At the Core of Coaching: Meaningful Communication and Connection

by Jonathan van Geuns, June 3, 2025

Behind every great coaching relationship is an invisible architecture, built not from drills or game plans, but from words. Communication is not a secondary skill in coaching; it is foundational. It determines whether instruction is received, whether trust is earned, and whether athletes are able to access their full capacity under pressure.

At its most effective, coaching is not a transmission of information, but a relationship. At the heart of that relationship is communication; not just the tactical exchange of pace zones or weekly mileage, but a deeper, ongoing dialogue rooted in trust, mutual understanding, and shared purpose.

Communication is definitely still something I’m working on. I don’t have it all figured out, far from it. But I try to keep learning, listening, and refining how I show up for the athletes I work with. I hope others are doing the same, and that you find something useful or thought-provoking here.


A foundation of trust
At the core of any coach-athlete relationship is trust. Not blind trust, but earned, reciprocal, and reinforced over time. Research by Jowett and Ntoumanis on the 3+1 Cs mode (closeness, commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation) shows that communication is not just a byproduct of a good relationship, it’s the very means by which those bonds are formed.¹ When coaches engage athletes with curiosity and honesty, when they listen as much as they speak, they create safety. Meaningful communication builds psychological safety. That safety allows athletes to take risks, ask questions, and be vulnerable in ways that are critical for growth.

Athletes who feel heard, understood, and respected are more likely to be honest about their struggles, be it fatigue, fear, burnout, or life stressors. This trust is especially critical in ultra-endurance sports, where performance is deeply affected by emotional state, mindset, and life context. Coaches who can communicate openly and compassionately provide athletes with a safe space to process challenges without shame or fear of judgment.

As further research highlighted, trust, respect, and communication are the key dimensions of closeness in high-performing coach-athlete partnerships.² This underscores how reciprocal respect and empathy can create the kind of emotional environment where both feedback and vulnerability are welcome.


Clarity without overload
In performance environments, especially those demanding rapid decisions or technical execution, clarity isn’t a luxury, it’s essential. Motor learning research consistently shows that concise, well-structured instructions enhance focus and retention, especially under stress.³ Coaches who deliver short, specific cues (particularly grounded in external rather than internal focus) are more likely to trigger correct responses without cognitive overload. A cue becomes a compass.

Nick Winkelman’s research on motor learning and cueing demonstrates that concise, well-timed language improves both memory retention and performance.⁴ In trail running, this is especially relevant when discussing technical terrain management, form under fatigue, fueling, or in-the-moment race strategy.

Athletes cannot process dense instructions while grinding up a climb or descending technical trails. What they remember are crisp, meaningful cues like “float the downs” or “light feet, soft eyes.” In these moments, the coach’s voice isn’t present physically, but it is mentally. The cues become internalized narratives that shape how an athlete runs, reacts, and regroups.


Feedback that goes beyond data
In today’s data-rich sports environments, it’s easy to confuse feedback with numbers. Effective coaches use data as a mirror, not a verdict. They ask, what does this tell us about how you felt? What was happening in the moment? A 2011 study found that when feedback was framed with empathy and autonomy support, athletes showed greater motivation and persistence, regardless of whether the feedback was positive or corrective.⁵

I see coaching communication often dominated by metrics: splits, HR zones, VO2 max, vertical gain. These numbers have their place, absolutely, but they don’t tell the whole story, especially in ultras, where the story often matters more than the statistics. Feedback becomes meaningful when it reflects both performance and personhood.

A coach who can ask “What did you notice out there?” rather than just “What was your average pace?” invites reflection and growth. A coach who says “I’m proud of how you stuck with it through that low patch” is offering validation that matters more than whether the athlete hit their pace window. This kind of emotional attunement is what researchers describe as the “empathy component” of coach-athlete synergy, an ability to step into the athlete’s shoes and see the experience from their perspective.⁶


Mutuality and athlete agency
Good coaching does not depend on authority; it depends on collaboration. Athletes who feel involved in their own development are more motivated, engaged, and consistent. This is backed by self-determination theory, which shows that when athletes experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness, they are more likely to pursue mastery and stay resilient through setbacks. The best coaches foster dialogue. They offer options, not ultimatums. They trust athletes to bring their own wisdom to the table.

