I have this image of a European soccer club having this beautiful set up of players, coaches, and trainers connected as one towards the path of sports mastery. This utopia of high performance with everyone in complete synergy with each-other. But we all know that is a myth, there are always problems and issues to incur. For a lot us, including myself, may have cost jobs. But after the initial surge into westernized sports culture, lets examine what actually happened with the inclusion of High Performance Model in North America.
The premise is fantastic. Sports Science, Player Management, Coach Collaboration, and Ownership/Director integrated as a one unit. I just finished Team of Teams and you cannot help to think of this complete lateral organization structure that was set up in the book. Everyone having influence on the decisions that will impact the outcome is truly an amazing thought. How could you not hope for that with your team?
But we all know that’s not how Westernized sport teams operate. It’s Top Down, Head Coach Dictates and Assistants/Support does, and that’s the way it is. We have coaches making millions of dollars and support staff making 5-10% of what they make. With that kind of wage gap there will always be a perception of the person making a disproportionate amount more than his or her counterparts is all knowing. It is what that organization or institutions are saying when they pay someone 7-8 figures annually and support staff a fraction of that. The person making a fraction of that can only have so much influence.
“If you wanted to be more involved with decisions, you should have picked another career path.”
We are going to break this down over three parts:
- Part I – Organizational Structure
- Part II – High Performance Model
- Part III – Best Version We Can Hope for
There are dynamics at play when a head coach has that much influence over their environment. The biggest being they control of hiring and firing. It is human nature to take on an almost narcissist like persona when you have that much power. It’s intoxicating to believe that you are that important. At the same time, it also has a tremendous effect on how you evaluate personnel that work for you. Everyone can be instantly be a threat!
Most would agree that hiring of S&C is not well organized. Meet with a head coach and if you display the characteristics they value, you get the job. This is often elements like pedigree or network, physical stature, or personality. What is often lost is that the coach that is making that hire, associates the position’s value with his or her previous experiences. This could be success in spite of quality S&C or even overly value characteristics that do not necessarily mean competent.
The assumption with experience, is being competent, accredited, and vetted. Having a job somewhere else means that someone already went through the process of sorting that out. By the time you reach the point of interviewing for a leadership position, the head coach assumes that competence has been thoroughly evaluated. It is frankly, lazy hiring that relies on the faulty opinion of others that propagates itself forward to key leadership positions.
Having a resume filled with a masters degree, countless certifications, and diverse experiences could mean a perspective that you are actually less valuable to a head coach. Reverse roles here, if you are making 10x more than someone, would you really want them to tell you what to do? I’m sure you would strive to be as receptive to input from qualified personnel as possible, but be honest about that, would you? Education/experiences has made that person a threat. This is not their direct response to you, but it is on some level within their subconscious. They are thinking how much can I trust they will be follow orders?
I am not saying that is right, but it is the way it is. This head coach has had success at a high level for a long time. When S&C has objective data saying that something that has been done for years with great success may be wrong, it threatens the foundation of that coach’s success. CEOs, Presidents, Head Coaches all have one thing in common – they are confident in their abilities. This does not mean they are secure with who they are. That might not lend themselves to be open to critique their methods. It takes a lot to be open to feedback that what has worked for a long time at a high level, may be wrong for this particular situation.
I heard one time from an Athletic Trainer after a football staff meeting and not letting a handful of players practice “I am the voice of reason”. My response was “Who is to say that your reason is more reasonable than theirs?” A fundamental difference from Sports Medicine and S&C is they were not hired by the Head Coach, and there is little authority over them. Questioning Sports Medicine is the equivalent of questioning the health and safety of the athlete.
Alternatively, S&C coaches are always hired by the head coach. When the S&C coach questions them, it is insubordination. A DPT or well educated/experienced ATC has a valid opinion, where the S&C coach does not know their place. This is where integrating Sports Science and Analytics into the team setting becomes so problematic.
The impulse to do more is always going to be there. As an S&C coach, the proverbial desire to contribute more and more is really strong. This creates a natural inclination to want to track. Starting with Subjective Wellness and RPEs to Force Plates to GPS to Heart Rate….. If the budget is there, you will have the ability to do it. In large part you will get the green light to do as much as you want, pending on the institution or organization. The optics look great from a recruiting or perception standpoint. “Oh yeah we do all of that” in regards to sports science and tracking, is a common thread you will hear from coaches on recruiting visits. On the other side of things, presenting in a staff meeting that we are at dangerously high workloads and we need to cut back will be met with “why are you talking?”
The top down hierarchy was not designed as a meritocracy. Ego when you are paid 90% more than your subordinates makes it impossible to listen to peoples feedback. We could talk about other amazing successful people like Sam Walton hanging out in the breakroom joining in on the bitching and complaining at Walmart or Warren Buffett still doing his own research and calculations daily. There are head coaches that want to be challenged and ensure they are doing the right thing all the time, but they are the minority. Chances are they will be fired or move on to somewhere else before that lateral organizational structure solidifies.
The High Performance Model is tough in a North American team setting. Not because it isn’t good. Because it has been molded to meet the needs of a delicate alpha driven ecosystem. This is what we will unpack in this blog series, how to integrate with the structure of North American team setting.