|
Post by mariner42 on Jan 11, 2012 12:42:47 GMT -6
Yesterday at the AFCA convention I listened to the HC of Azusa Pacific University talk about how he changed his coaching using psychological theories to guide his method of dealing or interacting with his players. He was somewhat vague while talking and overall felt like a salesman, especially when my question about other resources for what he was talking about got deflected to an associate who gave me a business card that directed me to this site. Now I'm still curious about WTF this all was, so I'm doing my own homework/research and trying to learn on my own. The two major theories mentioned and repeated as I've tried to trace what he was talking about are these: 1-The Strength Deployment Inventory 2-Relationship Awareness Theory A quick look on Amazon reveals these books: Textbook by PorterTextbook by Phillips. Here's my question/query: can anyone with a more extensive psych background than myself shed some introductory light/explanation on these concepts and how they might be applied to coaching? Can you offer any kind of recommendation regarding the books themselves? We spend a lot of time talking Xs and Os or shoulder blocking vs hand blocking, etc, but one of the things that I'm interested in the most is HOW WE COACH. Is there something to these theories/approaches? Thanks fellas, sorry for taking so long to get to the point
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 11, 2012 13:24:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 11, 2012 13:35:57 GMT -6
I'm not saying there isn't anything turthful in the website, but it looks like its just a bunch of slick buzzwords and edu-speak. Initially it reads similar to the stuff we have to put up with in staff meetings; you know, "We are going to shift the paradigm here to be more holistically oriented to educate the whole learner."
So I looked some stuff up, and found this websitehttp://www.personalstrengths.us/index.php/en/sdi/about-sdi-an-overview which has a lot of terms I'm gonna list on my next job application. It appears to deal with how people deal with others, and how you can use that knowledge to put them in the best positions for success. Still, I'm gonna call B$ because those two terms (1-Strength Deployment Inventory, and Relationship Awareness Theory) are both registered trademarks. And I get the feeling this is more about making money then building success.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 11, 2012 13:56:08 GMT -6
"We are going to shift the paradigm here to be more holistically oriented to educate the whole learner." Yeah, that is one of my favorites! Here's your sign! bullshitbingo.net/cards/education/
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 11, 2012 13:59:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Jan 11, 2012 14:13:03 GMT -6
Maybe my favorite class on my road to my kinesiology bachelors was Sport and exercise psychology... A lot of things just clicked for me about goal setting, managing stress and nerves, optimizing performance... I recommend taking this type of class just for fun 90% of the game is half mental
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jan 11, 2012 15:32:06 GMT -6
THat sounds like a great speaking topic gone terribly awry.
|
|
|
Post by coachfd on Jan 11, 2012 16:00:18 GMT -6
There are a couple good books that explore the psychological aspect of sports... Really, when it boils down to it, psychology is all about positively-manipulating people to produce/perform at their best. It is about persuasion, changing thought-process, motivation, etc.
"In Pursuit of Excellence" is a good book. "The Psychology of Motivation" is another good book. "Win Forever" by Pete Carroll "The Score Takes Care of Itself" by Bill Walsh
But also, look at some of the better known coaches and their own approaches: John Wooden, Bill Walsh, Bill Parcells, Nick Saban, Pete Carroll, etc.
Everything that coaches do is marked by psychology in some regard. The best coaches understand what makes people tick, what makes people think, what grabs people's attention (and sustains it), what makes people give their maximum effort, and what allows people to perform at their highest level with built-in limitations (confidence, etc.)
A lot of it has to do with figuring out what limits people, or what prevents them from performing at their best. Once you identify those things, you can address them, develop positive attitudes and habits in their place, and help people excel and reach their full potential. At the end of the day, that's what coaching is: getting individuals and teams to perform at their best, on a consistent basis.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Jan 11, 2012 18:11:00 GMT -6
I did, unfortunately it didn't really say sh!t about anything other than "I yelled at him and he got worse, so then I didn't yell at him and he got better!" Which is about as common sense as it goes. Talked it over with a friend who has a masters in sports psych and he said its nothing revolutionary as a concept, although he said the application may be different than others. Most of us know the Meyers Briggs 4 trait personality type, I guess this one just uses different metrics to get there, so it seems anyway. Sent from my DROID2 using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 12, 2012 5:52:32 GMT -6
I agree 100% that the article didn't say Chit!
The ps (tagline, whatever) said it all though!!!
