An Exploratory Study of a Coach's Response to Mandated Regulation Change

Abstract

In 2017 the University Interscholastic League mandated a regulation change that all Texas high school football coaches required certification through Atavus Tackling Training. The mandate represented a significant modification to the way tackling is taught, aimed at addressing risk of concussion and serious trauma. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore how coaches’ respond to mandated regulation change. This qualitative study utilized an individual level of analysis contributing to academic works concerning the understanding of organizational change, including the use of Bridges’ (1991) Transition Model within a sporting context, and the call for agent focused perspective work in neo-institutional theory. Through an abductive analysis blend consisting of inductive coding, and deductive a priori concept of the Bridges Transition Model, this study aimed to discern the role transition played in actualizing institutional change by addressing the research questions: RQ1: How do coaches respond when faced with mandated regulation change? RQ2: How does their response reflect transition? To account for the complex nature of the 15 interviewed head football coaches’ responses, the qualitative methodology of this study utilized various triangulation methods such as data, analysis, and theory triangulation, to capture rigor and trustworthiness. Rich findings were mined from the data including 15 propositional statements that represented the a priori model and 10 inductive themes that contributed to defining the identity of a coach, and the sport. The overlap between inductive and deductive findings explored factors earmarking why coaches progress or regress through transition. This study found a relationship between responses and the Bridges Transition Model phases (addressing RQ2), in addition to multiple transition cycles, and triggers for movement through the phases based on coaches' individual needs. This research not only provided examples of what those responses were (addressing RQ1), but also discussed why coaches responded in various ways. Discussion included use of organizational change literature, Bridges’ (1991) Transition Model, and institutional theory, accounting for what coaches experienced and the beliefs and values impacting their decisions and thus, responses to mandated regulation change.