Leadership: A Skill that can be Taught
January 30, 2013
By Jed Blanton
MSU Institute for the Study of Youth Sports
At the MHSAA and the ISYS, in the milieu of work we conduct centered on understanding and developing leadership in young athletes, there is one definition that seems to govern our approach and serve as a foundation for the research questions and training clinics that follow it.
Penned by Peter Northouse, that definition states “leadership is a process, whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.”
Choosing to frame ‘leadership’ as a process, rather than as some personality characteristic destined only for those naturally-born leaders, allows the concept of leadership to be utilized and taught as a skill, or set of skills. If a coach can agree with the philosophy that leadership can be learned, we can begin to design a series of strategies to enhance leadership in our young athletes.
First, I’m going to discuss what most coaches already know about teaching skills. Teaching skills is essentially an effort of behavior modification. A coach sometimes is able to choose athletes who already possess a certain level of competency within the skills necessary for their sport; sometimes coaches must work with whoever shows up on the first day of practice.
In either case, coaches tend to conduct a subconscious assessment of skills that must be learned (that they must teach), whether complex strategies or mere fundamentals. When teaching athletic skills to young people, coaches must break down the multitude of steps involved.
Think about a lay-up in basketball or the high jump in track & field. Either skill itself is actually a combination of several skills, and the ability to pay attention to very specific cues in the environment. Coaches teach the approach, the proper hand/arm placement, the essential cues to focus on, and the follow-through. Coaches can devote segments or entire practices to particular skills – breaking down all the steps, creating drills to practice the steps, and offering the full practice of the skill in a competition-like environment.
During this episode of developing a skill in our athletes, to get them to perform in a very specific way, our interactions often mirror what behavioral psychology has known for decades: People respond to reinforcements and punishments. Coaches positively reinforce their athletes with compliments, clapping hands, and congratulations. Our words and actions shape how the individual learning the skill makes adjustments to receive more praise.
These shifts of their body and miniscule changes in their actions to get to the desired behavior of their instructor are “learning.” Similarly, coaches often threaten punishment of extra sprints or difficult drills to give athletes a clue as to what behaviors they should avoid. Often, something as simple as a disapproving glance can be reinforcing enough to change whatever behavior the athlete shouldn’t be practicing. The simple “good job” or the threat of sprints essentially shapes how our athletes behave athletically.
This same approach can work toward leadership development.
What would it look like for a coach to reinforce and punish athletes toward leadership development in the same vein they develop athletic skills? If coaches could determine what three or four behaviors they’d like their athlete leaders to showcase, and then positively reinforce those skills with compliments and thanks, and potentially punish athletes with disapproving glances or even lectures after practice, leadership can be learned like any other athletic skill.
Phil Jackson, the multiple championship-winning NBA coach, has been quoted saying he would try to give two compliments for every criticism with his professional teams. The Positive Coaching Alliance – a national nonprofit organization that strives to educate coaches on ways to enhance the youth sport experience – suggests a ratio of five positive comments to every negative criticism. Research has consistently shown that people respond better and more rapidly to positive reinforcement than to punishment.
All too often, coaches wait for leaders to emerge, rather than teach the leadership they desire. Imagine if coaches waited for players to figure out the offensive plays and strategies instead of teaching players where to move, how to move, and why they are moving there. Adopting a similar approach with your athlete has the potential to expedite the behaviors you’d most ideally want them to possess. Using tactics of positive reinforcement can help these young players to become excellent leaders in a shorter period of time than merely hoping someone steps up.
I’ll leave you with a simple list of suggestions of how coaches can teach leadership, just like they teach any other necessary athletic skill.
- Develop goals with your athletes regarding leadership. What kinds of things do your athletes value or feel would help the team? How can they practice leading their teammates in that way?
- Develop your own goals toward teaching leadership. What would it look like if a coach made it a goal to compliment three players on specific leadership behaviors each practice? Think about the ultimate team captain for your team, and develop strategies to teach your players how to be that captain.
- Break down leadership skills into smaller and easier to practice chunks, just like an athletic skill. Then create an environment where the athletes can practice these skills. By organizing your team into smaller groups, or even partners, you can assign leadership roles within each group. Asking certain players to lead various parts of practice (stretches, lay-ups, circuit training), you are giving them a sense of ownership over their athletic experiences and responsibility over their teammates.
- Positively reinforce the desired behaviors. How would it make a player feel if their coach pulled them aside and thanked them for their specific leadership behavior after a practice or game? A “job well done” or an approving thank you can go a long way in making a young athlete feel they are developing into the leader you desire them to be.
Blanton is a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University in the department of Kinesiology, specializing in the PsychoSocial Aspects of Sport and Physical Activity, and a research assistant for MSU's Institute for the Study of Youth Sports. He has served as a facilitator at MHSAA Captains Clinics the last three years and currently is assisting the association with its student leadership programs.