Based in Portland, Ore., Iron Coaching helps executives and organizational leaders across a wide range of disciplines achieve their goals. The programs help leaders address consistent themes, including how to crystallize organizational vision, communicate strategic objectives and priorities, motivate and develop talented, high-potential personnel, and create greater organizational flow. Iron Coaching takes a holistic approach to help ensure maximize growth of the individual, as well as the growth of those being led. Iron Coaching customizes programs to fit schedules and needs, and provides the confidential, objective sounding board to assist and support a coach to reach his or her objectives. Visit ironcoaching.com or call (503) 908-0742.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 12, 2012 7:27:57 GMT -6
Amen, Reverend DCOHIO!!
"New Ohio Science Model Curriculum, mumble mumble, blah!"
Thank God I can retire before Implementaition is required!!
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jan 12, 2012 8:38:40 GMT -6
I do agree that we all as coaches could benefit from profiling our athletes on what motivates them.
I have been working on a model outlining 4 types of athletes based on what motivates them... If we as coaches can include more motivational factors targeted toward each group... it could be assumed that we could motivate each of our athletes in a more effective manner.
Generally speaking... the types are
A - Extrinsically Motivated by social interaction B - Extrinsically Motivated by authoritative figure C - Extrinsically Motivated by social recognition D - Intrinsically Motivated by need to succeed
|
|
|
Post by jpdaley25 on Jan 12, 2012 10:08:07 GMT -6
I've looked into meditation, hypnosis, brain washing, and voodoo. Nothing's worked yet.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 12, 2012 10:46:16 GMT -6
I've looked into meditation, hypnosis, brain washing, and voodoo. Nothing's worked yet. Well, you can't be drinking Jobu's rum and smoking his cigars.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 12, 2012 11:02:35 GMT -6
I was exposed to this type of research in my last year of education classes in college.... We took all kinds of batteries of tests that showed what motivated us, what kind of management styles we were best influenced by, etc...
IMO, it's just another way this country is straying into the realm of pussification. Figure out how to motivate people with hurting their precious little feelings. This was developed for business managers, I guess losing your job isn't enough motivation to do your d-mn work.
We all state that "kids want to know that you care before they want to know what you know". This type of "psychological research" is just another way to make this concept more difficult than it needs to be while making some cash off of it.
The college professor that worked with this stuff made high-end six figures a year going around the country putting people on her white couch and telling managers how very special their underlings are and how they need to feed into the specific "motivation mind-set" to get peak production. And, then telling the underlings that their lack of motivation was due to a disparity between their motivation style and how their boss treated them.
Now, anyone that has seen me coach understands that I am a positive coach who does everything I can to motivate my players. BUT, sometimes that motivation needs to be the job itself; you work hard to achieve a common goal which is winning.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 12, 2012 12:05:43 GMT -6
My issue with profilling athletes into different motivation classifications is that you then pigeonhole them. Im not completely any single type (A,B,C,D, Etc.) and I've never met anyone who is. But if we start classifying people then we start handing out the same canned responses to different groups and expect it to work for everyone in that subset.
I'm no idiot, I get to know my players and can figure out what motivates them; some of them like getting patted on the rear end, others kicked. Most of them get both depending on the situation, how theyve been lately, etc.
Others may disagree, but I feel better in judging the situation, the person my self; then just saying he is in the type 2 group so I should do this.
|
|
|
Post by tractor on Jan 12, 2012 14:27:44 GMT -6
I was exposed to this type of research in my last year of education classes in college.... We took all kinds of batteries of tests that showed what motivated us, what kind of management styles we were best influenced by, etc... IMO, it's just another way this country is straying into the realm of pussification. Figure out how to motivate people with hurting their precious little feelings. This was developed for business managers, I guess losing your job isn't enough motivation to do your d-mn work. We all state that "kids want to know that you care before they want to know what you know". This type of "psychological research" is just another way to make this concept more difficult than it needs to be while making some cash off of it. The college professor that worked with this stuff made high-end six figures a year going around the country putting people on her white couch and telling managers how very special their underlings are and how they need to feed into the specific "motivation mind-set" to get peak production. And, then telling the underlings that their lack of motivation was due to a disparity between their motivation style and how their boss treated them. Now, anyone that has seen me coach understands that I am a positive coach who does everything I can to motivate my players. BUT, sometimes that motivation needs to be the job itself; you work hard to achieve a common goal which is winning. Nice rant. Any qualifications to be so dismissive of a whole branch of science? What if you're wrong? What if there are things that you seem to think are 100% fact that actually serve to screw somebody up for years and years? What if you have no way of knowing you were screwing people up until 10 years after the fact? Maybe this particular theory/method is a bunch of BS. Maybe it isn't. But it might be a bit over-stated to say that every, any, and all sport psych is BS, don't you think? Personally, I actually love your statement; "BUT, sometimes that motivation needs to be the job itself; you work hard to achieve a common goal..." Hmm...sounds a lot like that pu$$y concept of intrinsic motivation (as opposed to the opposite you so fondly refer to with respect to keeping your job). Which is it? Motivation should come from within, or from a taskmaster? Which works better? When? Always? Not such a simple thing to answer...maybe somebody ought to create a science that studies such things...
