Turnaround Coaches: Study their Steps
April 27, 2016
By Scott Westfall
MSU Institute for the Study of Youth Sports
Turnaround leadership is often a popular topic within sports conversations, as many coaches are revered for their ability to transform a struggling team into a “winner.”
Turnarounds often are discussed in platitudes such as, “That coach has what it takes to turn this program around.”
While often talked about during the offseason, especially in the face of coaching vacancies, turnarounds are difficult to achieve. After all, if transforming a failing team into a successful one were an easy task, there would not be such an abundance of teams that struggle year-in and year-out.
As much as turnaround coaches are celebrated for their abilities to turn a losing program into a winner, very little scientific research has been devoted to analyzing coaches who have proven themselves as turnaround specialists. The steps and intangibles necessary for achieving a coaching turnaround have remained undetermined as this topic had never been examined from a scientific perspective – until now.
For the past year and a half, I have devoted the majority of my time to researching turnaround leadership in high school coaching, undertaking this study as the topic of my doctoral dissertation project. Research participants in this study included 11 high school football coaches from the state of Michigan who led dramatic turnarounds at their high schools within the last decade. The criteria for participant selection were:
• Prior to the coach’s arrival or appointment as head coach, the team finished (at least) three of the previous four seasons with a losing record (below .500 winning percentage), including a losing season immediately before the coach’s arrival or appointment.
• Within five seasons of the coach’s arrival, the team enjoyed (at least) three winning seasons (above .500 winning percentage).
Before their turnarounds occurred, these high schools had not experienced a winning season (on average) in 7.2 years, while five of the 11 schools had never qualified for the MHSAA Playoffs. However, upon being hired, the average time it took the coaches to achieve a winning record was 1.73 seasons. Moreover, the average time it took the coaches to qualify for the MHSAA Playoffs was 1.82 years. On top of this, each of the 11 teams qualified for the playoffs within three years of hiring their new coach.
The circumstances these coaches faced when they arrived were challenging to say the least, as all of the coaches entered a negative situation with poor team culture. These situations were characterized by losing streaks, cancelled seasons, dilapidated facilities, poor role models on the previous coaching staffs and a significant amount of parental pushback. Players and community members often were embarrassed by their football program. One coach described the situation by recounting, “During that time they were a doormat; everybody’s homecoming, a laughing stock. They were like the Bad News Bears.” Additional problems included low numbers, very little player development, and a low amount of commitment to the overall program.
One coach that I interviewed compared entering a turnaround situation to building a well. He stated, “You may not have success on the surface initially, but if you dig nice and deep and build the well right, there is water down there. It’s going to be some work and it might not come up right away – it takes some pumping. But if you build it right, it will happen.” In this article I will attempt to encapsulate 16 months of research, 191 pages of interview transcriptions, 2,278 miles driven across the state of Michigan, and countless hours spent with 11 turnaround coaches, in order to present to you the nucleus of what it takes to turn around a failing high school program.
The coaching philosophies of the majority of the coaches were characterized as “educational athletics.” This involved coaches striving to do things the right way, viewing their job as an extension of the classroom, implementing a character development program, and using football as a vehicle to teach life skills to players. Furthermore, their greatest strengths were revealed to be coaching/leadership skills, along with the ability to develop strong relationships with their players.
Coaches unanimously agreed that upon their arrival immediate changes needed to be made to the team’s culture. These changes included prioritizing team workouts, altering visible elements like the organization of practices, offensive and defensive schematics, team logos, along with placing positive role models in front of the players. Other changes to team culture happened through improved coach-athlete relationships, giving players a better football experience, and purging the program of negative people. One coach used the term, “Weeding the roses,” which means getting rid of the negative people in the program in order to let the better parts grow and prosper.
All of the coaches developed some type of vision for their program. The most common visions involved transforming their team into a top-level program, and for their players to conduct themselves as quality human beings. Winning games, competing with the best teams in their division, and playing for MHSAA championships marked becoming a top program. While winning was a major component of the coaches’ visions, developing quality human beings was revealed to be just as essential. This was evident as several coaches remarked that their most well-behaved kids were also their most productive players, and that doing things right in school and in the community often equates to wins on the football field.
