our constitution.

Take home and sign it and tape on inside of locker.

APPENDIX F

224
APPENDIX F

TEAM CAPTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES

Being team leader is an honor and a privilege. As such, you are charged with the following
responsibilities:

Act as liaisons with open and honest communieation between players and coaches.

Leadership role - to keep morale high by setting a good example for your teammates.
It can and will become “eatchy” and therefore make your job easier.

A POSITIVE MENTAL ATTITUDE is essential at all times.

Conduct team meetings when appropriate.

Be willing to accept responsibility, as more pressure will be put on your behavior on
and off the field. (Ex: being on time for practice, games; staying “up” even if you are
having a bad game or you feel a negative attitude coming on, etc.)

Help to make sure that all rules set forth are understood and followed at all times.

Keep an eye on team equipment. Stay in charge of it. (Check dugouts, assign job of
carrying equipment so all players help, proper care of pitching machine, cords, etc.)

Help pack and store uniforms and equipment.
BUY COACH LOTS AND LOTS OF PRESENTS...

APPENDIX G

225
APPENDIX G

THE PARTICIPANTS: NAMES, POSITION, AND SUBGROUP AFFIUATION

Coach

 

 

Donna
Pam - Assistant coach

 

 

Them

Cathy - Shortstop (starter), captain
Polly - Firstbase (starter)
Tanya - Centerfreld (starter)

 

 

 

!lS.

 

 

Candy - Pitcher (Starter)
Babs - Catcher (starter), captain

Cassie - Second base (backup), rightfreld (occasional)

Kelsy - Rightfield (starter), eatcher (3rd in rotation, eventual starter)
Mariene - Pitcher (2nd rotation), shortstop, third base (backup),
Molly - Thirdbase (backup)-senior

Nan - Secondbase (starter), utility fielder

Popeye - Leftfreld (starter)-senior

Sara - Catcher (2nd in rotation), right field (occasional)

Tami - Third base (starter), pitcher (occasional)

 

Other Ie 1 ed wl t e ram

Milly - Junior varsity coach
Martha - Freshman coach

 

APPENDIX H

226

APPENDIX H
TIMELINE

Bicknell
4/ 15 Confrontation

Meeting 5/ 1

after lst
305 Game
Sign
Day

 
 
 

l lgames
Practices

3/8 *
easper
‘ 4/19

parking lot
3/20

 

4/ 12
First Game

Scream at Candy 4/30
Bicknell Game

LIST OF REFTfliENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Berger, P.L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social Qnstmction of reality. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday & Company.

Berlage, G.L (1982). Are children's competitive team sports teaching corporate values?
Arena Institute [or Sm and Ea] Issues, 12, 15-21.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symb_olic intgmg'onism; Eewg’ves and method. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Burgoon, J.K., & Hale, 1.]... (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication.
'ca' , 51, 194214.

Burgoon, J.K., & LePoire, BA. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual
communication, and expectancy discontinuation on evaluations of communicators

and their communication behavior- WW (1). 67-
96.

Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations.

Jogmal 91 8mg mychology, 5, 123-138.

Carton, A.V., & Bennett, BB. (1977). Compatibility in coach-athlete dyad. Mel;
emu; 671-679.

Charon, J.M. (1979). Symbolic-Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. W
m2. 226231.

Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership
behavior and satisfaction of athletes in various sports. MM

WELL 137-149-

Chelladurai, P., and Carron, A.V. (1978). W. Ottawa: Canadian Association of
Health and Physical Edueation and Recreation. (monograph)

Chelladurai, P., & Carton, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership.
WW. 371-380.

Chelladurai, P., Haggerty, T.R, & Baxter, RR. (1989). Decision style choices of
university basketball coaches and players. Journal of Smrt & Exercise Psychology,
l_1, 201-215.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports:
Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Smrt Psychology, 2, 24—35.

227

228

Coakley, J. J. (1994). Smrt in Society: Issues and Controversies. St. Louis, MO.:

Mosby.

Colomy, P., & Rhoades, G. (1983). Role performance and person perception: Toward and
interactionist approach. Symbolic Interaction, 6 (2), 207-227.

Cutforth, N. J. (1995). Bandung the moral and technigl dimensions 91 teaching:

Mgving beme non ms 91 good nngbad mgo gy, San Francisco. Ameriean
Educational Research Association. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 384 598).

Dewar, A., & Horn, T. S. (1992). A Critical Analysis of Knowledge Construction in
Sport Psychology- In T- S- Horn (Ed). WW.
Charnpaign: IL.: Human Kinetics Publishers.

Dubois, PE (1981). The youth sport coach as an agent of socialization: An exploratory

study. Jougngl of S293 Behaviorfl (1), 106.
Dyer. WC}. (1987). MW Reading. Mass: Addison-
Wesley.

