Positive Coaching Advice

While the subject of this post is geared more for those who coach (or manage) I think it's lessons also apply to how we coach ourselves as well as our kids. Below is a post from the And-Again soccer coaching forum. I like what the coach says. It’s similar to Tony DiCicco’s Catch Them Being Good: Everything You Need to Know to Successfully Coach Girls. DiCicco recommends that coaches emphasize what players do right with the idea that you reward someone for doing something right but also motivate the other players to emulate the same behavior. The traditional approach taught at least by the USSF is to stop play, correct what you saw wrong, have the player rehearse then restart play. I always had reservations about this approach because I felt it puts the player who is being corrected in a negative spotlight. If done too much the players will start playing conservatively, afraid to make a mistake. I saw this vividly a couple years ago when a coach who “helped” me with my U18 girls team stopped play almost once a minute to correct something he saw wrong. It didn’t take too long for me to see the girls dread every time he yelled “Freeze!” out of fear that they were going to be the one he singled out.

I’m not saying we have to coddle players or never correct mistakes. I think there are times to correct a player but to do it one-on-one or wait until you see a pattern of similar mistakes by several players then use this opportunity to show the entire team what to do better. But overall I like the approach of focusing more on the positives than on negatives.

Here is the link to the discussion followed by the text of the post from the coach.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/andagain/vpost?id=2586055

I am currently reading a book called "The Mind Gym". I think this is a must read for any coach...especially those of older teams that rely more on the mental part of the game to compete. One thing I took from the book is to concentrate on what you can do and not what you can't. For instance, before our game last night...which was against the top team in the league...undefeated throughout the winter and this would be our last game against them....I asked my team how they feel during a game if they are not playing well and we are losing. They said things like;

Ø Afraid of making mistakes

Ø Afraid of being subbed out / don't want to go back in

Ø Get mad at themselves

Ø Say negative things to their teammates

Ø Get tense and feel like they can't breath / feel tired

Then I asked them how they feel if they are playing great and no matter what they do everything goes perfectly and it feels like they can do no wrong. They said things like;

Ø Not afraid to try anything

Ø Feel like they can play forever....do not feel tired

Ø Everything is positive to all their teammates and themselves

Ø Don't mind being subbed out but are ready to go back in right away

Ø Feels effortless to play at maximum level

Ø Every thought is focused and clear and flows easily

So then I asked them what all those things listed above are. And they finally got it.....feelings. These are all feelings that every athlete / person carries within themselves. Their feelings can be controlled / channeled in a positive manner no matter what happens on the pitch. I ask them that when they made a mistake to just "flush it" and to pick each other up.

I had to correct my terminology and actions as well. Many times I will tell my defenders "not to lunge". Instead I said "get on proper technique and delay until they give up the ball". This is called coaching the "do's" instead of coaching the "don'ts" because the do's set a positive tone and re-inforces what they should be doing while coaching the dont's re-inforces a negative tone and sets in their mind what they should not be doing so the player might be saying to himself don't lunge, don't lunge, don't lunge so much that it sets that bad behavior into his mind. It's like when I play golf and I say don't slice the ball to myself. I always end up slicing it. Instead say to yourself what you should do and then practice it. Another example was when we'd miss the goal on a shot. This time instead of making a correction I applauded the effort and told them what a great job they did to create the opportunity and good try in taking the strike at goal

Throughout the game I had to bite my tongue. Breaking old habits is tough.

At half time we had a 1-0 lead. The feelings were positive and we did not talk about tactics. The kids were all smiling and positive. Some were already celebrating which I warned them about. I told them we had a long way to go and no matter what happened to keep being positive to each other. We had one bad lapse where our center mid did not mark up their center mid and he buried a beautiful 22 yard shot into the upper corner on a rope. About 4 minutes later a few kids were scrapping for the ball just inside our goal box and a quick toe poke found the back of our net and all of a sudden we were down 2-1 with 15 minutes left. I said nothing after either goal. The boys on our team were all shouting "2 minutes" to each other. It's a signal we use to ourselves to dig in and play harder for the next 2 minutes after a goal to get momentum back on our side. I was happy to hear them all say this. With 8 minutes left we tied the game after some beautiful footwork and intensity from our left midfielder to create some space for himself and his cross was perfectly to the head of our attacking mid who buried it. All I did was clap. The kids emotions were overflowing with positive energy. With 1 minute left we transitioned quickly out of our half and found our left striker 1v1 about 25 yards out from goal. He made a nice turn to the inside but the defender was on him and he cut it back outside and when the defender stepped he cut it back inside and had a step on the defender. From about 18 yards out he unleashed a shot toward the far post that hit the bottom of the crossbar and slid in to the goal. Clock showed 50 seconds left and the kids were all hugging and pumped. And again they said 2 minutes to each other. We won 3-2. Very big win for us psychologically and a very important lesson I learned. I coached in the "do's" and it made a huge difference. After the game one of my players who is ultra competitive and can get down on himself and his teammates at times said " that felt really good". And I have to agree that it did. Things don't always go like this...I fully realize that....but I feel it took my team to a new plateau and definitely taught me something about myself.

