The Critical Construct of Management in Athletic Program Success — Part 5 of 5

The Critical Construct of Management in Athletic Program Success — Part 5

In a program with good leadership and a program with bad leadership, sometimes there are clear differences in player behaviors. As can be expected, good leadership will show more positive player behaviors. Sometimes it is not the program leadership or direction, it may be the singular player who is not responding to basic management or typical leadership. This player usually self-selects out of the program.

Good leadership will develop positive player behaviors like speaking of loyalty, speaking of commitment, speaking about getting better, or doing something that almost guarantees getting better. Players in programs with good leadership take charge by identifying problems, communicating expectations, implementing coaching directions, solving minor conflicts, and giving coaches an accurate assessment of the underlying team pulse. All of the previous benefits preserve coaching and planning time.

Leadership is sometimes poorly defined as being comprised of only the coaches and selected players. The truth is that in their own way, every participant must be a leader at some time. Patton’s famous comments have been condensed to lead, follow, or get out of the way. A large group of leaders with a common cause can be called followers, but no one will have to get out of the way. Everyone has heard about the natural leader, the type of personality every coach hopes to stock up on. But leadership can be taught and the definition of leadership can go past the guy with the biggest mouth or the loudest voice. Once the process of leadership is understood, reluctant leaders can become real leaders.

Players in programs that have poor leadership, or do not emphasize leadership, also display typical player behaviors that can be declared negative. Examples would include talking about quitting, seeking sympathy from others (any and all, not just a trusted associate), being a negative influence on other players or the coaching staff, undermining the team’s moral, or refusing to communicate. Note, there are differences between the above behaviors and normal situations that coaches deal with everyday, such as homesickness, injury, death in the family, etc. Negative behaviors can eat up a coaches’ valuable time, if the coach chooses to work with the negative player. Sometimes it is the highway.

So, three types of managerial and organizational aspects have been presented: theoretical, technical, and actual. Who takes on the burden? The Head Coach becomes the true program manager, even with a shared responsibility philosophy. The Head Coach must be very competent and aware of all three areas listed above. The Athletic Director, advisory committees, President or Chancellor, or Faculty Senate are just spaces in the flow chart of procedure and protocol. They make each other aware and have input, but the actual management is through the Head Coach. And that is why the coach was hired by the university. The other entities listed above (possibly excepting the AD) have neither the time nor the knowledge to run a competitive program. And they know it. Take that conclusion, and link it to the realization that college football is big business, and one can see that a competitive market means big money for head coaches who are perceived as being great actual managers. That is, they win to the satisfaction of the university or the associated masses.

Another short way of saying that the above management types are important is to ponder this little phrase:

All In/Walk In….Fall Out/Walk Out.

Thanks for stopping by http://gobluemichiganwolverine.blogspot.com/
If you have any questions please e-mail erocwolverine@gmail.com

Written by Doc4blue