Assessment*

 Recently, I was talking with a friend about a problem he was having with his tennis game.  He had come back to competitive play after a brief hiatus.  In the conversation, he identified the problem of his wandering concentration, of large, multi-game gaps where he went somewhere else, much to the detriment of his play.  So, we talked about drills he could use to stay focused, to sit the straying puppy mind.  Then, he wrote me an email saying that he thought the problem was connected to his fitness level, and I wrote back agreeing that as fitness wanes, so too concentration.  Then he wrote again saying that he thought that what the problem really needed was a thorough assessment.  Again, I had to agree.  So, since that conversation, the issue of assessment has been on my mind.

         Most club-level, or even league-level players tend to solve problems in their games with an equipment change. It's the easiest, least invasive procedure, promising the latest “game-improving” technology.  But a quick peek into any golfer's closet will reveal many such quick fixes: discarded putters and drivers by the dozen that were going to be The Answer.  These rejected solutions hint at a truth we all know too well: retail therapy feels good in the moment, but doesn’t go very far in solving more pervasive, underlying issues.  So, I have had the following thoughts for any athlete looking to improve, beat their nemesis, and achieve new personal bests:

         Fitness.  At any and every skill level, fitness will be a major factor in winning or losing, even in sports that don’t look all that physically demanding.  Just look at what Tiger Woods has shown the world about fitness in the golf game.  Most players use their regular play to get fit for their sport.  But, if they were to dedicate even one workout slot per week to improving their anaerobic capacity, they would be amazed at the result.  It's not just concentration that frays with fatigue, but everything does.  Everything.  Another way of saying this is that without a good fitness base, every problem in a close contest will be one of fitness.  So, get that problem out of the way.

         Willingness.  The next most important skill in assessing problems is really a frame of mind rather than one of technique: a willing attitude toward hearing or seeing the problem as it is.  I recently read an article that reviewed findings from a study on self-assessment.** The bad news was that it turns out we are pretty bad self-assessors, and further, we tend to inflate our abilities in just those areas in which we have a weakness.  Experts call this problem a problem of metacognition, which is, in essence, the ability to get some distance from our own thoughts.  An additional dimension to this syndrome is how entrenched it is.  We don’t give up our incorrect assessments easily.  We tend to believe what we believe.  So, in order to assess problems in our games we have to be both willing to be wrong about our own thoughts about our game, and willing to hear what the real problem might be.

         Data.  If the article I referenced above is correct, we do need outside eyes and some quantitative data to see the problem in a new light.  We don’t need to get all Moneyball on the problem, but take a lesson from your pro, videotape yourself, or track yourself on a number of relevant data points.  The data will help as long as it contributes to seeing the problem for what it is, not for how you think it.  You may notice that some problems are brand new to you, while others are ones you actually knew about but were somehow avoiding bringing to your fully conscious mind.  The more interested you can be in discovering problems, the more open you will be to their remediation.

         One unifying feature of successful assessment is the absence of ego.  Generally, you will find that greater ego investments yield fewer dividends in truth.  And every skill I’ve discussed above requires a diminishing of ego investment.  Often, the breakdown of ego comes when we are at our wits’ end for making the same mistake for the umpteenth time, or have lost to our rival yet again.  But it needn’t come to that.  Rather than buying the next shiny new thing, invest in some good assessment.

*A slightly different version of this article was previously published on the website The Daily Squash Report (http://www.dailysquashreport.com/), in the column “What’s On My Mind,” March 18, 2014.

