Leadership In Coaching

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Coaching Styles from a Player’s Perspective

Coaching football demands unique thinking and a willingness to assess situations individually. More important than athletic based decision making, a coach is responsible for the development of their athlete in their formative years. Peter Scales, author of “The Crucial Coaching Relationship,” would certainly agree. Scales asserts,

“One of the most powerful ways to boost the payoff from school sports is by helping coaches build developmental relationships with student-athletes. This is more than just caring about kids. Developmental relationships are close connections through which young people develop character skills to discover who they are, gain the ability to shape their own lives, and learn how to interact with and contribute to others. All of this prepares them for success in school, work, and life.”

Clearly, Scales values the relationship of a coach and their athlete. Scales understands the gravitas of their relationship and how it can affect the athlete later in life. He demonstrates his understanding of this bond through diction selection such as powerful, payoff, build, developmental, gain, and contribute which build a connotation of togetherness and strength. What is to be taken from Scales’ hypothesis is how the athlete can utilize athletic approaches to conquering tasks in facets outside of athletics such as the academic realm, seeing as only a minute percentage of high school athletes progress to collegiate level sport. In fact, Joy Gales and Ashley Baker, authors of “Opportunities and Challenges for First-Year Student-Athletes Transitioning from High-School to College,” conducted research in 2015 concerning this matter. Gales and Baker concluded from their research that, of the 7.7 million students in high school that participate in team athletics, 480,000 will compete at an NCAA school in their athletic field. A mere six percent. Subsequently, one must wonder what the long term benefit is from an athlete’s perspective of working so hard in high school for a sport that they have slim chances of ever playing in college. E.G. Hallaman may know the answer to this pertinent question. Hallaman, author of “The Principal as a Coach,” analyzes high school coaches and their transition to administrative positions within the school. Hallaman asserts that coaches do not succeed in administration positions because they fail to bring the same approach to the office as they would have done with the field. It is important to note that Hallaman is not implying that coaches are insufficient in the classroom, but he is demanding that coaches translate their athletic policies to the administrative side. Throughout the article, Hallaman makes a claim about excellent coaching strategy and highlights the school administration’s inability to bring the competitive spirit of sport into the classroom. Hallaman states, “To those who are too snobbish to see the great potential of what coaching attitudes and methods can produce, let them walk down the corridors of our schools to see what it is that is in those trophy cases.” Essentially, Hallaman desires for teachers and administrators to take the approach to teaching as coaches do when they coach athletes because Hallaman sees how effective coaches are in motivating their players and molding them into young men. Hallaman yearns for athletes to become just as competitive in the classroom as they are playing sport, and understand what they do is vital to their future. More notably, the connection must be made that Hallaman and Peter Scales, the first author mentioned, are in full agreement that the ways in which coaches approach tasks is entirely applicable in academia, and real life scenarios. So yes, coaches can formulate a long term impact on their athletes. Stories like Tom Brady and Bill Belichick, debatably the most famous quarterback coach duo in football history, circulate the media on a daily basis. However, there are certainly cases in which the coach fails to motivate their team entirely, or connects with them well enough to inject effective habits off the field. Thus, one must uncover how effective coaches use their position of leadership to motivate. One must decode the varying leadership styles and analyze the benefits and drawbacks of each approach.

Within the coaching community, research suggests that there are three main ways to lead. In "An Exploration of Participation Football Coaches’ Philosophies from Development to Expression,” Dan Horsley asserts there are autocratic, democratic, and holistic styles of leadership. According the Horsley, the autocratic approach is more like the soldier to drill instructor relationship; do what you are told without question. With regard to a relationship, there is one, however its intimacy is limited. Whereas it’s democratic counterpart seems to be focused more on communication. That is, the players have thoughts and those ideas are taken into consideration by the coach. Coaches like this seem to have an “open door policy,” when players are welcomed to visit the head coach whenever they would like. Horsley also brings to light a dark horse style of leadership, the holistic approach. Horsley describes this as a more principle centered approach. Horsley claims that coaches in this scenario seem to focus more on the betterment of the player as a person, and doing so will motivate the athlete to have true desire to perform for the coach. Winning within the mindset is not priority. Horsley identifies these leadership styles with his own classifications. On the same token, other members of the academic realm like Stephen Covey, author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, would address the three main leadership styles as gofer delegation, stewardship delegation, and being principle centered. According to Covey, gofer delegation would correspond with the autocratic leader that Horsley identified. Covey names this style of leadership because it entails being told to “go for this, or go for that,” without truly understanding why the task is being executed. This would be classified as a “low trust” relationship by Covey. However stewardship delegation, much like Horsley’s democratic style of leadership, requires “high trust,” according to Covey. There is a mutual understanding between the two parties about what the task is and when it should be completed. However, the leader in this role allows the understudy to perform the task in whichever way they choose. One must see the clear connection between Horsley’s “democratic” and Covey’s “stewardship” styles of leadership. Lastly, Covey asserts that above all a leader should be principle centered, much like Horsley’s holistic approach to leading. Covey demands in his book that leaders hold their principles constant, despite what conditions may produce. As one can see, there is a clear correlation in the academic community about the styles of leadership, despite them having different names. Furthermore, the link between coach and athlete is crucial, but one must look deeper into the relationship and analyze these three stylistic approaches to leadership. One must unearth how each party effectively communicates. One must dissect what is effective, and what seems to be ineffective within this dynamic.

