Coaching/Situational Leadership

In sport, the research may just be confirming what is already known elsewhere. In business, Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey have explained the need for adaptive management styles in their theory of ‘Situational Leadership’. They developed this model in the late 1960s, basing it on the belief that people are more or less able and more or less willing to do certain tasks. Depending on the situation, the leader would then be required to do one of the following: Direct Coach Support Delegate Directing, according to this model, would be appropriate for people who have limited skills and need to be told specifically what to do. Constant feedback is required to allow such people to gauge their progress; Coaching is needed when a person has certain skills, is keen to train and can progress on certain tasks without supervision. Once they have reached a certain level, they need new challenges to get their teeth into; Support is for people who have some idea of what they want to do but may need help with the process. They are not as competent as they may think just yet, so they will need guidance; Delegation is for people who have reached a level of competence in their skills and have a clear idea of what they want to achieve. They want to retain contact for occasional feedback, but see themselves as partners rather than subordinates. Situational leadership allows for the development of individuals along a path from high dependence, through interdependence to independence. And it may be a useful model for coaches who have found that their style works at certain levels or with particular individuals but not universally. There are certain key points for coaches to consider, that can be linked to recent sporting research. Because the model is task-specific, it is possible to have high-level performers requiring direction when a new task presents itself. In sporting terms, think of the introduction of the diamond midfield formation to the England football team. While these players are clearly elite in terms of their skills (with the possible exception of taking penalties!) and require a delegating style of coaching for normal passing and tackling drills, the introduction of a new tactic called for a more autocratic directing style. Was the players’ subsequent inability to come to terms with the formation because they were unwilling to do so, or because they were not offered the most appropriate style of coaching support? Experienced players are most likely to learn new skills if they are given the chance to structure and schedule their own self-regulated practice. So, while a directing style may be appropriate when introducing the skill, it is probably best to allow the players to arrange the practice for themselves (supporting style).  Find out more by following this link: http://www.pponline.co.uk/prewp/pp-spspb112.html   Successful Japanese coaches have been shown to construct a healthy relationship with their athletes that encourages commitment to deliberate practice. If your players are handed a schedule requiring little or no input from them, how can they commit to deliberate practice? On the other hand, giving them the opportunity to organise their own practice sessions will make the athletes feel trusted and enable them to learn at their own pace. Using this same tactic with less experienced athletes could result in disaster, though; if you have ever coached basketball players, you may have experienced the ‘slam dunk’ mentality of beginners when left to their own devices! For such people, a directing and coaching style may be more suitable and the gradual introduction of 10 minutes per session of free practice will enable the players to develop a sense of responsibility for their own progress. If you are coaching a group of athletes, does every individual in that group require the same style of coaching? Some athletes may be suffering from loss of form and need more support, while others will be irritated by constant feedback and prefer more autonomy in their practice sessions. If you are coaching a national or regional squad, you will have some players who are new to the squad and others who are very experienced at that level. A new player may need a directing style to facilitate the introduction of tactics and skills for that team; but it may be hard for him to adapt to this approach if he was the top competitor at his previous club and used to having much more input into coaching decisions. Should a team be coached differently from an individual? A great deal of research effort has gone into determining whether a team requires a more autocratic directing style or a more consensual delegating approach than individuals. The bottom line is that team cohesion has been shown to be higher when the coach involves the players in decision-making. But whether team cohesion itself is important for team performance remains to be proven. Whatever style you choose to adopt, in whatever situation and with whichever athlete, clear and effective communication is of paramount importance – from athlete to coach as well as from coach to athlete. Everyone needs some input from the coach, especially as they become better at their sport. Failure to provide this input will result in disgruntled athletes. Coakley, who studied high-level teenage athletes and interviewed those who suffered from burnout, has shown this in past research. Poor communication from coaches led the teenagers to perceive a low level of personal control over of the situation in which they trained. This, in turn, left them feeling stressed and unable to cope. He also found that burned-out athletes tended to have too much of their sense of self invested in being athletes, with little or no balance in terms of rewarding personal lives. It is still quite common for coaches to be poor communicators, either because they lack the skills or the will to communicate effectively. Sporting environments marked by poor communication lead to perceptions – among the athletes – of a controlling and pressuring structure. By contrast, when a coach communicates training plans well, the athletes perceive the environment as informative and supporting. However, in order to communicate the training plan, the coach must first have a plan! Successful coaches have been shown to be very meticulous in their planning, leaving nothing to chance. They also plan their sessions so that they are highly sport specific. High-level athletes may have little tolerance for non-sporting related activities, and if they have a competition coming up they want their training to reflect the reality of competition. New skills and tactics should not be introduced during the lead-up to competition, when the team needs to focus on rehearsal and reinforcement of strategies and tactics that are known to be successful. Following a plan that is well thought-out and well communicated will help to build and maintain athletes’ confidence in their training. In summary, coaching high-level athletes involves much more than imparting skills, which an athlete should already have if he or she is a member of a high-level squad. Instead, the coach must create a healthy competitive environment that allows the athletes to succeed, breeding confidence and further success. Coaches should remember to: 1. Plan the entire competition cycle, including individual training sessions; 2. Communicate the plan clearly and regularly, and listen to what players have to say; 3. Involve the players. High-level athletes require more involvement in their own development than beginners and should be allowed time for self-regulated practice. Experienced players, such as the team captain, may be involved in team selection issues; 4. Adapt to the realities of the sporting situation. If things work well, do more of them, but if something isn’t working, change it. Having a plan does not preclude the need for flexibility, and injuries, funding problems and venue changes, as well as the highs and lows of sport performance, all call for an adaptable, flexible approach.