In the past few years, the acronym PER., meaning player efficiency rating, has become a popular advanced statistic to evaluate overall player contribution to their NBA teams (Greenberg, 2017). However, this philosophy of sport psychology has nothing to do with Joel Embiid, Nikola Jokic, or LeBron James. In this case, PER stands for Plan, Execution, and Results.
When it comes to sports, evaluating success solely based on results of performance can be a tough business. This notion reigns especially true in baseball, where a successful hitter only achieves their goal of getting a hit roughly 30% of the time. This process can be extremely draining. This example emphasizes the need for athletes to be process-oriented rather than outcome-oriented. It can be difficult to maintain the motivational capacity to continue to play in a sport where they fail well over half the time.
The PER Model highlights processed-based performance, what an athlete does in a game situation, rather than outcome-based performance, and what the result of that behavior is (Schmutz et al., 2014).
“P” – Plan
What tools can athletes use to best develop their game plan? Repeat initiative-taking is a strategy that can be used when an athlete looks back at a performance that went well. This can be a successful strategy when making plans for future performances (Deichmann & van den Ende, 2014). For example, one of my clients pre-injury used to listen to his favorite song on repeat while he was pitching. It would help him reset between pitches and not worry about outcomes out of his control, like if one of his teammates made an error. Due to the success he had with this internal radio, we incorporated this music-based strategy into his plan for his first season back from injury.
A pre-performance routine is another strategy that can lead to success for athletes. These can lead to heightened focus, improved confidence, and lower anxiety levels during performance (Rupprecht, 2021). One of my clients holds faith as one of his highest values. With this in mind, he decided to write a cross in the dirt next to home plate with his bat before each plate appearance. This helps him lock in and let his mind know that it is time to focus.
“E” – Execution
Monitoring and reviewing progress are essential features when evaluating if the athlete is successfully executing their plan. Tracking goal progress is a useful self-regulation tactic, and interventions that enhance the frequency at which progress is tracked are likely to encourage modifications in behavior (Harkin et al., 2016). Feedback in conjunction with a clear objective has a significant impact on engagement and performance. In addition, whether or not feedback is associated with a particular goal, raises task engagement (Robison et al., 2021).
With baseball players, the aim is to help them set process goals throughout the game rather than just looking at the box score after to see if they had success. Some simple post-game review questions can include the following: Did I swing at pitches in the strike zone? Was I comfortable with 2 strikes? Did I remember to do my box breathing before the at-bat? Rather than, did I get a hit?
“R” – Results
Instead of focusing on improving oneself, the ego-goal-oriented individual measures perceived ability as a function of outperforming others. Someone who is only focused on their results, measures their sense of competence and self-worth on how they stack up against others and outcomes (i.e. stats) rather than skill advancement.
The objective of task goal orientation is the mastery of a specific skill. For the task-oriented person, perceived ability depends on how much they believe they have improved over time. A task-oriented athlete believes they are capable if she can complete a task more skillfully now than she could a week ago. The task-oriented person keeps trying to perfect the skill they are working on and has emotions of confidence and self-efficacy as a result (Robbins & Madrigal, 2017). These are the types of results we want athletes to care about. The focus is on self-improvement and building competence going to the field every day, rather than immediate success measured by traditional statistics like batting average, home runs, or runs batted in.
The development of the PER Model came from working with collegiate baseball players who struggle to handle failure. I found that several athletes give up on themselves if early-season results are not in their favor. The majority of the time we will not get the results we want as quickly as we want. However, that doesn’t mean we should abandon our well-thought-out course of action. With this in mind, I sought to create a model that encourages athletes to trust the plan that they created to find success. Emphasizing that this plan was an outline for how to have long-term success and should not be deterred by initial shortcomings.
The PER Model is not limited to sports alone. The same concept applies when seeking jobs or applying to colleges or jobs. A college graduate seeking work is not failing just because they do not get hired immediately upon receiving their degree. They may have been rejected for many reasons and may never know why. However, what they can work on is their plan and execution. How will that person stand out amongst other applicants? Does that person truly believe they can have success in their next phase of life? Once these questions are answered, the results will eventually follow.
References:
Deichmann, D., & van den Ende, J. (2014). Rising from failure and learning from success: The role of past experience in radical initiative taking. Organizational Science, 25(3), 670-690.
Greenberg, N. (2017). What is player efficiency rating? Washington Post.
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., … & Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological bulletin, 142(2), 198.
Robbins, J. E., & Madrigal, L. (2017). Sport, exercise, and performance psychology: Bridging theory and application. Springer Publishing Company.
Robison, M. K., Unsworth, N., & Brewer, G. A. (2021). Examining the effects of goal-setting, feedback, and incentives on sustained attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(6), 869.
Rupprecht, A. G., Tran, U. S., & Gröpel, P. (2021). The effectiveness of pre-performanceroutines in sports: a meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1-26.
Schmutz, J., Eppich, W.J., Hoffman, F., Heimberg, E., & Manser, T. (2014). Five steps to develop checklists for evaluating clinical performance: An integrative approach. Academic Medicine, 89(7), 996-1005.