And by the way our keeper made some fantastic saves throughout the game and the kids mobbed him after the game.

So, how do you conduct yourself on the sideline? Are your words negative? Is your body language negative or uptight?

This is not going to be easy for my ultracompetitive personality but I am going to conscientously make an effort to hold myself to this standard. I have already had a few of my players email me this morning that they are still excited about the game last night. I think I may have set off something within them that will help them reach a new plateau in their development.

Competition and challenges as meditation and relaxation

I just recently returned from skiing and re-learned a lesson from more than twenty years ago when I first read The Inner Game of Tennis by Tim Gallwey. His premise is that we perform complex physical skills better when we relinquish control of “Self 1,” our conscious self to “Self 2,” our subconscious self. Actions like playing tennis or skiing are too complicated for our conscious mind to control. Gallwey revolutionized tennis instruction (then golf and skiing) by providing techniques to quiet and distract the Self 1 while the Self 2 is going its work. The problem is that Self 1 always wants to be in control and therefore is constantly trying to intervene. It’s a constantly challenge to keep Self 1 occupied.

However, there are another two aspects that I’ve learned from experience.

1. When skiing it’s important to stay relaxed and focused on the challenges ahead of the trail ahead without worrying whether being able to handle them. The same thing happens when I’m playing tennis and focus on my performance, not whether I win or lose. This doesn’t mean I win all of my matches nor am I happy when I lose but my chances of winning improve. Staying relaxed lets me perform to my potential.
2. Letting Self 2 operate creates a condition like mediation. Being fully involved in the task at hand without concern over the outcome creates an experience described as “flow” by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his book, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. What I have found is that the effects of this flow state linger for a while afterwards. It ultimately has a calming and reenergizing effect.

Running up the score or running down the competition? To What End?

This week the girls U12 club team that I co-coach easily won an indoor game against a local town team. When we jumped ahead by 4 goals we told the girls that they had to string at least 3 passes together before shooting on goal, that they had to use their moves and that shots had to be with their left foot (if their right foot is the dominant one). I have been involved in games where we were on the receiving end of mismatches. It's no fun for the losing team and I believe it doesn't teach the players on the winning team anything. Mercilessly running up the score also is poor sportsmanship, shows a lack of respect for the opponent and can let the girls slip into complacency so that they're caught off guard when they play a stronger team down the road. (I especially love the teams that celebrate every goal in a drub fest as if they just won the World Cup while their parents are ringing cowbells. Geesh! Get a life!)

Since the opposing team was not creating enough pressure on us (in other words, they were “ball watching”) we imposed conditions on the girls to make the game more challenging for them without disrespecting the other team. We explained to the parents in a team e-mail that we felt it was a good time for the girls to work on what we have been teaching them in practice: when you run into pressure you relieve this pressure by moving the ball elsewhere by a combination of back and square passes then moving into areas with less pressure before the defense can adjust. The natural tendency of players is to plow straight down the field until they run into the defense or run out of space then lose the ball (which is the approach you'll see in some other programs). Taking this “kick and run” approach creates ugly soccer with frequent turnovers and lost scoring chances. We would prefer the girls to possess the ball until they can penetrate the defense with through passes, wall passes or crosses. Playing this way also involves our keeper in the play as well. But, most important, this way of playing the game is more attractive to watch and is effective at all levels of competition.

But I digress. What does this have to do with flourishing? I’ve heard coaches for the team that relish running up the score claim that they let their players do so because they don’t know what else to do, that it’s too hard to turn off the competitiveness, and that their players shouldn’t have to pull in their reins. While this might be true for professional sports where coaches and players are paid to win, I don’t accept this at the youth level. (Even in the premier league in Massachusetts the standings limit the goal differential of a win so that winning by more than 5 goals doesn’t help in the final standings.) I believe this rationale is an excuse that feeds the coach’s and player’s egos. In other words, it’s a rationalization for poor sportsmanship and for treating the opponents as objects, as something less than human. I feel the purpose of competition is to test and expand your limits. If the opposition can’t provide enough resistance to challenge you, I believe it’s better for everyone to impose conditions on yourself to make the game harder and therefore more rewarding.

