CHAPTER 5.-THE PROBLEM OF CONTROL AND TURNOVER
"Which scholarship did you finally accept, the one to the University or the one to State?" (Karla)
"I decided to go to the University." (Carol)
"Why?" (Karla)
"Coach Mac is a great stroke technician. He is personable. He is organized and has a good staff. His practices are tough, but fun." (Carol)
"How come State turned you off?" (Karla)
"Coach T is a dictator. The program is almost impossible. There is no room for personal freedom. What ever Coach T says, you had better do it or else you'll get pressure from everyone to conform." (Carol)
"Hey, Curt. Have you ever met a coach who wasn't self-assured, assertive, domineering, and thought he could get along well with people?"
"You know, Heather. Every coach I've ever met makes those claims. They generally see themselves as more sociable than they really are."
**********
Just as observers note that the job of the head coach has certain features that are fairly constant in different settings from colleges to universities, people sometimes ask whether there is a particular set of personality traits which every coach possesses. Simply put, people want to be able to distinguish coaches from non-coaches.
Stereotypes and personality traits
Stereotypes.-Three different approaches are typically noted in the effort to ascertain the personality profiles of a coach. The first technique is impressionistic reporting of personal observations that stereotypes coaches in a particular sport. Professionals with personal contact with coaches generally stereotype the coach as "soulless," cool under fire, "a meticulous dresser," team-oriented, authoritarian (Scott 1969: 7), "insensitive, ...manipulative," and exploitative (Scott 1971: 134). Similarly, Massengale (1974) marks coaches as aggressive, highly organized, and unlikely to listen to others. The mass media depicts coaches as muscular, dominant, aggressive, sociable, and politically conservative. Former players see some coaches as "to the right of Attila the Hun." Ogilvie (1979: 47) adds that coaches are ambitious, achievement-oriented, self-defined as leaders, assertive, hard-nosed, and risk-takers.
The second approach is psychological research to identify clusters of personality traits "unique" to a coach, a "successful" coach, or an "ideal" coach. A number of personality inventories have been developed, constructed, and administered by psychologists and sociologists to coaches in various sports, holding positions in youth sport programs, in junior and senior high schools, in colleges, and with national teams. The results of these studies roughly fall into two camps. One camp of researchers reports identifiable characteristics for coaches in particular sports (Hendry 1968; 1972). Another camp fails to find any set of personality traits that unambiguously differentiates coaches from non-coaches (see Sage 1980: 111-114; Sage 1975).
The third approach is research that: (1) compares athletes' perceptions of the "ideal" coach with the "actual" traits of the coach; (2) compares coaches' perceptions of traits of the ideal coach with self-reported traits (Hendry 1969); and (3) examines the congruency between coaches' and athletes' subjective and objective evaluations of each other (Hendry 1968). (These kinds of comparisons have also been used in studies of "preferred" or "ideal" styles of leadership.) Not surprisingly, swimmers agree on what traits make an "ideal coach." Similarly, coaches agree among themselves over what traits identify an "ideal coach." However, coaches' self-reports of personality traits tend toward self-aggrandizement. Athletes do not necessarily see the coach as possessing the same characteristics or as having the same amount of some characteristic as the coaches report. Coaches tend to give relatively lower evaluations of the character of athletes than do athletes themselves.(1)
Behavioral traits.-The coach-athlete relationship is the classic dyad of the leader and the led. Authority as leader is granted by the organization that hires or appoints the coach. The coach's duties are prescribed and proscribed by the organization. The coach is expected to supervise the program fulfilling the required organizational and communication roles. The taking care of these duties satisfies the coach's superiors.
For coaches to satisfy the athletes, they must be sensitive to the wants and needs of the athletes. If two people are in a goal-oriented situation, each must be willing to surrender something of their own wants and needs, either temporarily or for a longer period of time, in order to obtain a mutually desired outcome. In sports the desired ends are winning or continued improvement of current performances over past ones. Performance may be judged either objectively, such as times swum in an event, or subjectively, such as "I felt better today than I did yesterday."
Two approaches for looking at the coach-swimmer relationship are worth noting. The first approach sees the relationship as being influenced by situational factors, such as the nature of the task--its variability; the type of sport action--independence versus interdependence; the level and sources of stress--internal versus external; and the access to information flow--open versus limited.
