I generally post on LinkedIn, but will post here a bit more moving forward.
One of the most fascinating phenomena in professional sport occurs immediately after a coach is replaced. A team that looked flat, disorganised and incapable of competing suddenly wins three or four games in a row, as in the case of
@CarltonFC
Energy returns. Effort increases. Players appear more engaged. The media inevitably credits the coaching change and, in fairness, the new coach often deserves some of that credit.
However, after more than 25 years working in high-performance sport, coaching athletes, building teams and leading organisations, I have come to believe that these situations reveal something far more interesting than the impact of the new coach. They reveal the motivational profile of the athletes.
The reality is that many athletes are driven predominantly by external motivators. Selection pressure, contract negotiations, public scrutiny, media criticism, the desire to impress a new coach, or the fear of being traded, delisted or overlooked. When a coaching change occurs, these motivators suddenly intensify. Players understand that every training session is being evaluated, every performance is being judged, and every decision may influence their future. Unsurprisingly, effort levels often increase.
While this short-term uplift is often referred to as a "dead cat bounce," I believe that description misses the deeper lesson. The more important question is not why the team improved but why the improvement only occurred after the coaching change.
If a team is suddenly capable of running harder, competing more fiercely, preparing more professionally, and executing more consistently, then leaders should be asking whether the issue was capability in the first place. More often than not, it is a question of motivation.
The challenge with external motivation is that it has a limited shelf life. Once the novelty fades, the pressure normalises and the new coach becomes the established coach, performance often drifts back toward previous levels. This is why so many organisations experience an immediate uplift before eventually settling into a pattern that closely resembles what came before.
The athletes who have always fascinated me are the ones who remain largely unchanged throughout the entire process; Zach Merrett of the
@essendonfc comes to mind.
Their standards do not lift because a coach arrives, nor do they fall because a coach departs. They train with intent, prepare professionally, and compete relentlessly regardless of who occupies the head coach's office. Their commitment is not dependent on circumstance.
These athletes are driven primarily by intrinsic motivation. They pursue mastery rather than approval. They chase excellence rather than recognition. Their standards are self-imposed rather than externally enforced. In my experience, they are also the athletes most likely to sustain HP over long periods of time because their motivation is not tied to events around them.
This is not to suggest that external motivation is inherently bad. Every athlete is influenced by external factors to some degree. The best performers often harness both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. The critical distinction is which source of motivation dominates when nobody is watching and when there is no immediate reward or consequence attached to the effort.
Ultimately, coaching changes do not simply reveal the quality of a coach. They reveal the quality of a team's motivational culture. When a team suddenly discovers another gear after a coach leaves, leaders should resist the temptation to focus solely on the incoming coach and instead ask a more confronting question.
Did the coach change the performance, or did the players simply reveal that they had more to give all along?
@Pivotonian1838 @SENBreakfast @1629senSA
@MrJohnnyRainman @Thomo_Grant @gregpeartpolish @1KingZ4 @davidking34 @CoachJoshKing @ncb_cfc #AFL #NBL #sports