PART 1 OF 3
Effective Program Management
Athletics gives us one of the most objective measures of success: you either win or you lose. (Okay, soccer and a few other sports may allow ties, but we won’t go there.) Winning and losing are two concrete outcomes; they are easy to understand and evaluate. One of the great quotes about sports says “If winning doesn’t matter, then why do we keep score?”
But in college sports we always talk about the benefits student-athletes receive from participating in athletics: leadership skills, coping with adversity, teamwork, discipline, commitment, learning how to lose and rebound, etc. All of these things are generally accepted outcomes, but where do they fit into a coach’s performance evaluation? And how the heck do we measure these things?
All coaches want to talk about winning as a job performance criteria… until they aren’t winning. Then they want to talk about all of the other things their program provides for its student-athletes. This attitude must be flipped so that all of the things that benefit student-athletes are the reasons for winning.
So how does an athletic director evaluate coaching performance in a way that considers the less tangible outcomes? An evaluation must clarify expectations and consider more than just competitive success as a criteria. Three major components go into successful coaching: 1) Effective Program Management; 2) Positive Student-Athlete Experiences; and 3) Competitive Success. Each of these areas should be identified in job descriptions, performance expectations and evaluation procedures.
Part 1: Effective Program Management
As good as a coach may be at recruiting, strategizing X’s and O’s and developing teamwork, those things can’t happen without sound management, especially in the small college environment. The ability to manage a budget, for example, is one skill all head coaches must demonstrate. But effective program management goes beyond basic administrative functions and includes team citizenship/discipline, rules compliance, communication, the ability to get along with others and developing alumni/community/donor relationships.
We hope all coaches grow and develop in these areas, but too often administrators look past poor program management and rationalize their positive evaluations with “Well, the program is winning, so…” There are too many shortcuts to winning, at the expense of other things. This will lead to major issues at some point in that program’s future. Winning cannot be a substitute for responsible leadership and management. In the short term, winning may provide tangible results that benefit the program… money, publicity, blue chip recruits… but in the long term, none of these things provide a substantial foundation on which to build a winning program.
Begin With The End In Mind
Good athletic directors develop a clear set of expectations and outcomes from the very beginning. It starts with the job description, which provides an outline of expected duties required of the coach. The next step is identifying outcomes for the coach’s program. These outcomes must identify more than wins or Conference finish. Coaches need regular and constructive feedback to help them meet expectations. Year-end evaluations include multiple perspectives on the coach’s performance, including a self-evaluation, and an honest and detailed discussion about strengths and weaknesses. Finally, good evaluations provide praise for achievement and also prescribe remedies for deficiencies.
Start with clear expectations
The coach’s job description must be clear and thorough. Duties must be outlined to encompass all roles and responsibilities. It is helpful to also provide the coach with example of successful outcomes for each area of responsibility. For example, “manage the program budget effectively” might include a clarifying statement like “Prepares budget plan by requested date and monitors expenses to ensure budget is not overspent.” Unless a clear explanation is given for what you expect, confusion and conflict likely will come up during an evaluation.
Provide Feedback
Everyone needs feedback, whether it’s good or bad. Timely feedback throughout the year allows a coach to adjust behavior or tactics, if needed, to meet your expectations. No one wants to be blind-sided in the end of year evaluation meeting with first-time criticism about deficiencies in performance.
Circle Back
A popular tactic today for performance evaluation is the 360-degree feedback approach. This system collects input from a variety of people with which the coach interacts on a regular basis. The idea is to provide the athletic director or supervisor with a broader perspective on a coach’s performance of essential job duties.
Don’t Forget the Student-Athletes
Student-athlete feedback is essential to evaluating a coach’s performance. The key here, however, is to clearly communicate that student-athletes are not “evaluating” their coach. Too often, athletic directors or supervisors survey student-athletes with a “coaching evaluation.” This sends the wrong message. Student-athletes do not evaluate coaches, athletic directors do.
Prescribe Remedies
When there are performance issues, it’s not just the coach’s responsibility to improve. Athletic directors or the supervising administrator must provide coaching to the coach to help him/her develop and grow. This feedback also serves as an additional set of expectations for the coming year.
Is There a ‘Right Way?’
[pullquote4 align=”right” variation=”blue” ]TIP OF THE MONTH FOR ATHLETIC DIRECTORS: Don’t Let Whining Get in the Way of Winning. »»Coaches are competitive by nature. They want the best for their programs and they expect others to support them. Effective athletic directors expect coaches to strongly advocate for their programs. And while it’s easy to get annoyed by a coach who constantly is asking for more, keep it all in proper perspective. Some coaches need more attention and feedback than others. This is simply one way for them to get the attention they crave.[/pullquote4]
John Wooden may be the epitome of coaching success. He never talked about winning. His Pyramid of Success hangs on the office walls of many coaches, athletic directors and business executives as a guide for how organizations and teams achieve success. Wooden won 664 games.
Joe Paterno, despite the recent tragic discoveries attached to his program, ran his program based on strong convictions about right and wrong. Joe Posnanski’s new biography of Paterno describes a man obsessed with controlling every aspect of his program, often to a fault. He expected his players to commit to education as much as they did to football. Many of his players hated playing for him, but years later understood his methods and loved the man. Paterno won 409 games.
Bobby Knight, love him or hate him, demanded academic commitment and graduated his players long before the NCAA made it a public crisis. He, too, had players despise his approach, only to later fully understand and appreciate what Knight had provided to them. Knight won 902 games.
There is no magic balance of winning, losing, and the other intangible benefits to student-athletes. The most important thing for athletic directors to remember, however, is that winning the right way matters. There are no shortcuts to success. A winning program must be built upon a foundation of sound management and leadership along with a commitment to providing a positive student-athlete experience.
Coming in future issues of Perspective On Athletics:
Part 2: A Positive Student-Athlete Experience
Student-athletes don’t always like their coaches or feel positively about their season. So does this mean the coach is not doing a good job developing student-athletes? Not necessarily. We’ll look in-depth at what a positive student-athlete experience really means and how to assess your programs and coaches.
Part 3: Competitive Success
Evaluating competitive success is easier said than done. While wins and losses are straight forward, what other factors play into a winning, or losing, season?