The coaches' behaviors also are linked to the variability of the task. Low variability tasks are marked by closed action--skills performed in an environment where the stimuli are relatively stable, static, and unchanging. Training in an indoor pool is a closed action. The athlete's skills are routine and repetitious. The environment is relatively stable--water temperature typically ranges from 780F to 820F, air temperature and light remain fixed. High variability tasks are characterized by open action--where skills performed must adjust to shifts in the spatial/temporal environment of the athlete. Training or competing in the ocean is an open action. Wind, waves, and water temperature vary. Air temperature and sunlight change frequently. Currents, marine craft, and marine life are factors to which one must pay heed. Coaches who work in closed action sports tend to emphasize training behavior. A great deal of thought is required to vary the structure of workouts so that they are imaginative and interesting but still follow sound physiological principles of training. Coaches in open action sports spend a great deal of time preparing athletes to recognize situations and to be able to apply the proper strategy or play after reading the situational cues.
Coaches' behaviors in structuring a program differ depending on whether the sport emphasizes independence or interdependence of action by the athletes. Individual sports such as swimming and track foster the former; team sports such as basketball stress the later (Chelladurai and Saleh 1978). The nature of workouts reflects the demands of the sport. Swimmers can be given their workouts individually and only occasionally need to work together as members of a relay team. Some programs during examination week and finals will post workouts and allow swimmers to practice as their schedules permit. In fact, if an honor system is in effect at the school, the swimmers may be pledged to practice. Posting practices is feasible, although not preferable. Most swimmers complain that it is difficult to practice alone and sustain the same levels of mental concentration and physical effort in training as when one swims with someone else or with the team. To counteract this complaint, it is advisable to require that at least two swimmers train together. Basketball, football, hockey, and soccer, to note a few sports, demand that skill performances be practiced so that individuals adapt their actions to those of others (practice plays). In sum, the type of action and variability of the task influence the type of training behavior that a coach employs.
Two additional factors that influence the coach's behavior are the level of stress placed on athletes and coaches (Korten 1962) and the sources of stress--internal versus external (Lott and Lott 1965). Under high-stress situations--such as preparing for an important dual meet with "the traditional rival," the conference championship, or a meet where swimmers are expected to qualify for national calibre championships--the coach is likely to assume a greater degree of control. Conversely, under low-stress situations--such as a dual meet with a weaker team or a practice meet--the coach is likely to become more easy-going. Both styles of maintaining control are effective in achieving the best performances for individuals and the team.
Similarly, the degree of control required may also depend on the level of stress produced by the point at which the team is during the season. In the beginning of the season, the athletes are adjusting to school and practices emphasize general conditioning; stress tends to be relatively low. The coach needs to maintain enough control to provide guidance so that athletes and staff can fit into the program and know their roles and goals. Once a routine is established the coach can ease the reins until the competitive phase of the season. Once competition begins, control needs to be tightened as new activities are mastered--such as training and competing without tapering,(2) learning the format of collegiate meets, learning to juggle travel and studies, and learning how to deal with the press. Once newcomers become veterans, the controls can be eased again. Finally, control needs to be exercised in preparation for the championship part of the season. This part of the season is the culmination of everyone's efforts. A coach's job security is tied to team performance. To surrender control and increase the likelihood of unwanted but preventable events affecting performance is not rational behavior for the coach.
Where the sources of stress are external, the coach must be able to focus the attention of individuals on group goals. This strategy is: "Don't worry what the papers are saying. The press tends to blow things out of proportion. All we need to do is to concentrate on the task at hand. Let's get it together and perform up to our capabilities." The coach acts as a facilitator.
Where the sources of stress are internal, the coach must evaluate the skill levels of individuals, must pay attention to individuals' wants, anxieties, and problems. The coach must also recognize the strengths and weaknesses of particular clique combinations in order to ameliorate problems and ensure a cohesive team effort. The abilities of listening and communicating, using both reason and emotion, are critical for the coach's survival and growth as a successful professional.
Another situational factor affecting the coach-swimmer relationship is the degree of access to information flow. When the coach and swimmer obtain sufficient information from each other or from the assistant coaches and outside parties, then decisions reached will tend to be more effective since whatever contingencies could be identified will have been considered. When people feel that they are fully informed, then their level of satisfaction generally is higher than when their access to information is restricted.
The second approach focuses on leadership behavior. Behavioral scientists are interested in ascertaining what behaviors are displayed by successful leaders that ensure worker satisfaction and effective group performance. Sociologists in industry, the military, and in various organizational settings as well as students of small group processes have long focused on what personality traits mark the successful leader. This same issue resurfaces in the investigation of leadership in sports. Research on personality characteristics of leaders generally fails to identify any clear-cut set of traits that predisposes an individual toward emerging into greatness as a coach.
