Tag Archives: teaching

Simple is not inferior

Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler.

— Albert Einstein

As coaches the simpler we can make things the easier it is for players to understand the priority.  Too often we think that effective equals complex, that simple equals inferior.  Yet so much evidence points to the opposite.  The success and the relentless pursuit of simple by Google serves as a prime example in the business world.  The benefit of the pursuit of simple is also applicable in athletics, the most successful coaches are the ones who make the game simplest for their athletes and teams.

The challenge for coaches is to seek out honest feedback on the simplicity of their teaching. As coaches it is hard to identify our own weakness in keeping our teaching simple and most effective without outside feedback. Yes it takes courage to invite someone in to evaluate our teaching and help us to be our best, but isn’t this what we are trying to do for our players.  Also, this process doesn’t have to be a painful experience either. An effective coach of coaches understands  the best approach is to ask questions that lead to self-awareness as that is the quickest path to lasting and effective change in behaviors.

Common pitfalls that lead to complexity in our coaching can be:

  • A coaches own lack of clarity on what are those truly vital priorities to success in their system.  Due to uncertainty or not having spent the time to ask themselves the question
  • Falling back on doing things that were done to us and teach the way we were taught
  • Feeling the pressure to make things more complex to justify their position

Failing Quickly

When coaching  do we slow a players development and/or impose a false ceiling on their potential  by teaching and encouaging them to avoid failure?  

Whether  intentional or not, teaching players to avoid failure through our words, body language or actions, will hamper a players development. Players must understand failure is a necessary part of their improvement process and they will experience  it during the development process. It should not be viewed as making them some how inferior rather it is a sign they are moving in the right direction. 

As Pixar director Andrew Stanton, director of Finding Nemo and WALL-E, describes this way of operating, “My strategy has always been: be wrong as fast as we can. Which basically means, we’re gonna screw up, let’s just admit that. Let’s not be afraid of that. But let’s do it as fast as we can so we can get to the answer. You can’t get to adulthood before you go through puberty. I won’t get it right the first time, but I will get it wrong really soon, really quickly.”

Failing quickly to learn fast is also a central operating principle for seasoned entrepreneurs who routinely describe their approach as failing forward. That is, entrepreneurs push ideas into the market as quickly as possible in order to learn from mistakes and failures that will point the way forward. This is an extremely well-known Silicon Valley operating principle. Howard Schultz’s experience building Starbucks illustrates the point. He and his colleagues had to try hundreds of ideas, on everything from nonstop opera music to baristas wearing bowties, to hundreds of different types of beverages before being able to define the Starbucks experience.

 Sims, Peter (2011-04-19). Little Bets (pp. 52-53). Free Press. Kindle Edition.

Avoidance of failure means avoiding reaching your fullest potential and often times the quickest way to reaching new levels of success is through failing quickly.

Know your strengths

Golf is a great test of one’s ability to focus on their strengths, as there are no reactions to opponents, it is you and you alone deciding the shot  you are going to attempt.  During a recent round I found myself again trying to hit a shot that I see many good players hit when facing the shot I was. I knew that was not the best shot for me as I am better at hitting a high flop shot than I am at hitting a bump and run into the side of the bank.  Yet I had this internal debate going in my head that if I play against conventional wisdom (which is playing to my strength) am I somehow lesser of a player.  Unfortunately, I displayed some mental weakness and attempted the conventionally wise shot and wound up making bogey, I should have played to my strengths. 

This experience got me thinking how this relates to coaching. As a coach am I trying to get a player to play like someone else or am I trying to help them become the best player they can be based on their unique giftings?  This is not to say that we don’t teach players fundamental skills, but as coaches we should not stifle creativity to do things a little differntly as that leads to innovation.  The game of basketball would look differently if Whitey Skoog, John Miller Cooper, or Ken Sailors  had not been allowed to take a jump shot as up to then it was believed that a set shot was most effective.

Good coaches don’t try to create cookie cutter players, they help players realize their strengths and how to maximize them within the team and the game.

Good coaches develop players to their fullest potential, not trying to force them mirror someone elses path to their fullest potnential.