Coaching Philosophy, Gryphon Antares Phoenix

            I am looking to coach: Professional United States, NCAA University-College Level United States, Professional Canada, and University-College Level Canada. Improvement in every team member, building trust in the team cohesion process, and reinforcement of individual contributions to group goals, and interpersonal skills, are vastly important in team environments. Sport participation has been a crucial point influencing athletes’ behaviors, cognitions, and affective responses (Lemonidis, N., Tzioumakis, Y., Karypidis, A., Michalopoulou, M., Gourgoulis, V., & Zourbanos, N., 2014). Coaches behaviors and leadership styles facilitate or undermine psychosocial growth and development of their athletes (Horn, T., Bloom, P., Berglund, K., and Packard, S, 2011).

“Improvement”; “enjoyment”; and “competition” are the three cornerstones of my philosophy. Within this framework I will have “learning from failure”; “becoming better people”; and upholding to “improving character is a life-long process” as key concepts. Beliefs, values, and principles in my philosophy revolve around building connections to teammates, fellow student-athletes, and other staff. Athletes have task-motivated focus on personal improvement and prefer coaches that are high frequencies of training and instructional behavior (Horn, et al., 2011). Extrinsically motivated players had greater preference for coaches with high frequency of social support behaviors (Horn, et al., 2011). If participants trust and have confidence in others, they will in turn connect positively as a group. It is highly important to be engraining in the group the value of collaborating with each other. I will teach that having fluid understanding as a collective that “determination and interconnectedness are the keys to improvement”. High performance coaches are linked to stable relationships that have high level of commitment from player and coach (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). The framework of my coaching philosophy would be known as “D.E.F.G. Definite Goals”. Discovery in finding individual identity and in finding group identity, working as an enclave (players defending their “territory” in giving full effort whether in a win or in a defeat), exhibiting fortitude (courage in face of adversity), and achieving team goals, will all be the hallmark of my philosophy.

My code of ethics for my teams includes representing yourself, teammates, and your coaching staff positively in the community. Operations of the program would revolve around treating everyone the way you would want to be treated. I would describe my coaching style as “between command style and cooperative style, with leaning toward cooperative style”. Everyone has their own characteristic behavior, and there is no one stereotypical set of coaching behaviors that would equal success for everyone (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). Coaches’ leadership styles and behaviors are linked directly to their athletes’ levels of competitive and trait anxiety (Horn, et al., 2011). In input sessions I would consider how players are doing, how they feel about the group’s performance, and how they feel individually about their contributions toward the group. I would open it up for suggestions for potential improvements to the operations of the program. I would ideally want to be a coach with a “cooperative style” 100 percent of the time, but I know that is not fully possible. I like all individuals to be contributing to the success of the whole group. I would employ democratic leadership style in guiding the “D.E.F.G. Definite Goals” system. I would describe to my athletics program that as the coach and leader I would be the “government of the territory” but that the “territory belongs to the team”. Under this structure I would commit myself to being open and helpful in how I work with others. Valuing my players and assistant coaches would be paramount in my head coaching, because behavioral norms within an organization are reflective of that organization’s culture, or its values and assumptions, and may have a heavier impact on the basketball or volleyball team’s performance (Frontiera, J., 2010).

An autonomy-supportive coaching style positively associated with prosocial behavior, and a controlling coaching style is associated with antisocial behavior, and controlling coaching behavior was also mitigated by controlled motivation and moral disengagement (Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C., 2011). I would want my players to represent themselves in a positive manner whether in practice, game, or community, and represent themselves positively when socially interacting with opposing teams, parents, administrators, and the public. To help facilitate a foundation for my players to follow, I would exhibit and learn and develop the autonomy-supportive coaching style to the best of my abilities.