There also is the issue of empathy for what your opponent experiences. Easily and gleefully crushing a team can demoralize the opponents. What is to be gained doing so? A false inflation of one’s self-worth at the expense of someone else? A person who has a strong self-image doesn’t rely on making others feel bad in order to improve how they feel about themselves. Flourishing doesn't have to come at the expense of others.

How to say No?

How do we say No? Why is it so hard to say for many of us? Is there a way of saying no that respects our interests while respecting those of others? Many of us feel uncomfortable telling people no so we take several ways of doing it. Probably the most common way is to avoid saying no by giving in, thus making us feel bad about doing so and begrudging the person who put us into that spot. As one who tests as an Amiable in Social Styles I know it’s hard for me.

On the other hand we all know people who have no trouble saying no and seem to relish in it with the sensitivity of brass knuckles. (Fortunately, this group seems to be a minority.)

Are these the only ways of handling saying no? No! (There, I said it!) William Ury, who has written a number of books on getting to yes [Getting Past No and Getting to Yes] and directs the Global Negotiation Project at Harvard University, tackles the flip side in The Power Of A Positive No.

His book lays out a three-step process consisting of 9 sub-steps. In essence his three steps are yes-no-yes. By that I mean:

1. Prepare by expressing your interests,
2. Deliver your no
3. Follow through by offering a yes that stays true to your interests while acknowledging theirs.

Throughout the book Ury also offers tips on how to word your no. “I won’t be serving on the committee. Thank you for thinking of me.” “I’m saying No now. Thank you.” As for offering an alternative yes, Ury suggests making a proposal that gives the other person a chance to say no to you. The idea behind this is “As Churchill realized, showing respect comes not from weakness and insecurity, but rather from strength and confidence. Respect for the other flows directly from respect for self. You give respect to others not so much because of who they are but because of who you are. Respect is an expression of your self and your values."

This last step – offering a counter-proposal - might seem to be controversial but to me it ultimately makes sense especially for on-going relationships. This proposal might be as simple as saying, “Thanks for the offer to work on this project but my plate is full. Maybe next time?”

There is much more to The Power Of A Positive No than I can cover here. Truth be told, I don’t have the 9 complete steps memorized. Maybe if I took a course on the subject all 9 steps would stick. But I can attest to the effectiveness of packaging my no’s in the yes (to my interests)/no (declining to agree)/yes? (offering an alternative) has worked for me. Plus, Ury’s approach is based on maintaining your objectivity, which appeals to me. By doing so you can clearly express your interests while respecting the other party. Being a proponent of passionate objectivity, Ury’s approach to saying no gets a big yes.

Competition and sportsmanship

Recently I watched the movie Blue Crush (Widescreen Collector's Edition) with my twin teenage daughters. Blue Crush tells the story of a young lady surfer who wants to compete in an upcoming national event. However, she has to fight her own fears because of a previous surfing accident. Naturally, the plot follows the formula of almost all sports movies. Blue Crush is not a great movie but it’s not bad either. The conclusion of the movie takes a slight detour from the usual. The heroine, Ann Marie, makes it through the first round when her competitor wipes out on a massive wave. (The film takes place in Hawaii where the famous Banzai Pipeline is the scene of major competitions. I visited the Pipeline a long time ago and was impressed by the ferocity of the waves. The movie also uses professional women surfers for the final competition scene including Keala Kennelly.)

In her first heat Ann Marie takes a spill right after her competitor falls and has to leave the competition with a back injury. Ann Marie’s ankle leash gets caught on the reef so that she in unable to reach the surface until she can release the leash. Ann Marie gets to move to the second heat because her opponent can’t proceed but she doesn’t want to go out on the water again. Her romantic interest, an NFL quarterback, stops by the medical tent to check on her. He starts to tell a story how he was blindsided and drilled. She says, “So you got back into the game and won it, right?” He says that his coach talks him into going back in, does not win the game, gets pounded some more but he vividly remembers a perfect touchdown pass. Ann Marie decides to go back in, against Keala Kennelly.

In Ann Marie’s first attempt she wipes out then gets pounded by a series of waves. When she returns for her final attempt Kennelly tells Ann Marie to follow her to a place where the waves break better, tells her which wave to catch then cheers on Ann Marie as she takes the ride of her life and gets a perfect score from the judges. Her score is not enough to overtake Kennelly but Ann Marie doesn’t care because she overcame her fears and rode the wave perfectly. Kennelly gives her a high five afterwards. One of the cameramen watching Ann Marie celebrating her performance with her family and friends asks a colleague, "Doesn’t she realize she lost?”

