My Example of being part of a successful team is
a fairly straight forward one. In high school I played soccer for 4 years and
in those four years I managed to be a part of two fairly successful teams, my sophomore
year and my senior year. The book talked about basketball and how coordination
between players is necessary, and this is also the case in soccer, and it was
very apparent during the two successful seasons that cohesion and everyone
being on the same page was a major factor in our success. While there are many parallels
in the two seasons, they were far from identical. Structurally, within the team
both were a one-boss arrangement, with our coach being the boss, but that is pretty
much where the similarities end. My sophomore year coach had been the varsity
coach for several years before stepping down to the sophomore level to spend
more time with his kids. What this meant was that he brought his varsity
philosophy to the sophomore level, meaning he had ultimate authority on everything
from formation to positions and tactics. This is very different from my senior
year, where the varsity coach was the one who replaced the old varsity coach,
essentially swapping positions. What the new varsity coach brought to the team
was different than what I had experienced sophomore year in that, while still
being a one-boss arrangement, he very rarely put himself in a place of complete
authority or power, rather it in many ways was like an all-channel network with
the coach leading the discussion and having the final say. An example of this
is when our season began on the wrong note and we were struggling, we, the
players, decided it was time for a change in formation, and came to the coach
with this idea it was implemented and had a positive effect. This is an example
of on of Katzenbach ad Smith’s characteristics of a high-quality team, that we
held ourselves collectively responsible. This sort of thing would not have
happened under my sophomore year coach, as he wanted to play ‘his system’, and
everyone had to fit into ‘his system’ rather than finding a system that fit the
team, meaning he was holding himself solely responsible for the success of the
team. I believe that both years’ structures were good and both had their
strengths and weaknesses. The first reason they worked for each of the coaches
is because the team configurations fit their personalities, one being all about
control and the other being more relaxed and open to experimentation. The second
reason I think the two systems worked is because once we had gone through our sophomore
year where we had learned ‘the system’ and understood it and learned more about
the game in general, we were then able to make adjustments and apply what we
had learned from our time under a strict system to then be more creative with a
more hands off approach.
The thing I have not mentioned yet is how successful
each of the teams were, because the success was relative to several factors. My
sophomore year our team went undefeated in the regular season, 20-0, my senior
year we only won 4 games in the regular season, but we were able to win
regionals. The book talks about structures and how success is determined. In
the case of both of my teams, Success was evaluated and determined in very
different ways. Sophomore year, winning was the only form of success, our coach
made sure every practice and every game that it was expected of us that we win,
and in the end we did. Varsity year our expectations were no different, but after
struggling at the beginning of the season, we had to reevaluate our goals. There
was a team wide discussion where we as a team discussed where we saw ourselves
heading and what could be done, if anything, to turn our season around, which
culminated in a regional win. This is another example of a characteristic of a
high-performing team, the ability for a team to shape purpose in response to a
demand. Out of these two seasons, while to 20-0 run was fun, I feel as though
me and my team succeeded more my senior year than my sophomore year. Being able
to overcome unforeseen obstacles and push through tough times made that regional
win that much more rewarding than the 20-0 record. In both of these cases the
coach gave the team a direction, and if that works, as It did my sophomore year,
fantastic, however if things don’t go quite as well as expected it is not just
up to the coach but the entire team to create achievable goals so that success is
still able to be achieved.
One thing you didn't talk about was leadership from players on the team and if that mattered for performance. Likewise you didn't talk about talent.
ReplyDeleteBack when I was a faculty member and full time in Econ I had lunch with then coach Lou Henson (there were a couple of other Econ colleagues in attendance). We got to talk about the Indiana team that Bobby Knight coached my first year at Illinois, 1980-81. They won the national championship. Lou Henson said their team was loaded with good players. He diminished Knight't role in this conversation and said talent was the real reason they won.
If a team has modest talent but the team members work well together then they still can have performance goals but excellence probably needs to measured differently from how a team that is loaded with talent would measure it.
I also wasn't clear in your story if when you were a sophomore if that was junior varsity. You said something about the coach stepping down to coach the sophomores. You didn't consider in your piece that the upperclassman have more experience and perhaps should be coached differently as a consequence. You attributed the coaching difference to the personalities of the coaches, not to differences in the players. That might be right, but it would be good to consider the other possibility.