To build upon their visions, each of the coaches formulated some type of plan or “blueprint” to execute their turnarounds. The majority of the coaches’ plans were constructed around developing positive coach-athlete relationships and employing off-season strength and conditioning programs. While all of the coaches’ plans eventually yielded a great amount of success, not all parties bought into them initially. Some of the players needed to see proof that the team could win games before they were completely sold. In order to create buy-in, the coaches used various approaches to connect with players and sell their plan. These methods included team activities, cultivating relationships with players, continuously selling their vision, hiring/retaining quality assistant coaches, and entering the situation with some sort of previous expertise. Although it may take time, the coaches stressed the importance of the players buying into their vision. As one of them decreed to his team, “The quicker you buy in, the quicker we win.”
Early indicators that a turnaround was commencing included winning games or making significant strides off of the field through positive coach-athlete relationships. Sources of sustained changes included a win streak or an increased level of commitment from the players. Clear indicators that the program had undergone a turnaround included the players adopting a new mentality filled with trust and confidence, along with the program reaching unprecedented levels of success, such as competing with the best teams, completing an undefeated season, and/or making the playoffs consistently.
Character development emerged as a strong component of this study, as 100 percent of the coaches reported that it played a significant role in fostering turnarounds. The coaches also indicated that they deliberately teach character in practice and use coaching as a platform for character development.
In hindsight, an outside observer may assume that these coaches were destined to succeed and their plans were met with little resistance. However, after examining their roads to turnaround success, most of them met several barriers along the way. Early obstacles included widespread mental challenges among players such as a lack of confidence and/or trust. Other early barriers included parental pushback and some cases of overt interference. After the turnarounds were complete, the coaches’ problems did not disappear; they simply changed form, as complacency became the new problem on the team. A potential root of this complacency was the addition of younger players who thought that success would happen automatically simply because of the program’s prior achievements.
The coaches were quick to acknowledge that the turnarounds would not have been possible without the excellent support they received. Their greatest source of help came from their assistant coaches who contributed both tangible and psychosocial support. Tangible support was seen through the assistants performing administrative duties and overseeing strength and conditioning sessions. Meanwhile, psychosocial support came in simple ways, such as listening, giving advice, and showing belief in the head coach. As one coach stated, “You’re only as good as the people you have around you.”
Team turnarounds are not officially complete until a team maintains the success it has built. In order to avoid complacency and sustain momentum, the coaches recommended that coaches and players find ways to keep reaching higher. In order to do this, coaches recommended talking to players about their team goals and what they want their legacies to be. To help sustain momentum, coaches stressed that it is often the little things that matter the most, such as effort, team discipline, player accountability, and positive attitudes.
The strongest theme that emerged from this study was the importance of coach-athlete relationships. All of the coaches believed that relationships are imperative to fostering turnarounds. It was also emphasized that relationships are crucial for sustaining long-term success. In essence, coaches may experience some momentary success by taking shortcuts with superior talent, however, strong relationships are the “X-factor” that will sustain the program over the long run. While the approaches of building relationships were diverse, what mattered most was coaches spending time with players in both structured and unstructured team activities, and simply showing players that they cared about them as people as much as they did as football players.
Steps of a Turnaround
(When turnarounds happen, they usually happen in this order)
1. Establish new leadership
2. Assemble a staff of positive role models
3. Gather information about the program
4. Create the vision
5. Make a plan and communicate it
6. Create buy-in from players and other key people
7. Change behavior – This is the impetus of the turnaround
8. Create and celebrate early wins
9. Don’t let up – Keep setting new goals and reaching higher
10. Complacency is the enemy: Make sure change sticks!
Intangibles Checklist
(These are the little things that people cannot see or do not talk about, yet they often matter the most)
1. Positive relationships between coaches and players. Build these by spending time with players and showing them you care about them as a person.
2. Establishment of a strength and conditioning program. All successful turnarounds were led by coaches who implemented a respectable offseason training program.
3. Display an undeniable belief that your vision and the plan will produce successful results. Continuously sell your plan and give players the reasons behind why you do what you do. Be prepared to stand tall and adhere to your vision when adversity strikes.