An autocracy is a government that controls its people with absolute power and zero limitation. While the comparison between an autocracy and autocratic coach may be muddled due to the fact that a coach has regulations to structure their behavior, they are certainly not incomparable. Their likeness lies more so at the relationship level. Essentially, how the two parties communicate and who is the dominant force. In this case, which was previously introduced, the coach is without question the coach transcends over the athlete. Personally, I have experience with this kind of coach. I was lucky enough to play twelve years of football at the youth, high school, and collegiate levels. I was blessed to play for Wingate University, located in Charlotte, North Carolina. I do not include this to boast, but to emphasize that I have had consistent experience throughout my whole life coaching. In fact, I even interned at a coaching position for the Miami Dolphins this past summer. With regard to this coaching approach, there are certainly benefits as well as drawbacks. From a player’s perspective with regard to the negative aspects, the player is forced to swallow their own pride. This kind of coach is ferocious in word choice and will say anything that comes to mind, regardless how slanderous or vulgar. Sometimes, the athlete loses a sense of their own worth and begin to question why they play at all. Moreover, many players quit because of this style of coach, like I’ve personally seen. A teammate of mine failed to understand that the coach was only testing him. What the player must understand is that the coach is nonverbally communicating to his players that he wants to eliminate the weak links of the pack. Thus, the positives of this coaching genre begin to emerge. Foremost, the player develops a life skill of adhering to a higher authority. Immediately the athlete is immersed into a culture of submission and attention to demands while adhering to them. Additionally, coach like this will automatically make the guys who don’t want to be there quit. Essentially, the coach is eradicating those on the team who are there for the publicity and the jersey on Friday. A majority of the guys I have played with always think this kind of coach hated them. However, it is the contrary. The coach values the team enough to become the villain in the eyes of his players to ensure the athletes on the team are the ones that have a relentless love of football, which in turn betters the team. Essentially, the coach is deceiving his players into bonding by making them unite due to their disliking of him. This genre of coaching is effective for those who are able to decipher its hidden meaning.

Holistic coaching is rare, but is gaining popularity amongst the coaching community, particularly in youth sport. As was previously stated, this style of coach concerns themselves with the development of the player as a person. This style of coach implements principles and values into the athlete that will develop and emerge throughout their lives. According to Novy Kapadia, author of “The Psychology of Sports Coaching,” there is a lack of this kind of coach in youth sport today. Kapadia asserts, “There should be limited structure when coaching youth sport. If the sport becomes too serious, it could altogether ruin the child’s desire to play. The child must want to experiment and learn what works, and what does not.” Young athletes cannot be pushed to their physical limit at a young age. Not only young athletes, but mature professional athletes as well. While I do not criticize coaches for wanting to win, because in essence there will always be a winner and a loser in sport, coaches must recognize that development of self is essential, not always winning. Also, I counter with the argument that children shouldn’t be shielded from the reality of life that participation trophies do not exist. However, there is a clear advantage to a coach being concerned with the player themselves, not the game. Richard Boyatzis author of “Developing Sustainable Leaders through Coaching and Compassion,” argues that coaches must adopt the holistic approach. Boyatzis asserts, “Coaching is for development. Forming young men and women of the future supersedes a win in a game. Coaches must accept their responsibility as the sculptors of young athletes.” I’ve been lucky enough to have a coach like this, Coach Terry. When I played youth football, Coach Terry would always stay positive. He would construct in a positive manner through calm body language and an understanding tone. He nurtured his players, and did an excellent job of introducing sport to me in an appropriate style.

Arguably the most common amongst today’s coaches is the democratic coach. This coach has a unique concoction of holistic mannerisms and autocratic spurts. Coaches like this are focused on winning, and developing the player. The key distinction between this style and others, is communication. Democratic coaches listen to their older players on the team and take into consideration their concerns and ideas. However, one must not mistake them for being a pushover. Just because the coach will listen to his or her players does not mean they have any obligation to fulfill their desires. My head coach at Wingate University, Coach Reich, is an excellent example of a democratic coach. He held weekly Tuesday meetings with seniors about the direction of the team and how they felt. Coach Reich also was strict in discipline when needed, and often verbally punished athletes for making the same mistake twice. What must be understood about democratic coaches is their relentless hunger for winning does not outweigh their relationship with their players. While it is the primary goal, winning, it does not consume the democratic leader. While the benefits are clear for this style of coaching, it is not necessarily the “correct” way to coach athletes. One must understand that there is always a choice to be made, and the choice should be dependent upon the circumstance.

Life’s variability allows people to make situational decisions. The life of a coach is undoubtedly variable, so the question must be raised. Should a coach assert themselves as the leader to promote unity and equality amongst the team, should the coach focus on the development of the player as a person and seem disconcerted with winning, or take a more democratic approach and swallow losses for the betterment of the relationships on the team? I interviewed my high school football coach, Coach Otero, and asked him about this predicament. Coach Otero responded, “Every coach has a dominant style of coaching, but as you gain experience you realize there is no one method that is better than the other. Each player is an individual and you must approach each player differently, some take criticism well so an autotrophic style can work on that player. Some players are more logical or analytical like yourself, so a democratic approach favors those. Then you have your nurturing players where a holistic and caring style is needed more. I also believe that situations and the type of sport makes it relevant to the style of coaching that is warranted.” Unanimously, Coach Otero is correct in his assertion that coaches must approach situations with analytic intent. I interviewed Coach Otero because he is a friend now that football is over. This paper exists because of my relationship with Coach Otero. The very essence of my argument that coaches are crucial in the development of players and their style of coaching is the vital to how players respond is predicated upon Otero’s style. Coach Otero understands his players, but does not compromise his tenacity and strive towards success. Coach Otero’s argument that situations require individual response is not only applicable in the realm of coaching, but in all aspects of life. Thus, once again bringing to light the importance of an excellent coach. Coach Otero has taught me to assess circumstances as they come with intellect and concern, and for that I am thankful.