Excuse-Making Explored

Excuse-Making and Mental Toughness – Are They Opposites?

Excuse-Making: An Interesting Concept

The human mind is remarkable and fascinating. It is capable of so much, maybe too much. This short opinion piece will explore the concept of excuse-making. More specifically, it will try to untangle the difference between excuses and genuine reasons as it might relate to the mental side of competitive sport and performance.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines an excuse (noun) as “an explanation that frees one from fault or blame.” So, excuse-making is the act of doing this, and habitual excuse-making is doing this a lot. When I read this definition, I was a little surprised. I was expecting it to be more about facts versus fiction. But apparently not. It appears as if excuses are more like the opposite of “taking responsibility” than about accuracy.

From a sport psychology and performance psychology point of view, it’s essential that we also separate excuse-making into the outward and inner types. By this, I mean saying something just to oneself (e.g., thoughts) designed to free the thinker from fault or blame is not the same as an excuse that is vocalised to another person (or group).

Spoken Words Are Actions, Not Thoughts

Technically speaking, when you open your mouth, and words come out, these are actions. Yes, these words probably started as thoughts. And yes, the time gap between having the thought and then doing the talking can feel so quick that we believe they are the same. But they are not the same. The reason why it’s so important not to confuse them comes down to the vastly different ways we want to handle thoughts, feelings, and actions, as explained in the video below.

Thoughts, Feelings and Actions Are Different

If you take this explanation and put it into the context of inner excuse-making, then really, what we, as sport psychologists, are suggesting is to become more aware of just noticing these cognitions. Ideally, with practices like mindfulness and journaling, we can all become better at lengthening the gaps between the stimulus (the autonomic thought we have little influence over) and response (which action, if any, to take).

Because I am a diehard advocate for Psychological Flexibility as a better approach to sport, performance, life, and everything else, it’s easier to assume that I have no interest in influencing thought processes. This is not true.

Let Me Explain

Consider thoughts as either past, present, or future-oriented. The first two categories are ideally treated with extreme acceptance. Changing a past thought is impossible, and changing a present one is complicated and unnecessary for the critical stuff (actions) anyway, so leave them be.

But future thoughts are different. They have not taken place yet, so there are actions we can take that might lessen the burden on our psychological flexibility later.

Some clients will know I am a big fan of using swimming as an analogy, not just swimming but swimming in the ocean. One way to become a better ocean swimmer is to become more adept at doing your strokes whilst waves are smacking you in the jaw. We can do thousands of things to become stronger ocean swimmers. But at some point, we’d need to accept that looking at future sea conditions – to avoid the most extreme conditions that mother nature can throw at us – is also intelligent. Reduce the probability of extreme burden despite excellent preparation.

How do we reduce the burden on our psychological flexibility? There are many ways to do this, but there is no substitute for monitoring our efforts in the context of learning to make fewer excuses.

Example Please!

Peter has decided he wants to improve his short game in golf. So, instead of smashing balls at the range (which he finds much more enjoyable), he plans to use this time to work on this chipping instead. He decides to get specific and designs some drills that take 40 minutes, and he adds them to his time management plan to do this three times a week.

In simple mathematical terms, he’s aiming for 120 minutes a week of intentional effort. However, the amount of actual effort can range anywhere between 0 minutes and 120 minutes. Of course, it could go above 120 minutes, but this is less likely as Pete is somewhat of a “do what’s necessary kind of guy.”

Peter creates a simple chart to measure how many minutes he does each week. When this number is below 120 minutes, there is a space for him to put why he fell short. Below are three hypothetical entries – can you identify which (if any) are excuses?

Are These Excuses?

~ The practice pitching green was shut for some kids’ lessons on Wednesday evening, so I could not do my standard drills when I arrived. So, I went to the range instead and fell 40 minutes short of my short game practice this week.

