Do exit interviews change anything? If not, they're wasting time. The concept reminds me of David Brooks' "resume virtues" and "eulogy virtues." Resume virtues extol what we've done for ourselves, while eulogy virtues inform how we've changed others.
Brooks admits, "It occurs to me that I’ve achieved a decent level of career success, but I have not achieved that. I have not achieved that generosity of spirit, or that depth of character."
Forbes discusses exit interviews and shares recommendations:
- Vent ahead of time, not during the interview.
- Plan and prepare for the session.
- Exit with grace by focusing on the positive.
- Provide useful facts.
- Have your own informal exit interviews.
When leaving the Navy, a colleague had an exit interview with the hospital CO. "Is there anything we could have done to keep you in the Navy?" He answered, "No."
We don't have formal reviews of the coaching by the Rec Department. They usually just say thanks and let me know the parents were mostly happy.
Some parents and players would put us on a pedestal. Others want to hit us with one. What might distinguish the two? Dissatisfaction arises for many reasons - playing time, role, and especially gaps between expectations and reality. Coachspeak says you earn your minutes and role. Why? Because most of us believe that.
Few players or parents express open disdain for the coaching. It usually surfaces through the grapevine. "So and so thinks your coaching stinks." That's unhelpful without specifics. I'll listen. If somebody says, "I disagree with your approach of substituting four or five in," I won't disagree. It keeps playing time more equal, not perfectly equal. If they say, "you don't scrimmage enough in practice," that's also true, arguable, and opinion. I'd say that small-sided (3 vs 3) games at each end gets more touches and more shots per player with one coach coaching each group. Full court 5 versus 7 no dribble work is a form of scrimmage (advantage-disadvantage with constraints). And every practice ends with about 15 minutes of O-D-O (offense-defense-offense) three possession games, possessions beginning with special situations (BOB, SLOB, ATO, free throws).
If they say, "my kid didn't learn anything," that could be true, but how did so many other kids have the same experience and succeed as All-League players or beyond? And how many of those disaffected players did the unrequired work, attending offseason workouts (twice weekly) for additional teaching and training? <Crickets>
If your child has a mediocre two or three year varsity career, a lot of ground got crossed between eighth grade and upperclass varsity seasons. The cynical, logical reply is they succeeded despite their formative coaching.
When coaches leave, how often do they get an exit interview? When players transfer, they usually don't have an exit interview. Perhaps nothing could reverse the exodus of public to private talent, but it doesn't happen in every sport, mostly basketball and hockey.
Summary:
- Exit interviews resemble resume and eulogy virtues.
- Focus on the positive
- Provide useful facts
- Play small sided games
- Use advantage-disadvantage with constraints
- Practice special situations to excel in them
- Do the unrequired work
- Be self-aware about progress and limitations
Lagniappe (something extra) Art imitates life. GOLD. "What do you love?"
Lagniappe 2. Coach Hanlen breaks down a shot.
Lagniappe 3. "Majerus closeouts." Flip, flyby, recover, repeat and stop drive.
Lagniappe. ATO game winner with an unusual screen-the-screener action.