|
|
|
Post by tractor on Jan 12, 2012 14:44:41 GMT -6
Also, Mariner, I just got off the phone with their OC Rudy Carlton. He has a BS in Psych and a Masters in Leadership Theory. I didn't want to take up too much of his time so I specifically asked after the utility of the methods and whether in practicality was it something that he found to be useful and part of his daily skill set. Emphatic yes on both accounts. He felt that the interviews helped to coordinate communications between staff and athlete, but he found it to be most beneficial with staff to staff relations.
He said feel free to email Victor Santa Cruz Head Coach apufootball@apu.edu
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 12, 2012 15:55:09 GMT -6
I was exposed to this type of research in my last year of education classes in college.... We took all kinds of batteries of tests that showed what motivated us, what kind of management styles we were best influenced by, etc... IMO, it's just another way this country is straying into the realm of pussification. Figure out how to motivate people with hurting their precious little feelings. This was developed for business managers, I guess losing your job isn't enough motivation to do your d-mn work. We all state that "kids want to know that you care before they want to know what you know". This type of "psychological research" is just another way to make this concept more difficult than it needs to be while making some cash off of it. The college professor that worked with this stuff made high-end six figures a year going around the country putting people on her white couch and telling managers how very special their underlings are and how they need to feed into the specific "motivation mind-set" to get peak production. And, then telling the underlings that their lack of motivation was due to a disparity between their motivation style and how their boss treated them. Now, anyone that has seen me coach understands that I am a positive coach who does everything I can to motivate my players. BUT, sometimes that motivation needs to be the job itself; you work hard to achieve a common goal which is winning. Nice rant. Any qualifications to be so dismissive of a whole branch of science? What if you're wrong? What if there are things that you seem to think are 100% fact that actually serve to screw somebody up for years and years? What if you have no way of knowing you were screwing people up until 10 years after the fact? Maybe this particular theory/method is a bunch of BS. Maybe it isn't. But it might be a bit over-stated to say that every, any, and all sport psych is BS, don't you think? Personally, I actually love your statement; "BUT, sometimes that motivation needs to be the job itself; you work hard to achieve a common goal..." Hmm...sounds a lot like that pu$$y concept of intrinsic motivation (as opposed to the opposite you so fondly refer to with respect to keeping your job). Which is it? Motivation should come from within, or from a taskmaster? Which works better? When? Always? Not such a simple thing to answer...maybe somebody ought to create a science that studies such things... You're making some pretty broad assumptions here, coach. You are assuming I am a 'yeller'; I am not. You are assuming that I take a dictator approach to coaching, which I do not. You are assuming that I don't have a strong background in sports psychology, which I do. You are assuming that I don't know the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how they manifest themselves in a player's actions. No where did I state that I think Sports Psychology is BS. The specific literature that is being discussed is very different from sports psychology. But, to be more SPECIFIC, I have no use for this "branch of science" BECAUSE it doesn't have a strong enough emphasis on fostering intrinsic motivation. They have actually developed strategies for dealing with extrinsically motivated people which IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DON'T WANT. They determine a person's "motivation type" and then use various strategies to develop a relationship get more productivity out of them. What they should be doing is beating it out of them the way we do as football coaches. This "branch of science" presses home the notion that we can still all be INDIVIDUALS with EXTRINSIC INDIVIDUAL motivations on a TEAM. On a football team, the only things that matters to me is that those kids want to work hard for their teammates and for the common good. I treat my kids well and drive home internal motivation and there's no way in hell I would address anything extrinsic. Other than to tell them to start playing with the team or go home. I hate this research because it was initially introduced into the American workforce. People wanted more productivity out of their employees so psychologists came out and stated that we needed to embrace the individuality and individual motivations to do so. People need to come up with their own motivations for getting it through their workday. But, there should always be one primary push from society; THERE'S A JOB TO DO, DO IT.
|
|
|
Post by tractor on Jan 12, 2012 16:42:59 GMT -6
Coachcb, thanks for the clarification. I really do appreciate intelligent communication, so again thank you for taking the time.