Behavioral scientists have also asked a second and closely related question on leadership: If there are no intrinsic personality traits typifying successful leaders, then are there any behaviors that all successful leaders share across all settings? Further, are these behaviors universal or limited to a particular setting? Regardless of which of the two questions is posed, the intent of research has been to identify the kinds of behavior that would make the coach more effective in relating to the team, increasing the satisfaction of athletes, and enhancing team performance. Inventories of behaviors have been constructed and respondents asked for their perceptions of leadership behaviors found in a "good" coach, "all" coaches, or that are "preferred" in coaches. Various studies (Halpin and Winer 1957; Fleishman 1957a, 1957b; Danielson et al. 1975; Hendry 1972; Chelladurai and Saleh 1978) suggest that good training behavior and the ability to exercise control are behaviors that coaches are expected to possess. Training behavior is "aimed at improving the performance level of athletes by emphasizing and facilitating hard and strenuous training, clarifying the relationships among members" (Carron 1980). The style of training behavior used by the coach is linked to the swimmers' events. Distance swimmers who require more mileage tend to have long, boring, and often repetitive sets. Sprinters have shorter, more varied, and interesting workouts. Personal observation and research show that swimmers' perceptions of the coach's training behavior are important. Swimmers expect that coaches will emphasize training as part of their leadership responsibilities. When swimmers become fatigued they may complain, but failure of coaches to stress training is taken as a sign of weakness.
Styles of leadership
The exercise of control deals with decision making (Chelladurai and Haggerty 1978). Coaches might operate in one of four modes of decision making: autocratic--the coach makes all the decisions; consultative--the coach shares problems with athletes and the subordinates asking for their input, then makes the decision; participative--the coach talks with subordinates collectively and everyone votes; or delegative--the coach assigns the decision to a subordinate and the coach merely serves to implement the decision of the subordinate. Vroom and Yetton (1973) suggest that four conditions affect the selection of a decision making mode: (1) quality requirement--the coach's expertise needed in reaching a judgment; (2) information--access to all the facts needed in making a decision; (3) complexity of the problem--judgment needed on one best option among many that assesses the relative merits and demerits of strategies, strengths, and weaknesses of personnel; and (4) group integration--judgment needed on how to reduce conflict on a team. Chelladurai and Arnott (1985) found that: (1) a delegative style was rejected by most athletes; (2) females prefer a participative style more so than do males; (3) athletes are willing to yield to the coach on complex issues or when the coaches have information and athletes do not; and (4) athletes also would rather defer to the authority of the coach than to their fellow athletes.
Regardless of what research suggests, one of the more difficult issues to resolve as a beginning coach is how much control to assert in structuring the program as well as on the lives of the athletes and the coaching staff. Also, the coach must decide how control should be effected over those key individuals with whom one must interact inside and outside of the university.
Usually the choice of decision-making style is a result of the personality characteristics of the coach as well as the influences of the various institutional pressures. A coach opting for the autocratic mode becomes the team general. In this style the coach sets the goals for the program and decides where the program will rank in the conference at the end of the year and in five years. Where national ranking is expected, the coach sets the agenda and means for achieving that end. The coach schedules the dual meets for the season, deciding whether the schedule will be easy or hard. If the conference is tough, some coaches include weaker schools from outside of the conference in order to compile an acceptable win and loss record. If an autocratic coach wants to build a reputation for the program as one that competes against only the elite, then the coach will only schedule meets with nationally ranked teams.
The autocratic coach oversees the role of the assistant coaches, dictating responsibilities and parameters within which decisions are permissible. The role of manager is structured as a recorder of splits, equipment caretaker, and ubiquitous "go-getter."
This coach maintains rigid control over the athletes' lives both in the pool and outside. The coach dictates practice hours and discourages swimmers from taking courses with labs or field work that conflict with pool time. Standards are set for a team dress code while on or off campus. The code may apply only during the season or for the entire academic year. The coach may discourage or perhaps prohibit any conversation with outsiders on matters related to swimming such as--the nature of workouts; meet performances; actions of swimmers, coaches, and staff; or any decisions related to the program.
The autocratic coach moves to establish control over anybody and anything that might impinge on the program. In handling the press, all interviews are filtered through the coach's office. In dealing with the physician and training staff, the coach double checks all diagnoses and therapies to see if malingering has occurred or if therapies can be intensified in order to speed recovery. In working with the AD, social distance is maintained wherever possible. Autonomy is absolutely mandatory.