Eitzen, D.S., & Pratt, SR. (1989). Gender differences in coaching philosophy: The case
of female basketball teams. W, (2), 152-158.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In MC. Whittock (Ed.),
e eac 'n . (3rd Ed.) New York; McMillan Publishing
Company, 119- 161

Farace, R.V., Monge, P.R. & Russell, HM. (1977). WM.
Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.

Fine, G. A. (1984). Negotiated orders and organizational cultures. In. RH. Turner & J. F.
Short (Eds), Annu_a,] Reyiew of fljglogy,10,.239-262

Fine, GA. (1985). Team sports, seasonal histories, signifieant events: Little League
baseball and the creation of collective meaning. W}, 299-
3 13.

Fine, GA. (1986). Small groups and sport; A symbolic interactionist perspective. In C.R.

Rees & A-W- Miracle (Eds). Wm (PP- 159-169)- Champaign.
IL' Human Kinetics.

Fisher, A.C., Mancini, V.H., Hirsch, R.L., Proulx, T.J., & Staurowsky, EJ. (1982).

Coach-athlete interactions and team climate. MW, 388-
404.

Foley. DE. (1990)- WWW Philidelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Foley, D. E (1992). Making the familiar strange: Writing critical ethnographies. Soot ociology
of Sp_o_rt Journal, 9, 36-47.

229

Freeman, W.H. (1995). SM coaching certification as an international edueational trend.
Portland, OR: Annual Meeting of the American Alliance for Health and Physieal

Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 522).

Gallmeier, C. P. (1989). Toward an Emergent Ethnography of Sport. Arena Review 13
( 1), 1-8.

 

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of

group development. Afiemy of Mgegnent Jom, 31, (1), 9-41.

Goffman, E. (1959). :1th EmsenLan'on of Self in Everygy Life. Garden City, NY.:
Doubleday.

Gould, D., & Martens, R. (1979). Attitudes of volunteer coaches toward significant youth

Sport issues. W. 369-380.

Gregory, KL. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple culture and culture conflicts in
organizations. Administrative Sciegg Mdy, 9, 259-376.

Griffin, R.W., Skivington, K.D., & Moorhead, G. (1987). Symbolic and international

perspectives on leadership: An integrative framework W (4),
199-2 18.

Hall, PM. (1995). The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory:
Beyond the microlevel. jljne fiiologieal Mfly, g (2), 397-423.

Hare, A. P. (1992). Grou s Soci nteractions:
New York, Praeger.

Harris, JG (1983). Interpreting Youth Baseball: Players' Understandings of Fun and
excitement, danger, and boredom. R h 55 379-382.

Harrison, J.R., & Carroll, GR (1991). Keeping the faith: A model of cultural

transmission in formal organizations. WM, 552-
582.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior Beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach.
WW (2) 160189

Horn, TS. (1984). Expectancy effects in the interscholastic athletic setting: Methodologieal
considerations. Jgrnnnl of Smrt Psygnglogy, 6, 60-76.

Horn, TS. (1985). Coaches' feedback and changes in children's perceptions of their
physieal competence. Jgnfl of Edmond fiycnglogy, 12, 174-186.

Horn, T. S. (1986) The self -f ulf rllrng prophecy theory: When coaches expectations become
reality. In J. M. Williams (Ed ) rt Ps cholo

WW9. 57-73). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Home, T., & Carton, A.V. (1985). Compatibility in coach-athlete relationships. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 7, 137-149.

230

Ibarra, H. & Andrew, SB. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: effects of
centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science
_Qu_a_rtgiy, 38, 277-303.

Kenow, LJ. & Williams, J.M. (1992). Relationship between anxiety, self-confidence, and
the evaluation of coaching behaviors. Jounnal oi Smrt bychology, 6, 344-357.

Klein, G.A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R, & Zsambok, C. E. (1993). mm
in cti : s thods. Norwood, NJ.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Krebs, G.L. (1990). MW. West Plains, NY.: Addison-Wesley.

Labov, W. (1980). W. New York: Academic Press.

Louis, MR. (1981). A cultural perspective on organizations: The need for and
consequences of viewing organizations as culture-bearing milieus. W
Mariam}. 246-258.

Martens, R. (1988). Youth sport in the USA. In FL Smoll, R A. Magill, & M.J. Ash
(Eds), Children in gm (3rd. ed., pp. 17-23). Champaign, 11...: Human Kinetics.

Martinek, T. (1981). Pygmalion in the gym: A model for the communieation of teacher
expectations in physieal education. W 60-70.