We all make assumptions, especially with this medium. Some can be attributed to the tone of the message...
That said, I am mostly concerned with one thing in my never ending attempts to get "better" at this thing called coaching;
What works is true (pragmatism).
Theory is theory. Opinion is opinion. Great, so what. Does it work? If so, does it work for everybody involved? I'm sure slave masters were real keen on the cost effectiveness of their labor force, so we have to be careful who we ask when assessing efficacy.
Apparently coaches Santa Cruz and Carlton are pretty happy with the program. I don't know, maybe they're screwing up their athletes/staff. Maybe they aren't.
I participate around here for any number of reasons. Currently I am perplexed at a community that has some 2700+ views of a topic titled THEMES FOR NEXT YEAR (certainly the underlying assumption being that themes somehow = motivation) when at the same time (and I am generalizing here) dismissing at seemingly every turn the psych concepts that are the very foundation (or not) of many of these same themes.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 12, 2012 17:12:19 GMT -6
I s'pose I would need to get into more detail with respect to how the coaching staffs are using this particular program. They may be adjusting it to remove some of that emphasis on extrinsic motivation which is what I really wanted to see out of this program.
The professor forced us to take this battery of tests that she explained was her "gift to us" as she and her cohorts would charge thousands of dollars for. It took me an hour to finish and it didn't tell me anything about myself that I didn't already know. But, some of the things that were highlighted in these tests are personality traits that have the potential to make me a bad employee.
An employer/manager looking at my test should never say, "What a dynamic individual, we need to work with his particular brand of personality to make us a better company".
They should say, "He'd better tone that sh-t down or his a-- is going to be fired."
There are things that make us unique; they help define us. BUT, we d-mn sure better understand that those individual traits need to be tempered.
And, as such, I really don't want the ideology behind this research to spill into a football program. Yes, I respect and care about all of my players as individuals. But, that individuality had better work towards the greater good on the field when we're talking about football.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Jan 12, 2012 18:00:46 GMT -6
Thanks Dr. CB, there was some words I haven't heard since college. Let's not make this too hard guys, if you have coached a long time and you are still alive-then you HAVE already mastered all the psychology you are going to need. 'Cause if you ain't out-thinking them teenagers/fans/parents, you ain't gonna' be coachin' very long. See, fixed it. Dr. OJW.
|
|
|
Post by tractor on Jan 12, 2012 20:00:36 GMT -6
Aww Josie, you live in Florida. No fair to come on here all happy and Zen. There's a winter storm warning going on up here. You're probably sitting around the pool nursing a sore martini elbow.
CoachCB and I are all good. Don't think we learned that fear of confrontation thing the young'ns have inserted in their collective brain these days. No biggy.
|
|
|
Post by jpdaley25 on Jan 13, 2012 16:55:55 GMT -6
Too much extrinsic motivation, or extrinsic motivation improperly employed, can be misconstrued as manipulation (even by kids and teenagers), or an insincere attempt to get what you want by bribing others, and there is the danger that the intrinsic side could get completely overshadowed by a player's desire for the extrinsic. The story of Daedalus and Icarus teaches us that the middle way is most often the best way, and the best motivators I've known use a mixture of both. And, I have found that most successful football coaches and teachers do this naturally anyway and instictively know that too much of one or the other will be counter-productive. Knowing how much, when, and what form of motivation to use in different situations on the spur of the moment cannot, in my opinion, be mastered using the scientific method wholly...to me it's an art form that requires years of trial and error and experience.
Good discussion!
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jan 14, 2012 14:54:14 GMT -6
Herb Brooks who was the head coach of the 1980 gold medal US hockey team at the 1980 olympics used psychological profiles when picking his team.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 14, 2012 15:04:43 GMT -6
Herb Brooks who was the head coach of the 1980 gold medal US hockey team at the 1980 olympics used psychological profiles when picking his team. He'll yes he did! He picked guys who were strongly internally motivated. I would love to do the same as would most coaches.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jan 14, 2012 15:57:10 GMT -6
While Brooks' methods are good, he had a known pool to draw from, and he wasn't competing with anyone for players.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 14, 2012 16:24:12 GMT -6
We have guys who couldn't pass the concussion baseline test. I don't even want to what they're thinking. I keep picturing the word-association test scene in The Dirty Dozen.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Jan 14, 2012 16:41:49 GMT -6
|
|