The Essence of "Coaching"

Without question, the coach is a powerful influence on not only the athletes they lead and educate, but they are a critical component in shaping the dynamic of a team and the organization as a whole.

But they are only one piece of the cultural architecture process. Regardless of how much power or influence they may wield, they are only able to transform the collective only as far as they have the support of the administration, and a "buy-in" from the athletes they train. With such transient power, coaches must be careful to not mistake power for control, since control is a very short-lived and limited basis for influence and for advocating significant change. In many cases, this is what ultimately does in many coaches. It is the belief that they can - by their will and their way - can bring about the kind of change that can move a team towards a championship pedigree. When they fail - and they more often than not do fail - it is because there was little ownership or synergy among the varied populations that exist within any team or organization. So since you really can't fire an owner; and you really can't fire the whole team; it becomes easy to release a coach. No offense....it's just a simpler fix.

It is not too difficult to envision these challenges to coaches when you look at the organization's structure regardless of the athletic level. The coach is essentially a "Middle Manager" - an individual put in charge of the day-to-day operations of a team. In every system - youth, high school, intercollegiate, or professional - the coach answer to an authority level above them, and oversees the development and progress of those athletes below them. In the business world, the mid-level manager has a tremendous responsibility ahead of them every day...and if they are not able to find growth (i.e. profit) of their people/division, they are let go....and someone else is brought to see if they can bring positive results to a sagging operation.

A coach being fired at the professional level is not a difficult premise to understand. If the team is losing, and fans are voting for a change by not showing up to watch the on-field product, then change becomes an easy route to take. It's not the proper way to deal with the core issue of most failing franchises, but it is the route that is done almost exclusively in all major sports in this country. Too many "good" coaches are put in no win scenarios at the professional level with either limited talent or incongruous direction. If you don't have (the proper) people to carry forward a (clearly defined) purpose, you have a (sure-fire) formula for failure.

That I can be sure of.

At the youth, high school, and college levels of athletic competition, how coaches succeed or get lost is a more challenging dynamic to understand. I say challenging because there are a lot of assumptions that get tested in the modern construct.

We ASSUME that the main objectives of a youth athletic organization are for participation and competition to be introduced to the young, and developing athletes.

We ASSUME that the reason for existence of a high school athletic program is to provide recreational outlets and educational opportunities in addition to the prototypical classroom setting.

We ASSUME that the purpose of an athletic department at the intercollegiate level is to provide not only a diverse educational and entertainment option for the student population, but also as a means of providing external populations a glimpse into the psyche and structure of the college and it's campus.

These assumptions are based upon what I have heard countless times from representatives of each of these three athletic levels. As a result, almost all coaches are then hired based upon their ability to make those "Principles of Existence" a reality. One would assume then that the evaluation of a coach's performance would be based in large part to their ability/capacity to uphold the stated direction.

In truth, reality trumps assumptions....

Yes, many coaches are let go because they do fail in meeting the standards of these most basic principles.

But far too many coaches are let go because they have failed to meet a standard that is never stated at these "amateur" levels....they didn't "win" enough.

As I stated earlier, at the professional level of competition, winning is essentially the way the game is played. You don't win, the public wants change or they will not go to the games - ergo...you change the coach. We can agree or disagree with that simplistic resolution, but it is a matter of dollars. Say what you will, but at least they are all upfront with this philosophy of operation. The other levels though have much more to answer to a general lack of cultural integrity.

The system fails or the coaches’ fail not because they are lousy coaches or that there is no clarity....

It fails because one philosophy is professed, while another philosophy is addressed.

Winning has taken center stage in so many of these youth, high school, and collegiate teams it is frightening. But even more frightening is how the administrators of these programs play an intellectual shell game with the truth...and how coaches become willing accomplices to this ruse.

If you want an organization or team that is all about the winning, be upfront about it - it's the dishonesty that permeates all levels and renders the team incapable of (long-term) success. The same holds true if you want to be an athletic department that views athletics as part of a complete educational experience. If that is what you believe, then stand tall and proud for that philosophy.

But coaches have a huge part in the responsibility of maintaining organizational integrity. If you are not sure of the philosophy of the program during the interview process...then ask. If you are unsure of the level of support you have from administration...then ask. If you are uncomfortable with the stated purpose of the program when interviewing....don't take the job. If the pressure to maintain the stated, organizational direction statements is too great....then you need to get total support at all levels...or step aside.

A coach can never simply position themselves as a "victim" if they enable the ethical deterioration of the team, program, association, or organization.

Coaches and administrators must find the capacity to work together by establishing mutual ownership of the direction and the operations of the team. No fancy rules or regulations needed....just a fundamental agreement of both parties that this is the way we are going to move; this is what we believe: and this is how we are going to get there.

It's not the whole plan for an Environment of Excellence to take root....but it is the starting point.