The balance between exigency and dialogue

          Coaches are continuously exposed to social evaluation coming from different parties around the team they lead (Directive Board, Press, other coaches, relatives…) and even from the team itself.

As project leaders, we must have (and show) a solid confidence on what we do, in addition to a non-stop desire of optimizing all the material and human resources available, in order to be successful. These human resources may include our everyday work group, the technical staff and the players. And with all of them we will be sharing good and bad times along the journey.

However, before anything else (capacities, weaknesses or strengths), we need to consider the individual, the person behind the player or the staff member, and the challenges he/she comes with. We need to convince them, make them feel important and satisfied with what they do and with the individual and group benefits they will receive in exchange. If we can make this work, if they feel satisfied and relevant, they will perform better; the level of implication will raise and they will be 100% committed with the project. The person sustains the player: behind the facade and the attitude, there is a human being, and without him/her, without the game’s main characters, there is nothing.

Thus, we have the need, and almost the duty, of getting to know the people we work with, of being conscious of their necessities, their capacity of adaptation, their fears and worries. It may be essential to know people in depth in order to assess what can be requested from each individual at a certain point.

Knowing the people we cooperate with on a daily basis will help us achieve goals as a group and will facilitate the process when it comes to making each member feel important and committed with their work within the team. That confidence and satisfaction will allow us to be more exigent: this is easier if we pull all together.  Demanding and negotiating is not incompatible, quite the opposite. There is a balance, and it defines the different styles as a coach. We will surely be able to identify ourselves with one or these styles, or to assign coaches or teachers to each of these groups:

Conciliator coaches: Low level of exigency and very open to communication.

Things happen just because. We listen and talk to all the players; we always encourage them in all situations but our level of exigency is low. We don’t pay attention to detail and we are not able to get the team to train intensely; we are probably too lenient. With this attitude we perform poorly when faced to bad results, and it will be hard for us to request a bigger effort from the team when needed. We must be aware of the fact that, certain players, due to their personality traces, needs to be constantly “pressed”. When we decrease our level of exigency, their motivation decreases as well. If we have a few players of this kind in our team and we try to be “tolerant”, things won’t work, particularly in times of big challenges where a higher level of concentration, commitment, attention and constructiveness is needed.

Absent coaches: Low level of exigency and not open to communication.

In this scenario, if we don’t have a self-sufficient group and an outstanding team, if we are not able (or we don’t want to) listen, if our interest in communication is scarce and our ability to request high levels of performance to each member of the group is limited, we will not be ready to lead the team. Circumstances will force us to give up will pave the way for another coach to take over. Most likely, the results we will achieve with these low levels of communication and exigency will be substandard.

 Feudal coaches: High level of exigency and not open to communication.

Coaches who do not communicate with and listen to the work group, coaches who are capable of just following their own ideas, trying to enforce them without considering all relevant factors, may be successful on the short term. However, long term, they will find what is commonly known as “burned land”.

 Good players try to escape this form of leadership, because it does not allow them to grow their creative space and it doesn’t promote personal development. If players are told what to do and how to do it at all times, they won’t have the opportunity to evolve later on. They will serve the coach’s interests on the short term but they won’t really explore their actual potential.

Coaches-Developers: High level of exigency and very open to communication.

Good leaders listen to their players and co-workers; they are open to receiving messages and feedback regarding how the process of training and coaching is presented. Paying attention to what our team has to say doesn’t mean that they can do what they want, or that the level of exigency is lower, quite the opposite. We will be on the right track to win the team’s respect and, thus, to obtain the right to request their best. Players will be performing at a high level without even realizing it.

With this style, we let the player express himself, be creative and enjoy the process, because he/she feels part of it; the feeling of personal gratification will be intense. This type of coaches does not feel intimidated or uncomfortable with talented assistants; on the contrary, they usually surround themselves with co-workers who help them develop all their skills.

There are, probably, many elements and circumstances that influence us when leading a human group. These are mainly aspects related to our personality traces, our social intelligence and our social skills, together with our intuition, background and past experiences. Being conscious of the different leadership options and the way they impact our work group will help us shape our performance and become the coach we would like to be.