Rules for empowering coaches

Phil Jackson, the highly successful coach of the Chicago Bulls and Los Angeles Lakers (now the president of the New York Knicks) whose approach to coaching basketball stars has been profoundly influenced by Eastern philosophies, lists the management and motivational principle “know when to step back and let people find their own solution to a crisis,” as the secret of his success (Bottom Line, January 15, 1997). To illustrate the effectiveness of this principle, Jackson describes a crisis in a 1994 playoff game in which Scottie Pippen refused to play what was left of the game when teammate Tony Kukoc was called up to take the last game-determining shot with 1.8 seconds remaining. In the locker room after the game, Jackson stepped back and allowed the team to handle the situation. Veteran Bill Cartwright stepped in and managed the crisis with great effectiveness. “I allowed my players to resolve the crisis and reaffirm their common goals,” he writes, illustrating that by stepping back, he orchestrated an act of empowerment by doing less. It’s difficult to separate authority and responsibility. Authority without responsibility leads to tyranny, whereas assignment of responsibility without authority results in coaches experiencing impotence. For coaches to be effective, they need to be invested with authority and responsibility. Although the legitimacy of a coach’s power resides in the designation itself, his/her effectiveness flows out of the relationship she is able to build with her players and followers. Since empowerment, by my definition, necessitates overall authority and responsibility, the question arises: “How can coaches use their power in ways that allow them to feel in charge of their lives?” On the surface, it would seem the only way coaches can acquire power is by the authority vested in them by administrators who control hiring and firing, salaries, and policy-making. However, coaches can also be empowered by their students, parents and, even by themselves. Leaders including coaches, can exercise varieties of power. Legitimate power, that is power by virtue of their position in the organisation, gives coaches the right to direct, reward and punish, and informal power which they derive from followers, i.e, players/athletes assigned to them. In youth and school sports, followers also include players’ parents. The best and most effective coaches enjoy legitimate and informal power if they are looked up to as role models and for the knowledge and skills they bring to the playing field. The appointing authorities and followers should be confident that coaches have the capability to bring out the best in each player. To appreciate how power and responsibility freely given or withheld can empower or demoralise coaches, here are some examples. Example 1. Well-meaning, but unprepared parents are often asked to coach a team because no one else is available. In such circumstances, experienced players in the team will be reluctant to give the coach the respect she needs to lead. This will inevitably demoralise such coaches. Lesson #1. Coaches need expertise to win the respect of followers and players. Without respect, coaches can’t…