Academic advisors are carefully screened by the autocratic coach. If advisors are helpful, the coach will work with them. If not, the coach will take over the advisor's duties and make sure that the needs of the swimmers and divers are fulfilled. Whenever possible the coach will hire a personal secretarial staff and will make sure preferred janitors get assigned to the pool venue. All information that pertains to the team must be channeled through the coach's office. When individuals do not support the program, the coach figures out ways to eliminate them or to get around them. Alternative personnel are used or the coach informally usurps the responsibilities of others so that control of the program remains firmly grasped.
A real problem is that domination of all parties is enervating and runs a high risk of loss of personal control, especially if other parties refuse to cooperate. Such a tactic breeds a mentality of crisis management since each problem must be handled by the coach alone. People must be contacted, manipulated, and aligned so that the desired outcome is guaranteed.
Given the number of duties of the head coach, both role strain and role overload are real possibilities for the autocratic coach. Multiple workouts each day, meetings, recruiting, administrative chores, and so forth can easily reduce even the most physically fit and driven coach to a state of exhaustion unless some of the responsibilities are delegated (Daland 1975: 48).
A coach who opts for a consultative or participative mode reduces the level of stress that is self-imposed. The head coach reaches decisions on the overall structure of the program, scheduling, and so forth, and then allocates assignments to the coaching staff and support personnel. Allocations usually follow open and free exchanges with the individuals involved. The program goals and philosophy are explained to the team; individual goals are negotiated. Control rests with the head coach, but there is a recognition by the coach that a good leader also is led. In following this strategy, the head coach recognizes that people who work with the program can best be handled by adhering to an equity principle in social exchanges. "You give me something, and I will reciprocate." This style reduces tension among individuals that have to interact with the coach. Also, burnout in the coaching staff, athletes, and support personnel is less likely to occur under the consultative and participative modes than under the autocratic mode.
To be effective coaches must establish a working relationship with athletes. If no relationship exists, the issue of whether a coach operates from an autocratic, consultative, or participative mode is irrelevant. Further, whether the coach displays warmth and supportive behavior toward the athletes is also moot. For control to be effective and any affection displayed, and seen as sincere, a relationship must persist. Usually, compatibility is more easily achieved the longer a swimmer remains with the program. Swimmers who are incompatible leave the program voluntarily, become targets of derision and harassment to force conformity, or simply are cut from the team (Carron and Bennett 1977).
The decision over which mode to choose also must be tempered by a cognizance of the personalities of the athletes. If the athletes seek a dependency relationship with a coach, then the autocratic mode may work best. Conversely, athletes who eschew authority tend to prefer a participative mode. Coaches should recognize the mode of decision making that they employ and try to recruit to develop a match in personality styles between staff and athletes.
Organizational substitutability and problems of turnover
One problem in any organization and over which a coach must establish control is the phenomenon of personnel turnover. Some programs are marked by high turnover. For instance, programs that depend on volunteer and part-time paid assistant coaches generally have a complete turnover of personnel every two or three years. In a program with high turnover, the head coach spends a great deal of time instructing assistants. Thus, swimmers are required to adjust to new personnel. Each time there is a shift in staff, there is the potential for new coalitions, friendships, and conflicts to form. New assistants constantly have to adjust to a program with which the swimmers already are familiar. When an assistant makes an error, the seasoned swimmer can correct or sometimes even belittle the assistant with impunity, undermining the credibility of the assistant. This strategy is more likely to be employed where swimmers do not respect or like the assistant. In cases where all the assistants happen to be new in a given year, swimmers can play on inexperience creating a variety of possible problems among the staff.
Older assistants can use their seniority and familiarity with the program to establish a pecking order among the assistant coaches. Old-timers can withhold information in order to sabotage the performance of new assistants. Conversely, old-timers can serve as sources of information for newcomers, relieving some of the pressure on the head coach.
The problem of turnover in a program is exacerbated when the assistant diving coach is temporary (a graduate assistant). For instance, the assistant diving coach is expected to recruit divers. For the temporary assistant diving coach this may be difficult since diving recruits will enter the program at the same time a new assistant does. New divers will be subject to a new and different assistant. The astute diving recruits recognize that they might end up working with three, and possibly four, assistant diving coaches during four years of eligibility (1--the assistant doing the recruiting, 2--the assistant who arrives in the program as the diver enters as a freshmen, 3--the assistant who enters the program while the diver is a junior, and possibly 4--if one the assistants quits school for some reason).
