This is a subject I've been asked about a couple of times and also a point I make with those that I'm working with on the construct of their program books.
Most coaches and leaders would agree with the idea that a high level of trust is the cement that the foundation of any high functioning group of people is built upon. Yet, many say that and then pursue ideas and policies that breed the opposite. Rules are limitations. Rules, by their nature, lead teams to feel like they can't be trusted to do right by the organization or team. This is not to suggest you shouldn't have any rules, but they should be broad and values based. They should also be enforceable and be enforced on an extremely consistent basis. If not, all the rest of the rules might as well not exist - no one will know which ones to follow and which ones are BS.
Even a coach as harsh and discipline-based realized this during the course of her career. Pat Summit in the late 80's/early 90's started to realize that in order to help her team be champions on a more regular basis, she should adjust when it came to rules. She did this before the craziness of texting, social media and every other influence we, as a coaching community, say changed our players forevermore. She did this, because humans are humans and ten or fifteen years into her career, she realized it was her job to adapt to them, not the other way around. On page 208 of her latest book, Sum it Up, Coach Summitt talks about it:
"I also made our team rules fewer and simpler. I'd learned that if you have one hundred rules, then you have to police them, and kids are going to break them, and that just creates problems. Better to have a few rules, but strictly enforce them. I treated them as adults, until they gave me a reason not to, and usually they didn't. As long as they abided by the rules, I was pretty flexible. But if they didn't, I could be as tough as any person they'd ever met. But I also prided myself on being fair, firm, and consistent."
"...But it was my observation that young people wanted discipline, even craved it, because they wanted to succeed. They wanted an environment of healthy structure, one in which they felt I cared about them and cared that they did things the right way. Deep down they understood there was a relationship between discipline and success, and they wanted me to show it to them." Our rules and policies were just another expression of caring. There is an old saying: 'Rules without relationship result in rebellion.'"Standards vs. Rules if I had gotten to it, would have been my plea to every coach in the stands to be very careful about what you put in your rulebook for your team. Your players often time fail to trust you when you fail to trust them. A quick way to show them you don't trust them is to load them up with a bunch of rules right off the bat. It's more than just semantics, and I really don't think it matters which word you use. It's about the concept. Are we telling our players what they can't do or is one of our main purposes as a coach and leader to show our players what they CAN do?
Remember Coach, the old saying that "we tend to judge ourselves by our intent, but we tend to judge others by their behavior." A good place to start with your team is to have the generosity of spirit to assume the best of them and to judge them as you tend to judge yourself - by your intent.
Be careful when you set the construct for your team. Be sure to set your standards or rules based on your program's core values and not in reaction to misdeeds done by those before. Be sure that your rules are consistently enforceable and as simple as possible. This is the framework upon which trust and team success is built upon.
No comments:
Post a Comment