Coaches come with a continuum of styles and substance. Traditionally that means "hard guys" and "players' coaches." The technical terms are "task-oriented" and "relationship oriented."
Invariably, the 'hard guy' is replaced with the 'players' coach' (and vice versa) as players tune out the hard guy (Tom Thibodeau?) or walk all over the 'nice guy' (Pete Carroll in New England).
It's not so simple. The story of SEMCO, a Brazilian manufacturing company, deserves attention. Ricardo Semler assumed 'control' and produced radical quality, remaking management concepts.
Simplifying SEMCO Concepts
- Size (reduce production units) - specialty training of team units?
- Structure (no pyramids, use concentric circles) - stars/rotation/team?
- Hire adults...individual responsibility reduces rules and enforcement
Excerpts:
"But getting back to that mammoth, why was it that all the members of the group were so eager to do their share of the work—sighting, running, spearing, chiefing—and to stand aside when someone else could do it better? Because they all got to eat the thing once it was killed and cooked. What mattered was results, not status."
"Profit-sharing criteria are so clear and simple that the least-gifted employee can understand them, and perhaps most important, when employees have monthly access to the company’s vital statistics—costs, overhead, sales, payroll, taxes, profits."
But what does this have to do with coaching (analogy)? Coaches allow players to have input, depending on their age, maturity, experience, and circumstances. Players need to see value from every activity and see progress individually and as a team.
Lagniappe (something extra). Understand the space-time continuum. There is a time for everything.
