Why are athletic teams still hierarchical?
One of the reoccurring themes of this blog is the questioning of operational practices associated with athletic teams. When I step back, there is so much in the way of operations that seems archaic, anachronistic, and at times silly.
The hierarchical nature of athletic teams is one of those things that I think a great deal about. Why are athletic teams hierarchical? The very structure of athletic teams, or at least all those I have been a part of, places the coach at the top and then trickles additional power downwards through assistants, captains, leadership teams, etc. I get that it is the coach who will lose his/her job if the team doesn’t perform and I get that athletic departments are a hierarchical structure, but what I don’t get is why there is never a questioning of this format, and I do believe there are questions to be asked.
One question, perhaps the central question, is whether or not a hierarchy is the best form of organization for a team in this day and age? I don’t believe so. By condensing power at the top, there is a natural power imbalance that essentially disenfranchises those below the coach from influencing the team. Yes, there are captains and leadership teams, but both are empowered only as far as the coach is willing to empower them. What I have seen and experienced with this form of structure is that by distancing players from power and decision-making, the coach can easily be made a scapegoat and a target. In other words, it becomes too convenient to attribute failures to the coach who, by the nature of the teams, is only one small component of a much larger matrix of individuals. It is from this targeting that “cancel culture” develops and with it the elimination of dialogue and problem-solving. Yes, many coaches should be canceled due to unsafe practices (physically, emotionally, psychologically, or both), but there are many (and many players) who could benefit from a dialogue about the state of the team and ways in which to improve it.
Returning to my argument about hierarchy, by defusing power, by truly incorporating players in the decision-making and power-sharing, the ability to target one person becomes extremely hard. There are many examples of coaches who do this type of work to a degree, but what I am talking about is a wholesale revision of the structure.
Inherent in athletics, especially collegiate athletics, is this notion of athletics being a laboratory in which young people can develop valuable life skills. I believe it is this facet of athletics that is most important, but I digress. If this is true, then by democratizing power within the structure of a team, leadership skills are not just given lip service, but instead lived, experienced, and practiced by all players. In other words, instead of talking about leadership as a theory, players are allowed to practice the real-world application of leadership, followship, and all points in between.
Finally, I have coached, and I know the work can be exhausting. Carrying the weight of all the decisions and the consequences is often unsustainable, and the result is high burnout rates (especially in female coaches—yes, there are a lot of factors at play here, but this is valid) and turnover expenses for athletic departments. What if that stress could be shared? What if that stress could be dispersed throughout a system and managed by all? What would that feel like?
I have provided a video in this post which explains Sociocracy, a different way to think about team structure. There are other organizational theories out there, but this one seems most relevant to sports teams. The idea of creating a leadership ecosystem is incredibly impressive, and for all the reasons I have listed above, I think Sociocracy is worth consideration.
What do you think? Would this work for your team? How would implementing Sociocracy change the dynamics within your team?