So why does this sequence stand out for me? I think it points to several key points about competition.

1. Competing against a strong rival can bring out your best. Speaking from experience, I know that playing tennis against an opponent who is equal or better than me gets more out of me than if I was just working off a backboard or against a weaker player.
2. Which leads to the fact that competition can be a form of collaboration if both participants share this spirit. They recognize that hard competition can bring out the best in each other. This is why Kennelly cheers on Ann Marie. In essence she is saying, “If you’re going to beat me, do it with your best stuff.” This is where Blue Crush avoids presenting the adversary as evil or nasty.
3. Winning isn’t everything, but trying to win is. (According to books I’ve read recently Vince Lombardi actually said this, not “Winning is the only thing.”) There is no shame in losing as long as you try your best.
4. If you have a strong self-esteem then losing to a worthy opponent does not threaten how you feel about yourself. Losing might not be fun and you might feel miserable for a while, especially if you did not perform up to your standards, but it should not lead to resorting to cheating to get the win.

Presenting to Win/In the Line of Fire

Presenting to Win: The Art of Telling Your Story I know there are lots of books out there on how to make presentations. I’ve read many of them. Why single out this book? Because I found it provided useful, unique information. Presenting to Win constantly reminds us to keep the following thought in mind: what’s in it for the audience. Over the years of sitting in presentations I’ve seen all too often the “show up and throw up” approach. By that I mean the presenter tried to win the audience by throwing out every conceivable bit of information in the hope that something will strike a nerve. Presenting to Win by Gerry Weissman provides different advice. He presents four basic ideas.

1. What is your Point B? (What conclusion do you want your audience to reach?)
2. WIIFY What’s in it for you? (What benefits will your audience get, not you?) In other words every feature about your product or service that you want to present needs to be translated into benefits for the audience.
3. What are your key ideas? (He calls them the Roman Columns.)
4. What flow structure will you use?

In addition to his advice on flow and structure Weissman also suggests how to design slides using how our eyes sweep a slide. For instance, he recommends bar charts increase in size from left to right. A chart that decreases from left to right creates the mental image of decline which we would not want to use (unless, of course, your goal is to paint a negative picture).

Weissman also recommends using phrases that do not talk down to your audience. Use “As you recall” instead of “Like I said.” Or, “I think you’ll see that” is better than “We believe.”

The common theme is that everything, from the structure to design to delivery has to be geared to the audience. The advice might appear obvious but we often tend to get wrapped up into what we want to say that we lose sight of how the message is being received.

In the Line of Fire: How to Handle Tough Questions...When It Counts

In the Line of Fire takes on Q&A’s, especially confrontational ones. While I found this book useful and different too, I do have a negative comment to get out of the way. This is one of those cases where it manages to squeeze a good article into a book. You know what I’m talking about. The content is enough to warrant a 10-page article. To fit it into a book the author has to pad it with lots of stories and filler. I’ve read books in this category where I felt it was not worth the money I spent. However, in the case of In The Line of Fire, the value of the core concept was worth the price and the padding. Weisman lays out a structure for answering questions. Not just questions at the end of a Q&A but handling tough questions in general.

Like Presenting to Win, Weissman advises us on how to phrase questions to show the benefit to the audience. He also recommends rephrasing questions using words like “what” (such as “What will we do to …”) or “how” (such as “How are we going to …”) which require more than “yes” or “no” answers and also do not admit to uncertainty or doubt about your being able to deliver. We say “How do we” instead of “How can we.” Rephrasing also strips out emotional words. The question “Why are your prices too high?” becomes “What is our pricing rationale?”

The key idea is how to slow down, think and structure your response first. Our normal reaction is to plunge into answering the question. Weissman says that we should buffer the answer from the question by rephrasing or restating it. This accomplishes three things. First, it buys you time to formulate your answer. Second, it lets you take the initiative by framing the question. Perhaps sanding the edges off of an antagonist question. Third, you can check whether you properly understood the question when rephrasing it by watching the questioner’s body language.

After the third step, which is to answer the question, you give your answer “topspin.” This lets you show your audience “what’s in it for you” and for you to get back on track towards your Point B, the message you want your audience to retain and hopefully accept.

I have been working on applying the key ideas from both books and feel they do work. I highly recommend both books.