The Critical Construct of Management in Athletic Program Success

Posted at 8:00am — 8/1/2010

The Critical Construct of Management in Athletic Program Success

The contributor of this article has been a university instructor and professor, a college coach, and works in the fields of teaching and cognitive learning. Success is a topic he has studied at length, especially how specific skills relate to sports success.

There is almost certainly a reason why for over a century professional baseball has used the term “Manager” when referring to the person designated to run the on-field operations of a team. Other sports have chosen the moniker of “ Head Coach” to describe the leader of the pack. But no one can or will argue that a head coach, especially one who is adjudged by a large segment of society as being successful, is not a skilled manager. The argument may be in the level of managerial skill of each individual discussed.

The overlying purpose of this academic discourse is to offer insights into the underlying background and structural elements of successful management relating to athletic programs.

There are few secrets in sports. Sports as a singular entity is a copycat field of endeavor. Still, some early coaching pioneers demonstrated a much higher level of success, winning and otherwise, than their contemporaries. These pioneers are now called legends. And so, the “secrets” of winning became better known to others through assistants moving on, books, coaching clinics, and a substantial psychological knowledge base being developed throughout the entire 20th Century. This knowledge base defined and studied underlying traits that can lead to the successful management of teams. So, one can say the coaches beat the psychologists to the basic premises. The desired result of all of these collective identified psychological traits is success. And in sports, success is most often linked to winning. There will be no discussion here as to the merit of using winning as a primary indicator of athletic success.

Let us proceed by first accepting the underlying assumption that program management is essential for team success in high level sports programs. First colleges, then high schools, and then youth groups concluded that there must be a managerial organizational structure put in place. Even the Saturday morning 45-minute soccer practice for 10 year olds likely has an organized structure. Just as likely, the athletes and parents probably appreciate the embedded structure. And so administrative positions such as athletic directors and liaisons to the faculty were created and still exist to smoothly manage program elements.

But more than smoothness is needed for management to be considered successful, positive outcomes are a must. Some outcomes are obvious and some are not, being of the on the practice field and behind the closed-door nature. Some outcomes, either positive or negative, happen by chance or luck, but most outcomes do not. Some outcomes happen by a natural evolution of events that may cause change. For example, the spread offense is rapidly advancing in college football and may cause a change of events and outcomes down the road for pro football.

As stated, most positive outcomes are related not to chance, but instead to the planning and actions of purposeful administration. Resources and materials are indeed critical, that is necessary. But resources/materials alone are not sufficient for the highest level of success. Success brought about by resource advantages diminishes as administrative expertise or effort declines.

Now that an underlying need for program management has been established, the question becomes how is this need for management envisioned and what initial strategies are undertaken?

The answer lies within the brain. By ancient needs, the human brain is born with the ability to classify and organize. This ability is not evident in a youngster’s actions until between the ages of two and seven. Some people appear to others as natural organizers and others appear as organizational train-wrecks. Early cognitive research identified skills and traits that support advanced organization and management. Such tenets were termed cognitive controls. Next came the hemisphere crowd, with the right-brain and left-brain dialogue that labeled organization and management (linked to logic and analysis) as left-brained preferences. This knowledge-base was widely misunderstood as meaning only left-brain types could organize and that selected functions were controlled or took place only in one side of the brain.

More recently, the front and back of the brain have been in discussion regarding organization, classifying, logic, analysis, and management ability. These traits have been termed “executive functions” and are strong in those with well-developed frontal lobe areas. So, in fact, the left front of the brain is likely the grail of superior management.

While brain development is clearly linked to management ability, personality type is likely linked to preference as to whether or not a person wants to organize. In a household one child may perfectly organize a room, love it, and never be asked to do so. Another child may be perfectly capable but be very resistive to any organizational effort. Coaches have no choice, regardless of preference; they must be adequate organizers and managers.

The background being laid, the discussion progresses to facets and aspects of program management. Management starts with theoretical facets and aspects. Theoretical management is well known, well studied, and universally implemented. Facets include the familiar tenets of goals, objectives, philosophy, skill development, attitudes, leadership requirements, chain of command, decision models, and evaluation and change structures. By its very nature, theoretical management is strategic.