McMurray, A.J. (1994). e relationshi between or anizati cul 'zational
climate with reference to a universig setting. Sydney, New South Wales: Australia:
Joint Meeting of the International Communication Association and New Zealand
Communieation Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374
486).

Mead. GH. (1927)- In D.L- Miller. (1982). MW
Unnubli shed work My Herbert Mead. Chicago: Chieago Press.

Mohrrnan, S..,A Cohen, S.G., &Mohrrnan, A. M. (1995). W
W. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Pancowsky, M. & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1982). Communication and organizational
cultures MW 115-130

Percival, L. (1971). The coach from the athlete' s viewpoint In J. W. Tayéor (Ed. ),
. ‘ - - _ ofC .

 

Toronto: Fitness Institute.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. W
23, 570-581.

Pharr, S. (1988). W. Invemess, CA.: Chardon Press.

Rejeski, W., Dariacott, C., & Hutslar, S. (1979). Pygmalion in youth sports: A field
study. Journal of Sm Psychology, 1, 59-75.

Riley, P. (1983). A structurationist account of political culture. Administran've Science
W. 414-437.

231

Rushall, B.S., & Smith, KC. (1979). The modification of the quality and quantity of
behavior categories in a swimming coach. Journal of Sngrt Psychology, 1, 138-
150.

Sackmann, SA. (1992). Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational
knowledge MW. 140-161.

Sage, G.H. (1987). The social world of the high school athletic coaches: Multiple role
demands and their consequences. fliglogy oi Sm Journal, 5, 213-228.

Sage, G.H. (1973). The coach as management: Organizational leadership in American
Sport. Quesi, 19, 35-40.

Sage, G.H. (1989a). A commentary on qualitative research as a form of scientific inquiry
in sport and physical edueation. MW (1), 25-29.

Sage, G. H. (1989b). Becoming a high school Coach: From Playing Sports to Coaching.
Research any, 60 ( 1), 81-92.

Salancik, G. R (1995). Wanted: A Good Network Theory of Organization. W
991W 345-349

Schall, M. S. (1983). A communication-rules approach to organizational culture.
W 557-581

Schein, EH. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture.
Wm 13- 28

Schein, EH. (1985). W- San

Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. & Moriey, D. D. (1994). Creating culture: A longitudinal
examination of the influence of management and employee values on
communication rule stability and emergence W29
(3), 334-355.

Sidentop, D. (1978). The management of practice behavior. In W. F. Straub (Ed.), Sm
WWW Ithaca. NY: Mouvement

Sinclair, D.A., & Vealy, RS. (1988) Effects of coaches' expectations and feedback on the
self-motions of athletes W (3). 77-91

Singelis, T. M. ,,&Brown WJ. (1995). Culture, self, andcollectivist communication:

linking culture to individual behavior W21. (3)
354-389.

Smircich, L. (1985). Is the concept of culture a paradigm for understanding organizations
and ourselves? In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg, & J.
Martin (Eds), Orga_nizational Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Smith, RE, Smoll, EL. (1978). Sport and child: Conceptual and research

perspective. In FL Smoll & RE Smith (Eds), fiychological Pemtives in
Yougi Smrts. Wash. DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

232

Smith, RE, Smoll, F.L., & Curtis, B. (1978). Coaching behaviors in Little League
baseball. In F.L Smoll and RE. Smith (Eds), 1.flcholog’eal mmtives in
youth sngrts. Washington: Hemisphere.

 

Smith, RE, Smoll, F.L, & Curtis, B. (1979). Coaching effectiveness training: A
cognitive-behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport
coaches. imal of Sm Psychology, 1, 59-75.

Smith, RE, Smoll, F.L., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of
athletic coaches. mama. 401-407.

Smoll, F.L., & Smith, RE (1980). Leadership research in young athletes. In J. Silva &

R. Weinberg (Eds), mchologig Foyngtions of San. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

Smoll, F.L., & Smith, RE (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model
and research paradigm. 10mg of Amlied fiychology, 19, 1522-1551.

Smoll, F..,L Smith, R.,E &Barnett, NP. (1993). Enhancement of children’ sself-esteem

through social support training for youth sport coachesJ M
bycho1ogy, :28, 602-610.

Spark, KS. (1988). The effects of modifying football on coaching behaviors. 51321];
W -

9

Van Maanen. J. (1988). EW- Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Weick K (1969) WM: Reading. MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Weick, K. (1987). Theorizing about organizational communication. In M. Jablin, L. L

Putnam K-H Roberts &L..W Porter (Eds) WW
mwp. 97-12). NewberryPark, CA.: Sage.

Woodcock, M., & Francis, D. (1994). W. Broolcfreld, VT.: Gower
Publishing Limited.

Yiannakis, A. (1982). Socio-politieal socialization and the function of organized sport in
America MW 29-33