**Kruger, J. & Dunning, D.  1999.  Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  1121-1134.

 

Lessons From A Loss

Because I try to practice what I preach, I want to share with you some lessons I learned from a tough loss.  In an earlier post (“On Rivals and Rivalry”), I introduced you to a team I coached that was involved in a very unpleasant rivalry.  Without rehashing the details, I am going to tell you about a moment that I have reflected on a great deal since leaving that team.  We were going to play our rival for the last time in the season at their home courts, and when I pulled the van into the parking spot at our rival’s venue and was going to give some words of encouragement, my captain said that she had a request.  As it was her last match, I acquiesced, not knowing what it was.  Then, she pulled out her smartphone, plugged some portable speakers into it and played for the team Al Pacino’s inspirational speech from “Any Given Sunday.”  It was a difficult moment for me, because, having agreed, I didn’t feel as though I should turn it off, and yet it felt strange to me that we were listening to a fictional coach give a fictional speech to a fictional team.  Wasn’t I supposed to be giving a speech?  Wasn’t the captain?  Was this a referendum on my motivational speaking abilities?  Either way, I had a bad feeling in my stomach, and was not surprised to come out, yet again, on the losing end of an encounter with our rivals, finding that Al Pacino hadn’t worked his magic on our squad.

        But, it is not their fault.  In all arenas, but perhaps the athletic more than any other, we have become entranced by the power of the pre-game speech to inspire bold performance in players.  And although I am a big fan of listening to and delivering a good speech, I would like to dispel the notion that a good pre-game speech makes much of a difference in performance during the game.  In particular, I do not think speeches are a good way to overcome performance anxiety, and I would urge athletes and coaches alike to adopt a different approach to peak performance on any given Sunday other than relying on speeches.  And so, my advice to coaches when seeking peak performance from their players is to keep the pre-game words to a minimum and follow some simple steps:

Clarity of plan: Most coaches have devised fantastic practice plans throughout the season.  Game day is no different.  And big game days even more so.  That pre-game plan should be extremely detailed, including when people should arrive at the venue (or departure) site, what they should have eaten, what and who should speak before the event, how the warm up should proceed, and, who should watch and coach which players.  Finally, this plan should consider all contingencies as the match gets toward its decisive points.  As you can see from the vignette above, one problem was that I had not communicated with the captain as to who was going to speak when.  Thus, the plan, just like any other kind of training, is seeking to control as much as possible before and during the event and avoid all surprises.

Clarity of Communication: Pre-game speeches are nice, but the most important form of communication--other than discipline in practice--is the kind that happens during the game.  If a coach says something to his/her players, it should be brief (“hit to her backhand,” “volley more”) and digestible.  A good technique is to ask players to repeat what they heard before they go back into the melee.  There is nothing worse that adding to a player’s muddle with muddling words.  And remember: raising your voice, or even worse, yelling, is not a way of being more clear.  It is likely to contribute to rather than reduce performance anxiety.

Clarity of Role: One of the problems from the example above is that there was a lack of role clarification.  The captain was doing something I thought I was going to do, and, perhaps the players thought I was going to do something I didn’t do.  In any case, being very clear with a team about who does what and when is a key aspect of any successful team endeavor.  Its opposite, role diffusion, leads to confusion, poor performance, and potentially deep rifts among team members, as people are not giving and getting what they need from each other.

        Perhaps this is a problem of Hollywood’s making: when we think of good coaches, we think of them delivering rousing speeches.  But, really, the main job of a coach is the quite difficult task of fostering group cohesion in order to create the conditions under which each player can grow as a player and person and give her best up for the common good.  The three steps I’ve offered here will help.  And maybe you don’t want to take my word for it, but just please don’t take Al’s.