Specialization Not the Only Pathway
April 21, 2015
By Eric Martin
MSU Institute for the Study of Youth Sports
Specialization is not a new topic facing athletes and parents.
In a 1989 study by Hill and Simons, athletic directors indicated that the three-sport athletes of the past were being replaced by athletes who only participated in a single sport. Multiple athletic directors indicated that the decrease of multi-sport participation was a concern for all involved in the sport environment as increased emphasis on sport specialization was not in the true vision of high school sports.
Even though the distress concerning sport specialization is not a new topic, the rise of club sports and year-round travel teams have increased the number of youth athletes who are forced to make a choice between playing multiple sports or focusing their time and training efforts solely on one sport. The decision to focus solely on one sport sometimes is done by athletes (or their parents) who believe that quitting other sports is the sole way to earn a coveted college scholarship.
However, even though counter intuitive, sport specialization may be hampering their pursuit to play at the next level.
Elite level achievement in sport is rare, with statistics showing that only 0.12 percent of high school athletes in basketball and football eventually reach the professional level. To combat these odds, many in popular media including Malcolm Gladwell have forwarded Anders Ericcson’s proposal that to become an expert in a field, an individual must accumulate 10,000 hours of practice.
To achieve this aim, many parents and athletes disregard other sports believing that extra exposure to a single sport may result in accumulating these hours quicker and increase an athlete's chances of elite skill achievement. Reducing the achievement of sport excellence to solely practice hours overlooks the importance that developmental, psychosocial, and motivational factors play in the achievement of high level success in youth. Further, several research studies have found that elite athletes typically fall short of this 10,000 hour milestone.
Simply accumulating a magic number of hours does not guarantee sport success, and in fact, trying to accumulate these hours too early can lead to many different negative outcomes for youth.
Sport specialization has been shown to have a variety of negative physiological and psychological outcomes for youth athletes. Typically, athletes who specialize in one sport play that sport year-round with little or no offseason. In these cases, athletes who continually perform repetitive motions such as throwing or jumping can experience overuse injuries that can range from tendinitis to torn ligaments.
In addition to the increased risk of injury, youth who specialize and play a single sport year-round are at risk for psychological issues as well. Youth who play a single sport are less likely to allow for proper recovery and face the increased chance of burnout or decreases in motivation that may result in leaving sport entirely. Additionally, as practice time demands and multiple league involvement increases, youth may feel added pressure to succeed due to the increased time and financial costs incurred by parents.
Finally, youth who specialize early in only one sport do not develop the fundamental motor skills that help them stay active as adults, instead only developing a very narrow skill set of a single sport.
If the dangers of sport specialization do not encourage multisport participation, a majority of studies have shown that sport specialization does not increase long-term sport achievement. In fact, most studies indicate that athletes who reach the highest level of sport achievement typically played a variety of sports until after they were well into high school.
For example, a study with British athletes found that youth who played three or more sports at the ages of 11, 13, and 15 had a significantly higher likelihood of playing on a national team at ages 16 and 18. These athletes had a more rounded set of skills, were more refreshed for their chosen sport, and were more psychologically and emotionally ready to perform due to their experiences in a number of sports.
A study recently conducted by the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports with collegiate athletes showed similar results as the British athlete study. In the ISYS study, 1,036 athletes from three Division I universities were asked to report their past youth sport participation. On average, youth participated in three or more sports in elementary and middle school. The number of sports youth participated in decreased with each year of high school, but even with the decrease of participation, a larger number of individuals played more than one sport during every year of high school including senior year than those who played a single sport.
Even though a majority of athletes did play at least two sports throughout high school, several athletes did indicate that they specialized in one sport indicating that there are multiple pathways to elite sport achievement.
Athletes were also asked for their perception of how important it was to specialize in one sport in order to earn a college scholarship. On a scale of 1-9, athletes felt that specializing in one sport prior to high school was neither important nor unimportant (4.97).
Sport specialization is not a new issue, but that does not minimize the damage that can occur if athletes are overtaxed early in their development. Each athlete is unique, and each situation requires care. If an athlete does decide to play in only one sport, the decision should be made in regards to the athlete’s interest and development, not just in the pursuit of a college scholarship. Additionally, if athletes specialize in one sport, it is critical to understand that youth are developing and proper recovery is critical both physically and psychologically.
Early specialization in sport is an issue that is not going to go away, but for coaches, parents, and athletes this decision should be made with a long-term perspective and with the athletes’ long-term well-being central to the choice.
Martin is a fourth-year doctoral candidate in the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports at Michigan State University. His research interests include athlete motivation and development of passion in youth, sport specialization, and coaches’ perspectives on working with the millennial athlete. He has led many sessions of the MHSAA Captains Leadership Clinic and consulted with junior high, high school, and collegiate athletes. If you have questions or comments, contact him at [email protected].