4. Generate player buy-in through team activities. Remember that sports are supposed to be FUN. Plan structured and non-structured activities to generate fun, excitement and team cohesion!
5. Demand excellence of your players off the field. Promote educational athletics and use your platform as a coach to teach character and life lessons to your players.
6. Outwork your opponents in everything you do. Arrive earlier. Stay later. Go above and beyond what your competitors are doing. Set the tempo that hard work is the new norm and it starts with you.
7. Remember that the little things matter. Take the time to ensure that your team always has the right effort, attitude and discipline, as well as accountability to the program and each other.
Scott Westfall spent 10 years as a teacher, coach, and athletic director in Fort Collins, Colo. He is currently finishing his Doctorate at Michigan State University, with an emphasis in Sport Psychology and Athletic Administration, and assisting the MHSAA with its student leadership programs. Westfall is a former athlete who participated in football, wrestling, tennis and cross country at the high school level, and rugby at the collegiate level. Please feel free to contact Scott if you would like a copy of his full dissertation. Scott also performs speaking engagements at conferences on various topics within educational athletics. He can be reached at [email protected]
Nurturing Our Lower Level Programs
May 15, 2014
By John E. “Jack” Roberts
MHSAA Executive Director
When I’ve been faced with the most difficult choices as to different courses of action for the MHSAA, I’ve tried to face up to this reframing of the issue: “If we were creating the MHSAA for the first time today, would we do this, or would we do that?”
For example, would we or would we not limit coaches’ contact with athletes out of season? Would we have a 90-day period of ineligibility for transfer students or would it be 180 days?
There are other examples of such “either, or” questions I could provide, but none is as difficult or defining as this: Should school sports under the MHSAA’s auspices provide more opportunities for 7th- and 8th-graders and new opportunities for even younger students?
I won’t be coy about what I think our answer should be. I haven’t always felt this way, and I recognize it is a different opinion than some who are quoted in this publication; but today it’s my belief that if we were creating the MHSAA for the first time in 2014, the MHSAA would allow more contests and longer contests for 7th- and 8th-graders, and the MHSAA would have competition policies and programs for younger middle schoolers too.
I believe this is what parents want for their children and what students want for themselves; and I believe, within reason, that the better we serve these students in their junior high/middle school years, the stronger high school sports will be and the better these programs will support the educational missions of schools.
I believe we must begin to serve middle school students more comprehensively, and that our doing so today is the best hope we have for retaining comprehensive programs for high school students tomorrow. Not only does the lower profile and pressure of lower level programs nurture the highest ideals of educational athletics, they provide our highest hope for preserving those ideals at the high school level.
The Lasting Impact of First Impressions
The over-arching question before us is how to maintain policies that encourage multiple sport experiences for students at the junior high/middle school level while at the same time adjusting those policies in terms of grade level served and the numbers and lengths of contests allowed in order to be more attractive to junior high/middle school parents and to school districts which desire additional competition opportunities in the school setting for students prior to high school.
There is a good healthy discussion in our midst about the scope of junior high/middle school athletics – how much should occur and how young it should commence; and the result of these discussions may have long-lasting effect on students, schools and the MHSAA.
Here are two central issues:
1. Contest Limits
Many people over many years have contributed to developing the current season limitations for the number of contests permitted by MHSAA member junior high/middle schools. These good people have believed in a philosophy of sports at this level that encourages students to try multiple sports.
“Kids haven’t fully matured yet,” they say. “Kids haven’t been exposed to some sports yet. They don’t know what they might like or be good at. So let’s have policies and programs that encourage new opportunities and experiences at this level.”
The season limits that have been put in place allow some junior high/middle schools, or their entire leagues, to fit four distinct seasons in a nine-month school year, consistent with this over-arching philosophy to encourage these students to try new things and learn.
There is another educationally grounded and equally astute group of administrators and coaches who are concerned that the current limits are too severe in comparison to non-school youth sports programs. For example, community/club basketball or soccer programs may schedule 15 or 18 or more games per season versus the MHSAA limit of 12 at the junior high/middle school level.
These folks think these restrictive limitations create a disincentive for kids to play school sports, and that many of those who have no place in junior high/middle school sports have no interest later in high school sports.