Frequent turnover of diving assistants also makes it difficult for the diver to adjust to different sets of coaching cues used when learning new dives or correcting diving mechanics. The change in diving coaches also requires readjustment between coaches and divers as new interactive styles are encountered.
Turnover also occurs among athletes. Each year there is attrition as swimmers find that they have underestimated the magnitude of work and pressure in a program. Some find that the role conflict between student and athlete needs to be resolved in favor of academics. Others develop conflicts with the coaching staff, with other athletes, or with individuals outside of the team, such as boyfriends or girlfriends. They may suffer injuries or become ill. By the time an incoming class reaches its senior year, very few of the original group remain.
The head coach needs to reiterate each year the basic principles of the program, its major goals, the duties of the staff and the responsibilities of the swimmers in order to ensure continuity. Without repetition newcomers find it difficult to discern the structure of the program. In such cases role assignments only get developed through trial and error. To avoid ambiguity and misunderstandings by the staff and swimmers over role expectations, the head coach needs to delineate the job tasks of each and must inform the staff and swimmers of their assigned responsibilities.
Some programs have low turnover. For instance, the head assistant coach and other assistants stay with the program for a number of years. Graduate assistants remain with the program through both the Master's and Ph.D. degree programs. Some even remain with the university and volunteer their services after graduation.
To ensure stability and continuity in a program, there must be a paid full-time assistant coach. Continuity in a position increases familiarity with the program and fosters a better understanding of role responsibilities of the head and assistant coaches. Clarity of roles allows staff, swimmers, and administration to identify who is responsible for which duties and who is to be held accountable for which acts of omission and commission.
Philosophy of management
Even a cursory review of the literature on coaching suggests two different foci in setting the tone of the program.
First is the product-oriented program. The expressed goal is to produce as many nationally-ranked and world-class swimmers as humanly possible. The coaching staff sets up an age-graded program that is integrated so that swimmers progress through stages from simple techniques to more refined techniques, from low yardage to high yardage, and from less competitive to more competitive meets. Efforts are made to incorporate as many swimmers as feasible in each rung of the program in order to ensure that quality "bubbles to the top." The coaching staff is not overly concerned with attrition. The program will survive, as most institutions do. After all, the long-recognized principle of organizations operates: the larger the organization, the more substitutable individuals become. This approach emphasizes mass production as the means and ranked performances as the product.
Second is the person-oriented program. The expressed goal is to create swimmers who are fundamentally sound in mechanics and who swim to achieve their potential. The same age gradations and stages exist, but the individual rather than the group becomes the unit of attention. Attrition is an indicator of a misalignment between the individual's priorities and those of the program; a compromise is needed for solution. In this program the individual is not substitutable. This approach emphasizes "crafting" as the means and "self-actualization" as the end (ASCA 1986: 15-21).
These two approaches as presented describe extremes on a continuum. In actual practice most programs, depending on the numbers of swimmers, the availability of assistant coaches, physical resources, and most especially time, are a mixture of these characteristics that fall somewhere between the two extremes. Although I have no data to support this supposition, I believe that coaches who emphasize technique, try to expand the swimmer's awareness of self and others, and see coaching as an art form appear to favor the "people end" of the continuum. In contrast, coaches who emphasize technique, espouse excellence through subjugation of pain and mastery over adversity, and see coaching as a practical application of scientific principles appear to favor the "product approach."
Whatever blend of management styles is effected the coach should remain humble. Scientific research continually expands the horizons of knowledge, out-dating prior truths. New principles and applications devolve from these findings. Experimentation yields new techniques which later are incorporated under the umbrella of some new scientific paradigm(3) and the reason for their working is explained. The same attrition of ideas and blossoming of fads that occurs among the scientists also takes place among the coaches.
Coaches tend to become enamored with new thoughts and new practices just like everyone else. Sometimes boredom, the desire to experiment, or sheer forgetfulness will lead a coach to discard something old which worked, for something new that may not be as successful. Occasionally, coaches recognize that an error has been made and the old ways are revived.
No matter how happy the coach is with the structure of the program or the efficacy of techniques used, the nature of the effect of a coach on a swimmer has not been unequivocally fixed. Clearly, new skills are transmitted and improvements in swimmers' technique are demonstrable. But less certain are changes in swimmers' motivations or in their abilities to cope with anxieties and engage in problem-solving behavior. The coach can act as an information source, exposing the swimmer to new ways of addressing self and the environment. The coach also can act as a facilitator, assisting the swimming in utilizing these methodologies. The athlete has to be receptive to learning and trying these methodologies for them to be able to be useful.
