MOTIVATIONAL CLIMATE

Understanding Motivational Climate in Coaching: Task vs. Ego Involvement

Nicholls (1984) proposed that individuals are typically motivated in one of two ways: task-involved or ego-involved. A task-involved individual focuses on personal development and skill mastery, whereas an ego-involved individual gauges success by comparing themselves to others.

Research (Cury et al., 1997; Van-Yperen & Duda, 1999) has demonstrated a link between these motivational orientations and the level of effort individuals apply. Both approaches can significantly impact performance-related choices, such as how hard someone trains or how resilient they are in the face of setbacks. For coaches, understanding what drives each athlete is essential to creating a training environment that maximizes potential.

Characteristics of Task vs. Ego Involvement

Task-Involved Athletes Typically:

  • Embrace challenging tasks

  • Put in consistent, high effort

  • Show persistence even when progress is slow

Ego-Involved Athletes Tend to:

  • Show less persistence and effort,
    especially when tasks feel too easy or there's a fear of failure

Coaching Implications

From a coaching perspective, fostering a task-involved climate can be done by:

  • Highlighting effort and personal growth

  • Making every player feel valued within the team

  • Promoting cooperation among teammates

On the other hand, a coach may inadvertently create an ego-involved climate by:

  • Giving special treatment to more talented players

  • Constantly punishing mistakes

  • Encouraging rivalry over teamwork (beyond healthy competition for positions)

Newton, Duda, and Yin (2000) emphasize that motivational climate significantly affects players' experiences. Newton & Duda (1999) found that task-involved environments lead to greater enjoyment, while research by Vazou et al. (2005) suggests that ego-involved climates can increase anxiety, particularly in young athletes. This is a critical consideration—these are children before they are competitors. Excessive criticism and comparison may drive them away from sport entirely, shrinking the future talent pool.

Interestingly, both motivational climates often coexist within a single session. Competition and public praise can have a place, especially for athletes who thrive under such conditions—but balance is key.

Building a Positive Environment: The TARGET Framework

To help coaches shape a climate where athletes can flourish, Epstein (1989) introduced the TARGET framework, later adapted to sports by Ames (1992). It outlines six key areas:

T – Task

The nature of practice tasks sets the tone. In a task-involved environment, success is based on effort and progress—not just the outcome. Set individual, meaningful goals instead of pushing players to outperform each other. Celebrate improvement, even when it's not perfect.

A – Authority

This relates to how much control players have over their learning. A task-oriented approach involves giving athletes decision-making roles, encouraging leadership, and considering their perspectives. In contrast, an ego-focused environment keeps all decisions with the coach, stifling player autonomy.

R – Recognition

How success is acknowledged matters. Private recognition of effort and growth supports a task-involved climate. Public comparisons or only praising standout performances fosters ego involvement, which can discourage less confident players.

G – Grouping

Team dynamics influence motivation. In a task-oriented setup, mixed ability groups and an emphasis on collaboration are encouraged. Ego environments may unintentionally form when top performers are always grouped together and praised while others are left behind.

E – Evaluation

Assessment shapes behavior. A task-involved evaluation is personalized, highlighting growth and learning from mistakes. Ego-driven evaluation compares players against each other and treats errors as signs of low ability rather than learning opportunities.

T – Time

Time allocation should reflect individual progress. In task-involved settings, coaches are flexible—spending more time on certain activities when needed and ensuring all players receive equal attention. An ego-driven approach assumes uniform understanding and may neglect players who require more support.

Final Thoughts

Creating a motivational climate that supports all athletes is no easy task, and it takes time to understand individual and team needs. But using the TARGET framework as a guide, coaches can build more inclusive, empowering training environments—helping athletes of all levels grow, stay motivated, and enjoy the game.

George Mitchell