2. 6th-Graders
Historically, the popular opinion among educators has held that 7th and 8th grade is early enough for schools to provide competitive athletics, early enough to put youth into the competitive sports arena, and early enough to pit one school against another in sports.
Today, however, many educators and parents point out that such protective philosophies and policies were adopted about the same time “play days” were considered to be the maximum exertion females should experience in school sports. Some administrators and coaches argue that both our severe limits on contest limits at the junior high/middle school level, and our refusal to serve 6th-graders, are as out of date and inappropriate as play days for females.
Today, in nearly four of five school districts with MHSAA member schools, 6th-graders go to school in the same building with 7th- and 8th-graders. But MHSAA rules don’t allow 6th-graders to participate with and against 7th- and 8th-graders. In fact, the MHSAA Constitution doesn’t even acknowledge that 6th-graders exist.
Today, in many places, 6th-graders have aged-out of non-school, community sports, but they are not permitted to play on MHSAA junior high/middle school teams.
Last school year, 50 different school districts requested this rule be waived for them, and the MHSAA Executive Committee approved 46 of 50 waivers, allowing 6th-graders to compete on 7th- and 8th-grade teams. During 2011-12, 37 of 40 requests for waiver were approved, in all cases for small junior high/middle schools. Many of these schools want, and some of them desperately need, these 6th-graders to fill out junior high/middle school teams.
Young people are starting sports much younger today than 100 years ago when the MHSAA was created. Younger than even 50 years ago when the MHSAA was incorporated. If the MHSAA were created today to serve any students before 9th grade, I’m certain it would not leave out 6th-graders who are walking the same halls with 7th- and 8th-graders, and who have been playing competitive sports almost since the first day they started walking at all.
Eyes on the future
The most important thing we can do to enhance high school sports is to grow junior high/middle school sports programs. The earlier we disconnect young people from non-school sports and engage them in school-sponsored sports, the better our chances are of keeping high school athletic programs healthy, and the better our prospects are of keeping both participation rates and conduct standards high.
School sports are in competition for hearts and minds of young people. Our competition includes movies, jobs, cars, video games, boyfriends and girlfriends and club sports ... especially club sports. School sports needs to market itself better, and part of better is to be available earlier – much sooner in the lives of youth. More contests at the junior high/middle school level and more opportunities for 6th-graders should be parts of our marketing strategies on behalf of educational athletics generally.
For at least 50 years there have been predictions by people outside of our member schools that the system of school-sponsored sports that is almost unique to the United States would someday give way to the system of most countries where youth sports is provided by non-school community groups and private athletic clubs. Some people challenge school-sponsored sports on a program basis – for example, that competitive athletics creates a distraction to the core educational mission of schools. Others may challenge school-sponsored sports on a financial basis – that interscholastic athletics compete for the limited resources communities have to support their schools.
Today there also exists among our member schools a small percentage of administrators who have come to their leadership roles without involvement in school sports and who either desire and believe that interscholastic sports will be moved from schools to communities or who do not want but predict that such will occur as resources for schools continue to shrink.
I believe this is more likely to happen, or to happen sooner, if we do not change our approach to junior high/middle school sports. If we continue to restrict 7th- and 8th-graders to so few contests of such limited length compared to what those students have in non-school sports, and if we continue to offer nothing for younger students, we essentially and effectively force these students to non-school sports.
It is an often cited statistic that between 80 and 90 percent of all young people who ever begin playing competitive athletics stop playing before they reach the age of 13, meaning the vast majority of young people never, ever are involved in school programs. Thus, it is no mystery why people question the future of school sports. We’re doing nothing to make programs available to them. They have no experience in them.
Our restrictive and possibly outdated policies and procedures regarding contest limits and lengths and the age at which we begin to serve junior high/middle school students may assure that the dire predictions about school sports’ future will be accurate. We are doing too little, too late. It is marketing at its worst.
In my mind there is little doubt that we are doing too little too late with junior high/middle school students. Now the challenge before us is to think beyond “we can’t afford it” and make some necessary changes, while still avoiding a system that allows or even encourages schools doing too much too soon.