The feeling has become a massive trend in the NHL: Coaches are finding that it's more productive to build up confidence through encouragement rather than hitting players with constant criticism. And it's especially true with young millennials and Generation Z.
"The bully coach, right, wrong or different, has no chance in today's game," Detroit Red Wings coach Derek Lalonde said. "It's the reality of the players today. You still have to hold them accountable, but you have to do it in different ways."
I really don’t like the hiding behind the term ‘Today’s Players’. It’s simply an awareness that the player (or employee) doesn’t have to put up with being treated crap.
The hard ass, bully coach/ leader has never been the better way.
A great leader can be both positive/ encouraging AND hold the personnel to a high standard and level of accountability.
The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to metroneck For This Useful Post:
Huh. Nevermind. Youtube now has a shorts thing that doesn't allow for linking very easily.
This would have been a clip about Mark Wahlberg making fun of Will Ferrell for his coaching style. I suggest you chuckle at the possibility of such an occurrence.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Last edited by Harry Lime; 05-30-2023 at 11:07 PM.
I think coaching is more or less the same as with most leadership positions: you want to encourage and inspire people to do their best, push them to the limits of their comfort zone so they grow, give public positive praise when it's earned and private corrective action when required.
Human psychology hasn't changed since the beginning of the NHL, but obviously cultural factors have changed. There are distinct differences in what drives different generations, but underneath it all the foundation of who we are hasn't changed. Leadership is never one size fits all. It depends on not only the individual but also the particular circumstances.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
To me it's no different than striking a child vs being patient with them. Hitting them gets the desired result, but brings with it a tidal wave of other issues.
The idea that generational differences are driving this doesn't quite ring true with me. It seems like most men between the ages of 60 and death were raised with a particularly hard hand as that was the common wisdom of the day. Of course they'd think beating a dog is the best way to teach it. I think we're just realizing that other means of teaching and leading contribute to fewer issues. Not guaranteed success by any stretch, but statistically you give yourself a better shot.
There's a reason the sutters and Keenans of the world get immediate results and leave a broken team behind over time. It's not sustainable.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Russic For This Useful Post:
I think coaching is more or less the same as with most leadership positions: you want to encourage and inspire people to do their best, push them to the limits of their comfort zone so they grow, give public positive praise when it's earned and private corrective action when required.
Human psychology hasn't changed since the beginning of the NHL, but obviously cultural factors have changed. There are distinct differences in what drives different generations, but underneath it all the foundation of who we are hasn't changed. Leadership is never one size fits all. It depends on not only the individual but also the particular circumstances.
I'm curious about your views here, particularly when you say human psychology hasn't changed since the beginning of the NHL. Do you believe that our psychology is determined through evolution without culture or knowledge of human psychology having any influence? Do you believe that generations do not on average have distinctions from generations prior to or subsequent to them? Do you think human psychology is a static thing?
The NHL was founded in 1917 (at least according to a Google search). I think we've learned a few things about human psychology and leadership in that time period, regardless of people's views on whether generations have distinctions.
I'm curious about your views here, particularly when you say human psychology hasn't changed since the beginning of the NHL. Do you believe that our psychology is determined through evolution without culture or knowledge of human psychology having any influence? Do you believe that generations do not on average have distinctions from generations prior to or subsequent to them? Do you think human psychology is a static thing?
The NHL was founded in 1917 (at least according to a Google search). I think we've learned a few things about human psychology and leadership in that time period, regardless of people's views on whether generations have distinctions.
What I mean when I say human psychology hasn't changed is that the human mind is more or less physiologically the same as it was 100 years ago. So, the chemicals that are released by the brain in response to stimuli are the same as they were 100 years ago. There are exceptions to this though. The biggest being modern pharmacology. There are also others like the widespread use of lead in products up until the mid/late 20th Century had a physical impact on human brains that resulted in widespread behavior changes that impacted society and still has some echoes today.
But more to your point, there are absolutely environmental and cultural factors that effect generations. External factors play a huge role in shaping society, values and individual behavior. Major cultural events like the Great Depression, WWII, Civil Rights, Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK assignation, Hippies, Watergate, Voodoo economics, Monica Lewinsky, 9/11, neo-conservatism, internet, Y2K, mobile devices, social media, Trumpism, BLM and the aforementioned pharmacology all help to shape the norms and values of each generation in it's formative years. Also, each generation tends to be at least somewhat reactionary to the generation that immediately precedes it. As a result, the current generation tends to associate values a little more in line with their grandparents generation than their parents generation, although this is probably occurring less and less as the rate of change in society is increasing at an ever faster rate. So when it comes to coaching or leadership in general, a 20-something may be more inclined to empathize with a 60-something than a 40-something. Although there are obviously individual factors at play. So, no human psychology is not static but the human brain is basically the same as it was in 1917.
Each individual has a unique personality. Multiple individuals that form or are forced into a group (like a hockey team) develop a group personality, that is an aggregate of the different personalities in the group but with more weight from the more influential members of the group, like captains. It used to be that a coach (and GM) had a lot more power over the individuals in that there wasn't really free-agency, trades were rarer and players had less influence over the make-up of the team. It was more of a master/slave relationship. But now a coach is more like a member of the team (an often a low paid member) than the undisputed leader of the team and as a result, the coach has to be less dictatorial and more about influencing individual behavior to get the most out of the group. So, a modern coach is more like a manager or supervisor in an office setting and has to behave accordingly. They have to use Situational Leadership rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Taskmasters like Sutter may have short-term success but are doomed to fail after the initial wave of success. I know I wouldn't want to work for a guy like Sutter.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The power of positive coaching