~ I just experienced a considerable dip in motivation for my overall Golf, not just my short game. I played poorly on the weekend, so the idea of investing even more time into a pursuit that is so inconsistent seems ridiculous. Maybe a couple of weeks off is what is needed. I got 0 minutes done this week, 120 minutes less than my commitment.

~ Blast, I picked up a slight shoulder niggle whilst playing touch footy with the guys on Monday night. The physiotherapist instructed me to practice at least 20 minutes during every session (half my usual amount). I didn’t quite manage to double the number of sessions to get to the 120 minutes, so I managed 100 minutes this week instead of 120.

Instead of sharing my insights about which of the above contains more legitimacy than others, it might be more attractive to ask our loyal readers. Please add your comments in the space at the bottom of this article, and I will endeavour to reply to every one of them as they come through. Which of the above (if any) do you believe is an excuse and why?

The Mind Is Not So Different From The Body

Both benefit from some very similar rules. One commonality between the parts above and below the neck is that they both require repetition for changes to become permanent.

This simple monitoring process described above is the most effective method I have ever encountered during my 20 years as an applied sport psychologist in assisting future thoughts to become less burdensome. Let me reiterate something fundamental here to prevent the flurry of comments about me contradicting my preference for psychological flexibility while wanting my clients to have more beneficial future thoughts. Because they are future thoughts (yet to happen) and are potentially influenced by present actions, there is no risk of what we call meta-cognition “distracting” the performer during the present moment.

Ideally, weekly reflections on why an athlete or performer fell short build greater awareness of how they can creatively work towards greater consistency of practice in the future. Maybe the very simple little internal dialogue is something like this.

Accepting Thoughts, Especially The Crappy Ones, Is Hard.

So, we’re looking to reduce the workload required for methods such as mindfulness. Developing great psychological flexibility is fantastic and will serve you very well in the future. Still, it is not a magic bullet that makes all future endeavours bulletproof against all challenges.

At the beginning of the article, I clarified that dialogue related to why we don’t manage to do what we intended to do is not the same as when we say this to another individual. What does this second version most commonly look like?

In a sporting context, it is probably most common in elite developmental sports programs. Imagine a softball team with athletes aged between 14 and 17. The coach helps the squad design a combination of group-based practice and tasks that the players must do independently.

A simple self-monitoring system allows the Coach to see which athletes are doing the individualised practice. For the players who don’t enter this data or enter numbers far less than what was agreed upon, conversations can occur about why.

Why would an athlete use an excuse verbally when, in their mind, they know it’s far from a legitimate reason? There are potentially many reasons, but the most common is a lack of sound team dynamics, as described in these past articles here and here.

If you are a sporting or non-sporting performer and would like some professional help with making fewer excuses, then contact us now via this Enquiry Form. One of our team will get back to you within a couple of days.

Potential In Performance – Is It A Myth?

Potential In Performance – Is It A Myth?

For me, potential in performance is one of the most fascinating topics to debate in modern-day sports psychology. This article is my opinion on the subject. If you take the time to read my ramblings below, you’ll see that I lean heavily towards the view that there isn’t really such a thing as potential.

From a performance psychology perspective, I would even say that it can often be detrimental. But this is just my viewpoint. Please add your counterargument below in the comments section for those who read and disagree. Debating these topics healthily and respectfully is crucial to improving our understanding. So don’t be shy.

“You Have Some Much Potential”

The word ‘potential’ is used extensively across sports and other performance domains, such as music, art, performing arts, and academics. It is used so frequently that it will almost always be regarded as ‘real’. The context in which it is most commonly heard is to describe an individual performer. Someone who can and should be much better in the future based on current or past ‘glimpses’. For example:

“Our starting quarterback has so much potential but often falls short on game day.”

In other words, according to the individual who said these words—let’s say the coach—this athlete has done things that suggest they could be much better later on but are not right now.

All too often, this is down to moments of brilliance. Maybe it’s moments of brilliance during a practice session with little or no competitive pressure. Or perhaps it was one or two unforgettable moments in a game that made everybody sit up and take notice.

