By Megan Buning
(October 12, 2021)
As I build graduate-level courses to train coaches and look for creative ways to structure mental performance strategies for my clients, I often find the most innovative sparks come from other fields. In this article, I share with you one of those moments from the engineering and technology field. Some of you may be familiar with reverse engineering (or “back” engineering) (Hess, 2019) as it applies to building structures, machines, software, and coding. Below I outline how components of reverse engineering can be applied to your (or your athletes’) mental game.
First Things First. What is “Reverse Engineering?”
Lutkevich (2021) describes the definition and steps for reverse engineering in the IT software field. There are three basic and broad steps that are used to reverse the process of building. Essentially, you start with a finished product, take it apart, study how the product works (what it does well and what it lacks), then rebuild the product either to use as it is or with improvements. The idea is that you gain knowledge about the product by deconstructing, studying, then rebuilding it. In this process, you may not have much prior knowledge of how the product was originally created which adds to the challenge. You gain a working knowledge of the product as you go through the steps, and may end up creating a blueprint of the product that did not previously exist (Hess, 2019). Additionally, reverse engineering facilitates long-term performance by providing an opportunity to enhance or replace single parts of the product instead of recreating the entire product. From a mechanical standpoint, reverse engineering is beneficial for replacing, repairing, or improving parts, analyzing part or product failures, running diagnostics or problem-solving product performance, and helping stimulate creative thinking (Auerbach, 2019; Hess, 2019)
How could this process apply to coaching in general? As you read this, you may already be thinking of how this process could work for a mechanical issue in an athlete’s skill movement, game strategy, or even scouting purposes. But what about the mental component? Let us explore that a bit more as it pertains to a broad scan of the mental game. The rest of this article will describe a systematic process for “reverse engineering” the mental game while providing references to resources that can help with the process.
Backing it up: Mental Reverse and Getting the Process Started
Step 1: Analyze the product. The mental game is the product, so start with a self-assessment and evaluation by a critical friend, someone who knows your approach and will give you honest responses that may be difficult to provide (Costa & Kallick, 1993). Lucas (2018) provides a review of why evaluating any area of the self should involve both a self and external assessor to achieve a more accurate assessment. One resource that may help this evaluation process is a Performance Profile Wheel. For a brief description of what a Performance Profile Wheel is and how it can be used, see the work of Mandzuk (2019). Another resource that allows you to create and collaborate various wheels online is “Coaching Wheels” (2021). Your assessment can be of a single mental component or overall, and you want to study how your mental components are interrelated and influence other parts of your performance.
Step 2: Record evidence. Once you have narrowed the specific areas you want to improve, it is time to gather evidence. You may need to ask others (e.g., staff, teammates), review statistics, performance reviews, charts, and view game films. Record evidence that supports your desire to improve in the selected areas. It is important to gather evidence for your complete mental game before you begin to examine parts (or components) specifically. Do not overlook the importance of this step because the type of evidence you select is important. The human brain naturally tends to select negative evidence over positive which can make the reality of our situation hard to detect through our negative perception. This negative bias can make it easy to overlook actual performance results (mentally or physically) in favor of what we thought happened (versus what actually happened) (Vaish et al., 2008). Larcher (2007) explains the ladder of inference (Argyris, 1982) and how it may be useful as you not only make decisions but consider how to select your data (evidence). In terms of collecting mental performance data evidence, there are various assessments of mental skills. Lesyk (1998) provides one example of a framework for nine mental skills and how they can be quantitatively measured.
Step 3: Disassemble the product. Once you have evidence of how well you perform mentally (or not), it is time to dissect your game. Take your mental approach apart component by component. For each part of your game, conduct a strengths and weaknesses assessment. This can be as simple as listing the component of your mental game that you excel in and the ones you are not as strong with. Your assessments from the Performance Profile Wheel in Step 1 can help get you thinking. McQuaid (2014) provides ample evidence of why focusing on the strengths of your mental game can be beneficial, but it is also important to not overlook the weaknesses (especially if you can perform better if that weakness was more developed) (Coughlin et al., 2014). External perspectives can be valuable here as well so calling upon those critical friends again can help.
Step 4: Find a model. Now you must decide what you want to keep doing (your strengths) and what you want to improve. One approach to improve weaknesses is to identify other individuals that do those things well and analyze them. Be curious, ask questions, study them. When you complete the Performance Profile Wheel from step 1, have specific individuals in mind that possess the strong mental components you want to obtain. Take steps to emulate their strategies and model their mental behaviors. Modeling behavior is a well-known practice that stems from Bandura’s (1977; 2005) social cognitive theory (SCT). Choose someone that you recognize as competent and like yourself (e.g., style of play, experiences, background) yet possesses a solid mental approach in the areas you seek to strengthen. For a more in-depth summary of SCT, see the work of McLoed (2016). If you have heard of the plus, minus, equal system (or the Shamrock System), this person should be a “plus” for you as it pertains to your mental game (or a specific component of your game). This person needs to be someone you can access on some level such as in-person interactions or video observation (e.g., planned, recorded observations, practice film, broadcast film). If you want to learn the Shamrock System, see Altucher (2017) and Rockwell (2019). Regardless of how you choose your model, you will want to speak directly to your model about their thoughts and mental approaches when possible.