How I handle working with the group, (coaches’ behavior) is important because it is always being scrutinized under a microscope set at a high magnification. Lesser self-determined athletes preferred a more controlling coaching command style, but I personally prefer to coach athletes that also think and strategize on their own (reduce mindlessness during game play and practices) (Horn, et al., 2011). Organization by the coach is highly important, and this can be composed of having smooth substitutions, always having proper and adequate equipment ready and available, and always having practice plans filled out completely and ready to be delivered (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). The behavior of the coach is always watched by players, other coaches, administration from multiple schools and multiple organizations, and families that come to watch their student-athletes participate in sport. About coach behavior, it was often reported (Lemonidis, et al., 2014) by coaches that they expressed support, encouragement, and corrective instructions after a mistake, however through surveys administered to the players in professional basketball first division in Greece, the players did not perceive their coaches’ behaviors as encouraging and supportive as their coaches did (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). Head coaches claimed technical instructions were given after mistakes, and that the coaches rewarded players for desirable performances, but the players did not perceive the coaches’ behavior as the coaches always intended (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). Cumming (2007) reported that the way a person perceives a behavior is more important than the behavior itself (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). Horn (2008) indicated that coaching behavior has a significant impact on athletic performance, along with impacts on psychological and emotional state of the athletes (Lemonidis, et al., 2014).

Character descriptors I would seek in players and staff include: doing good things and leading by good example, prohibiting injustice to others, never judging other people’s backgrounds, living by the moral values of respect, responsibility, and honesty, and repeatedly practicing by these guidelines on a regular basis. Perception and recall of coaching behaviors is central to determining effectiveness of those behaviors, as each athlete attributes coach behaviors in very individualistic athlete-by-athlete interaction (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). Unique athlete-by-athlete interaction with team and coach is characterized by what goes on with the goals of the individual athlete. If goals, personality, and beliefs of the athlete are consistent with the coach, a positive interpersonal environment will happen. Supportive coach behavior also had a positive link to positive self-talk of the athlete (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). If the psychological needs of the athlete are not being met the athlete will tend to evaluate the coaches’ behavior negatively (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). Player-centered approach greatly impacts players’ willingness to cooperate with coaching styles exhibited. Components of player-centered coaching style included increased player engagement with ownership of their performance, increased communication, increased motivation, and players being more engaged because they feel more important and more involved (De Souza, A., & Oslin, J., 2008).

As an important structure component within my coaching philosophy I would work on “teachable moments” with my players and additional coaching staff. How I would react with my players would have a direct impact on their performance outcomes. Reactive behaviors are responses to immediately preceding athlete or team behaviors. They are in reaction to successful and desirable performances, misbehaviors, or mistakes done by the athletes (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). Spontaneous behaviors initiated by the coach are not a response to a discernable preceding event and can be practice-related or practice irrelevant (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). I would get into a routine with the players and assistant coaches of running through four specific questions as situations arose. First, I would ask and bring to attention, “are you aware of anything that is happening or anything you are doing lately?” Second, I would discuss, “as the head coach, this is what I see is going on and this is how I feel it is affecting others in the program”. Third, I would question, “what you can think of that may or may not help the situation?” Lastly, I would advise and instruct, “as a coach giving direction or guidance, I would suggest doing BLANK instead.” Ultimately, I feel going through these “teachable moments processes” will be beneficial not only in helping me become a better leader, but it would help build trust and interconnectedness within my athletic programs. Twelve types of coaching behaviors were classified (Lemonidis, et al., 2014) with positive reinforcement-reward-praise, and non-reinforcement covering when desirable athlete performance occurred, and multiple types of mistake-related-responses including telling and showing how to do it right, yelling, embarrassing, hurting an athlete’s feelings, via punishment, or just purely not acknowledging when mistakes even happen (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). If way of thinking feels imposed upon, or if feeling or acting is not aligned with the needs of one side, then the “imposer” would be seen negatively and as controlling in behavior by the “person being imposed upon” (Lemonidis, et al., 2014). Taking care of needs between coaches and players is important. I will do everything I can to include individuals’ perspectives in the successes of groups I work with.

-Gryphon Antares Phoenix