Assistant Coaches and Korean Pilots

Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: The Story of Successcontains a chapter which discusses the communication patterns and traditions which led to a rash of plane crashes by Korean Air in the 1990’s. According to linguists Ute Fischer and Judith Orasanu, there are six different ways to persuade a superior (in the case the pilot), each with a different level of mitigation:

1. Command: “Turn 30-degrees right.” That’s the most direct and explicit way of making a point imaginable. It’s zero mitigation.
2. Crew Obligation Statement: “I think we need to deviate right about now.” Notice the use of “we” and the fact that the request is now much less specific. That’s a little softer.
3. Crew Suggestion: “Let’s go around the weather.” Implicit in that statement is “we’re in this together.”
4. Query: “Which direction would you like to deviate?” That’s even softer than a crew suggestion because the speaker is conceding that he’s not in charge.
5. Preference: “I think it would be wise to turn left or right.”
6. Hint: “That return at 25 miles looks mean.” This is the most mitigated statement of all.

Assistant coaches often face the same dilemma: how do you approach the Head Coach when you think he is making a bad decision? These examples offer six different approaches.

Few assistant coaches are in a position to command. A co-pilot faces the possibility of death if the pilot continues to error; a basketball team will only suffer a loss. Few conversations have the urgency to require a command from an assistant coach.

The Crew Obligation Statement is more frequent: “Coach, I think we need a timeout.” Some head coaches, however, are unreceptive to this type of communication style. They will ignore the assistant to the detriment of their own team to maintain their aura of authority. On the other hand, some head coaches are more receptive to their assistant coach’s ideas. Therefore, it often depends on the relationship between the head coach and the assistant coach, as well as the situation.

The Crew Suggestion is common: “Let’s try a zone defense.” This is easier for the head coach to digest because it is only a suggestion. The head coach ultimately makes the decision. Just by changing the phrasing of the sentence – from I to we – the assistant has mre success because the head coach gets to keep his sense of authority while heeding his assistant’s suggestion. It also shows that the staff is a team, just as the staff hopes that the players function like a true team and the collective functions as a team.

The Query is tricky. It is a useful tool because as the assistant, you have basically made the decision; you’re just seeking input from the head coach. When I worked with Special Olympics athletes, I learned to use either/or questions because the athlete had only two choices. If I asked, “What would you like to do?” he could answer with hundreds of things, many of which I could not deliver or did not want to attempt. Instead, by asking an either/or question, I limit the athlete to two choices which I am okay with, but the athlete still gets to make the decision, rather than me explicitly telling him what to do: “Do you want to go on the swings or throw the frisbee?” Either choice is acceptable to me, but I also empower the athlete to make his own decisions, which is important for building his autonomy.

In an assistant coach relationship, if I say to the head coach, “Do you want to go to a 2-3 zone or a 1-3-1?” I have made the decision that we need to go to a zone. However, the head coach ultimately makes the decision. Sure, he could say, “No, let’s stay in man-to-man,” but it’s less likely when phrased as an either/or question: it’s like the other choices are not possible.

The Preference, to me, is not significantly different than the Crew Obligation Statement. The Hint, however, is subtle and many times the head coach misses the point, especially during a game. “Man, they’re killing our zone!” suggests that maybe the zone is not effective and we should play man-to-man, but in the middle of the action, the suggestion is often lost.

The relationship between an assistant coach and a head coach, as well as the individual situation, dictates the proper communication style. There is no right or wrong answer. An assistant coach must be tactful so he does not overstep his bounds, but also provide the right type of guidance for the head coach.

The head coach can improve th communication by empowering the assistant coaches to make decisions or provide suggestions. If the head coach encourages input, the assistants can worry less about offending the head coach and sue more straight forward speech, like the Crew Obligation Statement.

The head coach and assistant coach must remember that they have the same objective. Just as TV analysts always comment that they do not care how long it takes for officials to gather and discuss a call as long as they get it right, the coaching staff must do what is necessary to provide the best environment for their players and to put the players in th best possible position to play well.

Coaching Ego

I know I am not the first to write this, but I was out of the country when the Boston Celtics won the NBA Championship.

Doc Rivers deserves a great deal of credit. He took a huge risk by hiring Tom Thibideau and the risk paid off.

I generally believe that most coaches have big egos, but are also fairly insecure. There are, of course, exceptions. However, as I watched several young rookie college coaches put together staffs without any experience, it furthered my belief.

Rivers has been on the hot seat since he arrived in Boston. Bill Simmons has chronicled every coaching mistake Rivers has made on his ESPN blog. Coaches in this position rarely hire a coach like Thibideau because, in a sense, they could be hiring their replacement.

Rivers hired Thibideau and gave him defensive control. Boston turned into the best defensive team in the NBA. If Boston had not won the NBA Championship (what if they lost in Game 7 to Atlanta or Cleveland?), maybe Boston’s owners would have seen the work Thibideau did with the defense and fire Rivers to hire Thibideau rather than watch Thibideau leave for Chicago or Phoenix, as was rumored. It’s not a far-fetched idea.

However, Rivers showed a great deal of humility, honesty and confidence by hiring Thibideau and empowering him to run the defense. And, now Rivers is the Head Coach of the NBA Champions and even Simmons has apologized. Now, some writers noted that Rivers out-coached Phil Jackson if you look at certain things like execution out of a timeout and baskets to start the periods.

Sometimes ego and insecurity get in a coach’s way. We think coaches are supposed to have all the answers. But, isn’t that an unreasonable expectation? How many people in any profession are experts in every facet of their profession? Great coaches – and great business managers – surround themselves with great people and empower them to do their jobs and use their strengths. Unfortunately, popular perception sometimes views this as a weakness, not a strength, which leads to coaches surrounding themselves with “yes-men” or less experienced/talented coaches that lead to an average or below average staff.