It is safe to assume that athletes who want to change are probably more open to direction and suggestion than those who are rigid. The effect of the program on values or behavioral changes of any permanence in building character is open to question. So also is the actual role of the coach as an effective counselor. There are not any systematic studies that evaluate long-term changes in behavior due to participation in intercollegiate competitive swimming versus non-participation. Until research identifies what kinds of changes occur and their relative magnitudes, the coach will increase the likelihood of success by establishing a compatible relationship with the swimmer. Change in the direction desired is more likely to occur where compatibility exists than where the coach and swimmer do not get along.
One of the best ways to ensure compatibility is to pay especial attention to recruiting.
Summary
--Coaches generally are stereotyped by former athletes and by the media as muscular, dominant, aggressive, risk-takers, and control-oriented personalities. Research to identify personality traits questions the accuracy of popularly held stereotypes.
--Research on coach-athlete interaction suggests that coaches' behavior is influenced by situational factors--such as the nature of task variability, type of sport action, sources and levels of stress, and access to information flow.
--Research on leadership behaviors of coaches, a tradition borrowed from studies of organizations, shows that athletes want coaches (1) to stress training behavior to enhance performance and (2) to exercise control over the program.
--Studies of decision-making styles suggest that autocratic and consultative modes are preferred by coaches and athletes over participative and delegative modes. The type of control effected by coaches depends on their philosophy of management, whether it is product- or person-oriented.
--One issues that inevitably is faced by college and university coaches is the turnover of personnel. To reduce the problem, program goals and structure as well as roles of swimmers and staff must be clearly articulated by the head coach.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Check the literature on attitude and behavior traits that a swim coach actually, ideally, or preferably should possess. Chelladurai's Leadership Scale is one possible choice. Answer the questions in two ways: (1) What attitudes or behaviors do you like in a coach; and (2) Do you possess these attitudes and behaviors?
2. What range of factors influence a coach's leadership style?
3. What kind of leadership style would you use as a coach? What kind of style would you prefer as an athlete?
4. What factors influence personal turnover among the staff and among the swimmers? What steps should a coach take to reduce problems associated with high turnover?
5. What kind of management philosophy do you favor--product-oriented or people-oriented? Defend your choice.
NOTES
1. Much of the effort to identify the personality profile of coaches by behavioral scientists is a reflection of tensions seen in society at large. In part, the effort was an extension of behavioral scientists to identify personality makeup of people in any leadership position. After World War II there was an attempt to distinguish between people with a predisposition toward either an authoritarian or democratic personality. Some critics viewed this effort as a witch hunt to root out and prevent another debacle like that which occurred in Germany. In part, the effort is a reaction to the social rebellion against institutional forms of control that marked the 1960s and 1970s. Coaches who operated in an autocratic fashion were targeted as being out of step with more liberal tendencies of student representation and self-direction. Students and athletes allegedly wanted to demythologize those values that gave rise to the Vietnam involvement and wanted to effect some degree of control over their lives through direct participation in various institutions. Coaches who operated autocratically were pressured to change to consultative or participative styles of leadership.
2. Learning to swim fast while involved in heavy training is not the usual experience of swimmers recruited from U.S. Swimming and YMCA age-group experience. Swimmers who compete for prep schools or high schools or simultaneously train with age-group programs and swim for prep/high schools may be exposed to this kind of meet schedule. In general, freshmen must learn to adjust to the dual meet season.
3. For the reader interested in the philosophy of science and sensitive to the notion of paradigms, a comparison of the different vocabularies, ways of thinking, and explanations of swimming mechanics, see Seals and Hastings (Forthcoming).
TITLE PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW AND KEY CONCEPTS
CHAPTER 2 THE ASSISTANT COACHES
CHAPTER 3 HIRING THE HEAD COACH
CHAPTER 4 THE HEAD COACH'S ORGANIZATIONAL AND COMMUNICATION ROLES
CHAPTER 5 THE PROBLEM OF CONTROL AND TURNOVER
CHAPTER 6 RECRUITING: STEPS AND STRATEGIES
CHAPTER 7 HEAD COACH AND KEY PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS INSIDE THE SPORTS COMMUNITY
CHAPTER 8 SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF THE SPLIT APPOINTMENT & CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY
REFERENCES
Academic Resume