Step 5: Rebuild. Rebuild your mental game part by part using the remodeled “parts” as you go. This step will take time, patience, and flexibility. You will need to be willing to try different strategies to figure out which mental approach you want to model that actually works best for you and your situation; however, you need to be willing to give the strategies time to work. This means you may need to try a strategy/approach several times or for an extended time before you make a switch. Since you are trying to strengthen your mental game, you will want to be sure to emphasize putting deliberate practice in on your weaker (or less familiar) areas to help you not only strengthen those components but also to help make those areas become more automatic (Coughlin et al., 2014).
Part of rebuilding is testing your restructured mental game for stability. With the understanding you are still adjusting, you will want to practice your reformed mental game both in practices and off-field situations (work, class, life). This gives you the opportunity to adjust in low-risk situations and helps you establish your mental routines before you get into a competitive situation. In competition (or higher stress) situations, your body defaults to what it knows automatically and is comfortable with (what you consistently practice) (Brabeck et al., 2010; Coughlin et al., 2014). If you do not consistently and deliberately practice your refurbished mental approaches, then you will never reset your default level. This means your desired mental strategies and approaches will not automatically show up for you in competition (high risk) unless you practice deliberately and retrain your automatic responses. Now it is time for you to test reverse engineering in your own setting!
References
Altucher, J. (Executive Producer). (2017, November 28). Episode 284: Frank Shamrock: The making of a legend. How a criminal became a champion [Audio podcast episode]. In The James Altucher Show. Retrieved from https://jamesaltucher.com/podcast/frank-shamrock-the-making-of-a-legend/
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action (1st ed.). Jossey Bass.
Auerbach, J. (2019). 6 benefits of reverse engineering. Cedarville Engineering Group (CEG). Retrieved from https://www.cedarvilleeng.com/news-and-insights/blog/6-benefits-of-reverse-engineering/
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. Great Minds in Management, 9-35.
Brabeck, M., Jeffrey, J., & Fry, S. (2009). Practice for knowledge acquisition (not drill and kill). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/education-career/k12/practice-acquisition
Clough, P. J., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in Sport Psychology (pp. 32-43). London, UK: Thomson.
Clough, P., & Strycharczyk, D. (2015). Developing mental toughness: Coaching strategies to improve performance, resilience and wellbeing (2nd ed.). Kogan Page Publishers.
Coaching Wheels. (2021). Retrieved from https://coachingwheels.com/
Costa, A.L., and Kallick, B. (1993, October). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2): 49–51. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://imet.csus.edu/imet11/507/CriticalFriends.pdf .
Coughlan, E. K., Williams, A. M., McRobert, A. P., & Ford, P. R. (2014). How experts practice: A novel test of deliberate practice theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 449.
Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2011). Developing mental toughness: From research to practice. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 2(1), 21-32.
Hess, B. (2019, September 9). What is reverse engineering and how does it work? Astro Machine Works. Retrieved from https://astromachineworks.com/what-is-reverse-engineering/
Larcher, B. (2007). Up and down the ladder of inference. Horizons-penrith-, 37, 7.
Lesyk, J. J. (1998). The nine mental skills of successful athletes. Ohio Center for Sport Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.sportpsych.org/nine-mental-skills-overview
Lucas, R. E. (2018). Reevaluating the strengths and weaknesses of self-report measures of subjective well-being. Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
Lutkevich, B. (2021, June). Reverse-engineering. Tech Target. Retrieved from https://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/definition/reverse-engineering
Mandzuk, A. (2019, October 8). Performance profiling for athletes. MZK Performance. Retrieved from https://www.mzkperformance.com/blog/performance-profiling-for-athletes
McLoed, S. (2016). Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html
McQuaid, M. (2014, November 11). Ten reasons to focus on your strengths. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/functioning-flourishing/201411/ten-reasons-focus-your-strengths
Pant, P. (Executive Producer). (2021, July 14). Decoding Greatness with Dr. Ron Friedman [Audio podcast episode]. In Afford Anything Podcast. https://affordanything.com/podcast/
Rockwell, D. (2019, March 18). The Shamrock System: Plus, minus, and equal. Leadership Freak. Retrieved from https://leadershipfreak.blog/2019/03/18/the-shamrock-system-plus-minus-and-equal/
Vaish, A., Grossmann, T., & Woodward, A. (2008). Not all emotions are created equal: The negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 383.