Communication should never be a one-way street. The most resilient runners are those who take ownership of their training, who understand not just what they’re doing, but why. Coaches who invite dialogue, who ask for input, and who explain the reasoning behind training choices are cultivating autonomy. And autonomy is one of the core psychological needs that fuel motivation and long-term well-being in athletes. When an athlete feels like a collaborator rather than a passive recipient, they are more likely to stay engaged, self-regulate, and perform consistently. This was confirmed in a study that found that autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors significantly predicted athlete persistence, satisfaction, and performance.⁷


Language as Memory and Meaning
Lastly, meaningful communication isn’t just about efficiency or empathy. It’s also about narrative. The words coaches choose linger. Language can become a form of memory, shaping how athletes remember key events, define themselves, and carry their identity through adversity. A coach’s words after a mishap can determine whether that moment is seen as shameful or formative. A cue before a high-stakes moment can become a lifelong mantra. As sports psychologist Michael Gervais noted, “Coaching is about helping someone understand the story they’re telling themselves—and sometimes helping them write a new one.”

Coaching is storytelling, we write the script together, and I help you see the arc

The words we use carry the power not just to inform, but to transform. Trail and ultrarunning are sports of story: the arc of the race, the battle through aid stations, the inner monologues. When coaches help athletes interpret their experience, what worked, what it meant, how they endured, they’re not just guiding training. They’re helping runners shape identity. Phrases like “you did hard things well” or “you responded, not reacted” can anchor future confidence. Language becomes memory. Memory becomes fuel.


Communication that endures
In trail and ultrarunning, the terrain changes constantly, so do the bodies, minds, and lives of athletes. Training plans may get rewritten, splits may go sideways, but the relationship built through communication is what holds steady. The difference between compliance and commitment, between someone simply following a plan and someone truly believing in the path they’re on.

Meaningful communication is not a soft skill, it’s a foundational skill. It’s how we create context for the hard work, safety for honest feedback, and language that athletes can carry with them when no one is around to remind them what they’re capable of. Whether it’s a short phrase on your hand or a debrief that helps reframe a DNF, the way a coach speaks with their athletes shapes how they think, respond, and grow.

Long after the workouts are logged and the splits forgotten, what remains with an athlete is often the voice of their coach: the tone, the trust, the quiet reinforcement of belief. As coaches, our words don’t just guide motion; they build meaning. In a sport defined by solitude and perseverance, that meaning is often what gets someone through the next time they wonder if they can keep going. Words don’t need to be many. They need to be meaningful.

The right phrase can calm a storm at mile 80, or bring clarity when doubt creeps in. A well-timed question can shift perspective. A reminder to stay present can become a mantra. When coaches speak with intention, they help runners meet themselves more fully in the moment, and sometimes, that’s what unlocks the effort they didn’t know they had.

The more I coach, the more I realize communication is what holds everything together. I’m still learning how to do this well, asking better questions, listening more closely. It’s what turns a training plan into a partnership. When we take communication seriously, not just as instruction, but as connection, we’re not just coaching performance. We’re coaching people. That’s where growth begins.

1.  Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14(4) 245–257. ↩︎
2.  Jowett, S., and Cockerill, I.M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00011-0 ↩︎
3.  Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1382–1414. ↩︎
4.  Winkelman, N. (2020). The Language of Coaching: The Art & Science of Teaching Movement. Human Kinetics. ↩︎
5. Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2011). When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 232–242. ↩︎
6. Rhind, D.J.A., and Jowett, S. (2012). Development of the Coach–Athlete Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire (CARM-Q). International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(1), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.7.1.121 ↩︎
7.  Mageau, G A., and Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000140374 ↩︎