An "Evaluation" By Any Other Name.....

At the conclusion of every high school athletic season, coaches are evaluated by their athletes, parents of said athletes, and by their administration. While it is an obvious part in the assessment process of a coach's performance, it has become a double-edged sword. It most certainly can be a tool of understanding - which is predicated largely upon the acquired data being viewed within its proper context. But it has also become a weapon of personal destruction whereby athletes and their parents can grind an ax because they are not satisfied with the outcome of the season now past. While everyone is entitled to their opinion - and many coaches deserve significant scrutiny for their actions during a competitive season - what sweeping conclusions are drawn by paper-based disgruntlement are often way off the mark.

I remember very clearly learning in my college courses on statistical analysis that statistics can be interpreted almost precisely to the degree that the person viewing the data wants it to be. If someone believes that man is the source for global climate disruption, statistics can be maneuvered so as to fit the desired template thereby fully implicating man as the reason. And to be perfectly fair, statistics in this particular scenario can be constructed to support a totally divergent perspective. While the statistical analysis of climate change is a vast speculative fistfight over ideological differences, it is unfortunate that the assessment process that most coaches are subjected to often lead to derailed, if not altogether destroyed careers.

Now let's ask ourselves an intellectually honest question:

Why are the paper or on-line versions of coaching evaluations a dangerous method of assessing coaching effectiveness?

Here are some possible explanations....

1 - They are being given too much weight. Opinions are fine, but they are just that. Since the scales of reliability or validity of these surveys are more than likely never substantiated, it is statistically improper to make conclusions with a flawed process. Can it provide some insight? Sure. Can it be definitive insight? Most assuredly not. For athletic directors to believe in the total veracity of any survey is taking a shortcut in human resource management.

2 - Satisfaction levels are directly wed to wins and losses. High school sports have CLEARLY become superimposed over the dynamic of professional sports. It's one thing to have a season ticket holder of a professional sports franchise threaten to not renew for the following season unless the coach is replaced. It’s quite another to have athletes and their families threaten to leave the district unless the current head coach is replaced. In example one, that is a matter rooted in free-market principles. If I don't like a product, I can choose to not continue using it. It is a pathetic statement that interscholastic athletic involvement is now defined more by the Principles of Commerce, than by the Construct of Education. Of course, evaluations of coaches from a losing season are going to be harshly graded. Does that by definition mean they are an ineffective coach? We know that postulate is ineffectual at best....but it has come to be the standard by which many coaches are judged - and executed.

3 - Lack of survey "integrity". What I mean by that statement is often the objective of the assessment tool does not match the stated objectives of the organization. For example: an athletic department might openly state that the purpose of interscholastic athletic participation is to help young people grow as not only athletes, but also as citizens of the community. Yet the season-ending survey might be heavily emphasizing as to whether or not the athlete had "fun" during their participation. Since fun - like beauty - is in the eye of the beholder, it is open to wild swings of interpretation. To have a tool of analysis not reflect the vision and mission of the organization is a misstep of intellectual dishonesty that serves to undermine, rather than advance.

4 - Lack of trust. If the relationships are damaged between coaches and administrators, the results of any evaluation process are always going to be viewed as skewed. Information in the hands of anyone you don't respect or trust is forever going to be viewed as destructive - no matter how constructive it actually might be.

Now let me get to the real nub of the issue of my writing this article - because an essay of coach's surveys in and of itself is not necessarily a mind-expanding exercise.

The issue is not the survey itself, but rather the interpretation of any personal assessment tool. If a staff is fearful of handing out these surveys at the conclusion of each season, that is an insight that any administration cannot overlook. For if the culture is buttressed by dysfunctional communication practices and relationship failings, then the survey process does not help them understand the quality of a coach's work, but rather sheds a light into the cultural malaise of the organization. In their zeal to better understand the good and the bad, they unwittingly expose the foibles and the warts that keep them in chaos and confusion.

Everyone would be much better served if there was an evaluation process that examined the clarity of purpose as opposed to the individual attitudes and behaviors of specific populations. For when all is said and done, the functional analysis of people is realized only when the organization's purpose and infrastructure are aligned.

And that can only be done by starting with an analysis of the organization in terms of who they are and where they are going.

Sounds like a good place to begin.