Since this domain is so well known, only a few comments shall be collectively offered. Goals have clearly been shown to be the lynchpin of human motivation and advancement. Goals are the single most effective link between theoretical and actual management. Goals are the simplest and most effective link to player motivation, in part because goals can be both individual and team oriented. What benefits the individual benefits the team, and vica versa. Chain of command in athletics and coaching is both stated and unstated. Few programs have weaknesses with this type of management. The problems stem from personality conflicts and power struggles, both of which break down the initial purpose of chain of command, namely quick functionality. Decision and change models can be very sophisticated but frequently emerge as an act of simple brainstorming that identifies the actual state, the desired state, and the strategies to move from one to the other.

The second type of program management, technical management, links the first (theoretical) with the third (actual) management type. Technical management in athletic programs is obvious to the public and well discussed. Examples of technical management include teaching methods, coaching methods, scheme selection, technique selection, strength and conditioning methods, and recruiting strategies. Remember the early premise that success is linked to quality management? Technical program management, with the tenets listed above, justifies the premise beyond normal skepticism.

Technical management is the link to player development. A common discussion among observers is what program is superior at developing players? Player development is a direct result of technical development by the staff. Individual coaches are frequently evaluated for retention based on technical program management skills. Every program searches for the very best, regarding technical management.

What can get an entire staff fired is the third type of program management, actual management. Theoretical and technical management only exists to implement this final product. All the theory and technical preparation must take available resources and materials and produce actual results. Every program can hire the very best and brightest for theoretical and technical management, but actual management needs resources and materials to maximize results. Resources and materials are not equal among competing academic institutions for both financial and philosophical reasons.

So, actual management accounts for the greatest amount of variance between competitors. Recruits are looking at history, resources, and documented success that links to their future expectations. So every few years, the same universities announce a new coach to replace a previous coach, hopes and expectations are high, but results are frequently the same and the institution recycles through the same process, hoping to find an athletic alchemist that can take a sow’s ear and make a silk purse. There have been some successful alchemists, but most of the time the well intended efforts fail. Why so? The answer is frequently less materials and resources than the premiere institutions. So, the best theory and the best technical management usually cannot overcome a lack of materials and resources. Although it may seem condescending, players are resources.

The most successful institutions in the college game want to know what resources and materials are needed to compete with other elite competitors. These institutions care far less how much this “upping the competitive ante” costs. Governing bodies frequently step in to attempt to keep the programs from driving over the cliff and endeavor to decelerate a materials race, with mixed results. This explains why Northwestern is Northwestern in most sports and Indiana is historically so different in football and basketball. Northwestern, an outstanding private institution, simply does not have the chips to ante in with larger players. Notre Dame, a similar institution, has made a determination to make every effort to keep the historical success of certain athletic programs and has been aided by large amounts of media and merchandise revenue, essentially enabling the university to sit at the table with a chip amount equal to any big player.

So, what can help the actual management state when resources and materials are not on par with competitors? There is an optimum physical state that can be achieved. This is not cheap but within the range of most athletic programs. The smaller schools can get good physical training facilities, but must share with the other sport programs. The big players have dedicated facilities and staff for single sport ventures. Lesser institutions will get lesser athletes and one way, a difficult way, to level the playing field is through taking the lesser athletes and developing them to a level that is close to the larger programs. This is easier said than done and the only way to accomplish this is taking the extra time required away from time normally allotted to the teaching of the individual sport. In other words, make the player a better athlete before making them a better technical player. Do both? This is a good idea, but there are regulations on time allotments. Summer is the loop around the time barrier.

The mental state of players can be improved through program management with little cost, just hard work and sound philosophy. This can also be an equalizer to narrow the gap. The big players are falling in line and now employ mental coaches. Most people take this as academic tutors, but these experts shape and develop the beliefs, motivation, and expectations as defined by program philosophy. A great mental conditioning program provides valuable outcomes, such as increased motivation, intensity, focus, efficiency of actions, leadership, thinking and analysis skills, the ability to react to pressure and adversity, and confidence. Confidence is a result of being prepared and achieving success and frequently needs a third entity, experience. Experience takes a player from preparing to do something to actually and successfully doing something.

Leadership, another management state that can level the playing field, is never overlooked by coaches, but is by the general public not involved with daily program happenings. There are clear benefits to strong leadership. Team communication is greatly enhanced. Players can use leadership as a vehicle to express ideas, concerns, and conclusions, without upsetting the chain of command. Coaches and players improve others through good leadership shills. There is unity and bonding in leadership, there is a common cause to uphold.

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 and the associated masses.

Written by GBMWolverine Staff

Go Blue — Wear Maize!