On Yelling & Yellers

In one of the schools where I taught and coached, a story fairly well-known to students and some of the coaches circulated about one of the coaches.  At halftime, during one game when the team was not playing particularly well, they received a verbal lashing, all-too common from that coach.  When his rant reached its apogee, the coach became so apoplectic in his rage that he picked up a folding chair and threw it, catching one of his players in the forehead and causing a deep cut that required attention from one of the trainers.  Players collaborated in squelching the event and in contriving the fiction that the injury had happened during game time.  The incident was never discussed publicly and the coach was never censured for an event that conveniently never happened.  I bring this story out of my past for several reasons.  For one, it has always amazed me how the abuser gets protected by the system, and how a group under the thrall of an abuser colludes to keep the abuse a secret.   For another, I have always been perplexed and dismayed at the problem of yelling, a pathology at any time, but one that is particularly malignant in parenting, leadership and coaching; that is, when there is a power imbalance between the yeller and his target.  I hope that with the very public firing of the Rutger’s University men’s basketball coach more people will feel empowered to take a stand against the yeller in their life,  but I have my doubts that the fate of Mike Rice will start a national campaign to eradicate this sickness.  In this post, I’ll give you some reasons why all coaches (parents, bosses, people) should seek to eradicate yelling from their communication repertoire.

    The Pygmalion Effect.  Separate from the locution I coined in my last parent post, psychologists have discovered a phenomenon that shows that if you demand a higher standard, you can get it.  That is, if you have high expectations of people, you will get more out of them than if you don’t.  Yelling is an egregious misunderstanding of this concept.  Yelling, physically abusing them or hurling homophobic epithets at them will definitely have an effect on them, that is, of triggering their fight/flight/freeze mechanism.  So, while some players’ fight response might engage, you are just as likely to have players feeling more timid and even freezing in the face of performance challenges.  Coaches are much more likely to elicit peak performance by setting high standards and by giving more attention and praise when their athletes achieve those levels and by simply paying less attention to gaffes, misses and miscues.  In a team that identifies and rallies around high standards, mistakes are taken in stride and no one needs to get excoriated, singled out or put in the penalty box of shame, from which best results are rarely achieved.

    The Messiah Fantasy.  All groups fall prey to the fantasy that the leader will lead them to the promised land (more wins, greater profit, increased safety from external threats).  The successful leader will always seek to thwart this fantasy by communicating to his group that achieving those gains falls on everyone’s shoulders.  Harnessing the power of the group will always be more effective and reality-based than by having everyone believe that they are following some invincible Magus.  Furthermore, the truly empowering leader will forefront his or her players’ hands in victory and downplay his or her own, but (s)he will always take blame for defeats.  The yeller misunderstands these basic tenets by communicating--through their dysregulation--that their players will succeed only through their obedience.  For the yeller, it is all about him.  For the coach, it is all about the group.  The yeller communicates to his players that they will sink or swim because of the coach, and that they should never forget that.  Whereas the coach communicates that they will sink or swim through the collective efforts of the group and that the coach will do everything to help them swim.

Cohesion.  So, as you can see from above, team cohesion is really the holy grail of successful team play.  The yeller and abuser shatters cohesion because (s)he will split the team’s allegiances between those players who agree with those methods, perhaps because they had a yeller for a parent, and those who think (s)he’s insane and should be overthrown.  But mostly, the yeller creates a code of silence, evidenced by the team I referenced above, where open communication is shunned in part because it is not tolerated, and in part because no one wants to step out of line and feel the capricious wrath of the lunatic in their midst who mistakes himself for a visionary.  Finally, and perhaps most tragically, players will simply ignore the coach during yelling jags, retract their heads into their shells, thus missing important opportunities to process mistakes, clarify misunderstandings, and learn & cohere as a group.

       If history hasn’t then psychologists certainly have taught us about the wages of obedience for the sake of obedience.  They have also echoed the lessons of history in how quickly and easily power is abused.  So, coaches should set their bar much higher than mere obedience and should be much more circumspect about how they use their tremendous authority.  Which is not to say that they can’t reprimand, give consequences or even deliver impassioned lectures about what does and does not float on their particular squad or why that particular drill was not performed well.  Setting high standards and providing the road map to achieving them is a far cry from yelling.  The difference can almost invariably be seen in the results.  Mike Rice’s Rutger’s team didn’t break .500.  The team I referred to above wasn’t even close to .500.  And as for that team’s coach?  He was hired away by a more prestigious institution with a more storied program.