Self-efficacy and goal setting to reduce lameness

How do top sports people get to be champions? In exactly the same way that the best farms get to have minimal, or even zero, lameness. They do it by building their self-efficacy - and having good coaches to help them to do so, says vet Owen Atkinson.

Setting appropriate, achievable goals is all part of the process. Recognising and rewarding when goals are met is one of the most effective ways of building self-efficacy.

As trained Mobility Mentors, you will already understand how important your communication, facilitation and coaching skills are in your work to reduce lameness. You might even remember some of the theory behind this! When we mentor farmers to implement changes, there are three questions we must help them to answer for themselves:

1. What’s in it for me?
2. What’s everyone else doing?
3. How can I do it?

These are the three questions at the heart of Azjen’s theory of planned behaviour¹, and at their roots lie a personal belief system.

• Behavioural belief: Farmers who believe that focusing on and reducing lameness will be beneficial to them/ their cows/ their business/ the dairy industry, will more likely do it. They understand the answer to “What’s in it for me?”
• Normative belief: Producers who keep a close eye on how they compare to their peers will be compelled to perform well. No one likes to fall behind, and they can answer “What is everyone else doing?”
• Control belief: Individuals who believe that their herd’s lameness level is utterly dependent on what they do, and they take ownership of their own problems - and their own lameness destiny - will achieve better lameness management. They know the answer to “How can I do it?”

It is this last belief, the Control Belief, which is affected by self-efficacy. An alternative definition is “self belief”. There is an abundance of evidence demonstrating that performance is governed largely by self-efficacy². This knowledge is used a lot in sports coaching. No athlete is sent into the sporting arena with a coach whispering in their ear that they are the weaker player! On the contrary, a good sports coach builds the athlete’s confidence by telling them they are a winner.

As Mobility Mentors, we too must work on building farmers’ self-efficacy. For sure, we can tell them what great and capable people they are, and that is a good start. We can do even more by showing them how people similar to themselves have been successful at reducing lameness. And, best of all, we can build self-efficacy by recognising and rewarding their previous successes. For example:

“Remember how well it worked when you blitz treated the herd for DD? How do you feel about trying some new approaches to similarly reduce the sole ulcers?”

In order to recognise and reward a goal reached, we must first help our clients set good goals. Too easy a goal, and the sense of achievement isn’t real; too hard a goal, and it can be demoralising when it doesn’t come off. It’s a little bit like a boxing coach choosing the next fight: we want a reasonable challenger to help our boxer climb their professional ladder, but we don’t want our guy/gal knocked out!

One final note: Azjen’s theory draws a distinction between perceived and actual behavioural control. That is to say, having an abundance of self-belief without actually knowing “how to do it” is not the same as self-belief with the tools/ skills/ knowledge of “how to do it”. And this brings into focus another role we have as Mobility Mentors. Our job is to equip clients with the know-how and skills so they are more able to attain their mobility improvement goals.

I’d make a pretty bad boxing coach because I’d not have the first idea of when to employ an uppercut versus a hook, or defend with a slip versus a clinch, so I wouldn’t be very effective in helping a boxer become a more successful fighter. Fortunately, I know exactly what’s required to reduce lameness, so I think I’ll stick to being a Mobility Mentor!

References

¹Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec Proc. 1991; 50:179–211.

² Bandura, A. 2000. Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective-efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.