Maintaining professional face: deceptive impression management in community sport coaching

Figures & data

Table 1. A typology of community sport coaches’ deceptive practices.

Type of Deception	Description of Deception Type
Goal: Emotional Control
Conceal fatigue	Presenting an artificially positive, enthusiastic, and energetic exterior despite feeling fatigued to meet expectations for how one is supposed to appear while working.
Disguise disdain	Presenting the appearance of professional objectivity when feeling frustration towards others to smoothen out interactive work.
Flatter Insincerely	Insincere use of praise during interactions with working others to secure favourable outcomes.
Goal: Expert Knowledge
Hide a lack of expected knowledge	Concealing having limited knowledge, experience, and relevant qualifications relating to aspects of work where expertise is expected.
Goal: Ideal Work Image
Report favourable metrics	Presenting inaccurately favourable evaluative data to evidence effectiveness in the workplace and to secure desired ends.
Camouflage alternative approaches	Concealing a lack of planning, the adjustment or abandonment of planned activities, and deviations from expected schemes of work.
Cover-up mistakes	Using excuses to cover-up errors that if known might cause working others to question individual and organisational reputations.

Table 2. Percentage and number of survey respondents, per deception type and employment status, that had enacted or heard about other coaches engaging in workplace deception.

	Volunteer (V)		Part-Time (PT)		Full-Time (FT)		Zero-Hours (ZH)		Totals
	Enacted by Self	Enacted by Others	Enacted by Self	Enacted by Others	Enacted by Self	Enacted by Others	Enacted by Self	Enacted by Others	Enacted by Self	Enacted by Others
Conceal fatigue	82.1% (23)	53.6% (15)	86.4% (19)	40.9% (9)	87.1% (27)	64.5% (20)	100.0% (5)	20.0% (1)	86.0% (74)	52.3% (45)
Disguise disdain	89.3% (25)	50.0% (14)	72.7% (16)	45.4% (10)	67.7 (21)	38.7% (12)	80.0% (4)	60.0% (3)	76.7% (66)	45.3% (39)
Flatter insincerely	60.7% (17)	60.7% (17)	36.4% (8)	59.1% (13)	58.1% (18)	56.6% (16)	60.0% (3)	40.0% (2)	53.5% (46)	55.8% (48)
Camouflage alternative approaches	42.9% (12)	35.7% (10)	31.8% (7)	27.3% (6)	58.1% (18)	45.2% (14)	40.0% (2)	20.0% (1)	45.3% (39)	36.0% (31)
Cover-up mistakes	32.1% (9)	21.4% (6)	27.3% (6)	22.7% (5)	35.5% (11)	22.6% (7)	20.0% (1)	20.0% (1)	31.4% (27)	22.1% (19)
Hide a lack of expected knowledge	14.3% (4)	21.4% (6)	22.7% (5)	22.7% (5)	19.4% (6)	6.5% (2)	20.0% (1)	20.0% (1)	18.6% (16)	16.3% (14)
Report favourable metrics	10.7% (3)	17.9% (5)	22.7% (5)	22.7% (5)	9.7% (3)	16.1% (5)	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	12.8% (11)	17.4% (15)