The issue with these moments of brilliance is that they are only moments. Even the sports that last the least time (e.g. 100 m sprint) are made up of dozens of moments. Some sports, like cricket, comprise tens of thousands per match. So, if only a few of these moments are brilliant, then it suggests the rest were not, which is the definition of inconsistency.

So, if consistency is the most sought-after aspect of performance (as my colleague Chris argued in this brilliant article), then moments of brilliance count for diddlysquat.

Genetics and Potential

Not always, but often, potential in performance is used to describe genetic or inherited advantages. In other words, if you go back to the good old nature versus nurture debate, we often label performers as having ‘huge potential’ when they have all the genetically inherited ideals for that sport—a naturally taller basketball player or a heavily set forward rugby union forward.

In these scenarios, being labelled as naturally talented can often be a significant handicap from a mental toughness point of view. 

Think about it. Our effort is one of the few areas of performance over which we genuinely have considerable influence. Therefore, consistency of hard work (in the right areas 😬) would have to be the most significant predictor of future success in sports and performance.

Imagine that from the age of seven, you have been told by all the significant people around you that you have genetic advantages. “Tommy has so much potential and natural talent”. If I were Tommy and I heard this repeatedly, it would be easy to believe that I don’t need to put in the same level of effort as some of my competitors to succeed. When you combine this with humans naturally wanting to take shortcuts (see more here: Principle of Least Effort), Tommy is in trouble. His dreams of making it to the top are pipe dreams.

Inside Knowledge

One of the absolute joys of working as an applied sports psychologist is that many of our loyal clients are already competing and performing at a high level. We had/have the privilege of helping some of them get there. For others, we have joined them and their team while they are already at the pointy end, and we have been brought in to help increase the probability that they stay there.

Irrespective, we have conversations with some of the best athletes and performances in the world virtually every day. As I am only one member of the current Condor Performance team, I can’t speak on behalf of all of our uber-elite clients worldwide, but the ones I have worked with rarely talk about potential.

Most of these exceptional athletes were not told they had potential or natural talent during their developmental years.

Due to this, they developed a rock-solid belief system that consistency of effort was the number one ticket to the top. Hard work was above everything else. This work ethic became a habit, and as the years rolled on, it became a much more critical ingredient to performance consistency and excellence than anything else.

Practical Takeaways

What does this mean regarding practical takeaways for those reading this article? I will leave you with some straightforward and hopefully game-changing advice on this subject of potential in performance.

If you’re a coach, I would cease to use the terms potential and natural talent. Just ban them from your vocabulary. If you are an athlete or non-sporting performer, I would encourage you also to move away from these dangerous labels. When you think you are full of potential, notice those thoughts and return to work. If others tell you it, thank them and get back to work.

Consider this if you have been labelled as someone with huge potential. Does hearing this make me want to work harder or not? If you’re one of the lucky few who views your potential in a motivational way, then make sure you have strategies to continue working hard even when those around you stop describing you in this way.

Amount of Influence

From a mental toughness point of view, one of the most fundamental ideas is how much influence we have on stuff. When we look at this in the context of time, it is elementary.

  • We can not influence the past at all.
  • We have a vast amount of influence over the present.
  • We have some influence over the future (due to the amount of influence we have over the present and the impact the present has on the future).

Potential in performance, as well as in any context, is a future-orientated construct. It is a prediction about the future. So, in the same way that putting a considerable amount of mental energy into the past is detrimental (“things were so much better last season why Coach Bob was around”), so too is focusing too much on the future. 

So, we want to spend most of our energy in the present moment. My response to working with an athlete who believes they have enormous potential is the same as when consulting with an individual who believes they have absolutely none. Ask yourself the following:

“What is my plan for this week, this training session, so that afterwards, there is no doubt that I have improved in one or more meaningfulness areas.”

Permission granted to write this on your bathroom mirror.