It would be easy to chuck the snowflake millenial trope at the current generation of players for not being receptive to the old school type of coaching. Actually millenials are probably the most resilient generation in a long time given the repeated global crises they've had to live through. To answer the question I think it's just the progress and understanding of what good coaching involves. It comes back to negative and positive reinforcement. Plenty of studies to show positive reinforcement is a better learning approach than negative. Just applying this to rugby.
Yeah agreed that what it takes to be a great coaching has evolved, and I’ve always thought people who just label the next generation as “soft” are missing the point. “Inter generational nepotism” I believe is the term.
Life long access to the internet has made millennials the most informed generation, but I also think their brains are overwhelmed as result of being exposed to so much data.
Ha ha, Ben. It is not the players that have changed, it is the world that has changed. There are so many examples of condescending bordering on abusive leadership styles (Not that I can comment on Eddie now or before) throughout the world of politics, business and sport and even parenting. It just does not cut the mustard these days. Our leaders are slowly realising this. Humiliation and shame have the opposite effect and I believe seriously impacts team culture and insecurity. There are better and kinder ways to motivate although an occasional pull your socks up does no-one any harm.
Agree and I guess a “pull up your socks” becomes more effective the less it’s used. And rather than the players that’s changed, do you thinks it’s more a case that leaders have realise that inspiring their staff is a more sustainable way to lead vs using fear?
I think Dianna and Huw have nicely summed it up. I feel people’s tolerance for poor leadership has lessened. And our awareness of the impacts of poor leadership has increased - whether it’s across sport or in a business environment. We understand the importance of creating an environment in which it is easy for people (players) to motivate themselves is more beneficial than an environment and a culture of fear and intimidation.
And alongside this is the reality employees (players) will now leave an environment that doesn’t suit them. They can go to another club or another code. And with more on the line because of the amount of money now in sport, particularly professional, a coach not able to retain players because of the culture they create is going to have to answer tough questions from stakeholders and shareholders.
The knowledge of how many players Eddie ‘broke’ at the Wallabies and at the Reds is one of the reasons I don’t want him anywhere near any of our teams once his time with England is finished. I appreciate he says he has changed, but there’s also a bucketload of coaches who haven’t ruled through a command, control and minimisation structure and they should be rewarded.
I think they have too, however I’d love to see Eddie back coaching the wallabies one day. Everyone deserves a second chance.
Interesting observation re people safe to leave an environment should they not feel it suits, and I was always disappointed when players where labelled as “unloyal” when they moved clubs, especially as clubs moved on loyal players all the time.
It would be easy to chuck the snowflake millenial trope at the current generation of players for not being receptive to the old school type of coaching. Actually millenials are probably the most resilient generation in a long time given the repeated global crises they've had to live through. To answer the question I think it's just the progress and understanding of what good coaching involves. It comes back to negative and positive reinforcement. Plenty of studies to show positive reinforcement is a better learning approach than negative. Just applying this to rugby.
Yeah agreed that what it takes to be a great coaching has evolved, and I’ve always thought people who just label the next generation as “soft” are missing the point. “Inter generational nepotism” I believe is the term.
Life long access to the internet has made millennials the most informed generation, but I also think their brains are overwhelmed as result of being exposed to so much data.
Ha ha, Ben. It is not the players that have changed, it is the world that has changed. There are so many examples of condescending bordering on abusive leadership styles (Not that I can comment on Eddie now or before) throughout the world of politics, business and sport and even parenting. It just does not cut the mustard these days. Our leaders are slowly realising this. Humiliation and shame have the opposite effect and I believe seriously impacts team culture and insecurity. There are better and kinder ways to motivate although an occasional pull your socks up does no-one any harm.
Agree and I guess a “pull up your socks” becomes more effective the less it’s used. And rather than the players that’s changed, do you thinks it’s more a case that leaders have realise that inspiring their staff is a more sustainable way to lead vs using fear?
Hi Ben. Yup but still a way to go in some quarters!
I think Dianna and Huw have nicely summed it up. I feel people’s tolerance for poor leadership has lessened. And our awareness of the impacts of poor leadership has increased - whether it’s across sport or in a business environment. We understand the importance of creating an environment in which it is easy for people (players) to motivate themselves is more beneficial than an environment and a culture of fear and intimidation.
And alongside this is the reality employees (players) will now leave an environment that doesn’t suit them. They can go to another club or another code. And with more on the line because of the amount of money now in sport, particularly professional, a coach not able to retain players because of the culture they create is going to have to answer tough questions from stakeholders and shareholders.
The knowledge of how many players Eddie ‘broke’ at the Wallabies and at the Reds is one of the reasons I don’t want him anywhere near any of our teams once his time with England is finished. I appreciate he says he has changed, but there’s also a bucketload of coaches who haven’t ruled through a command, control and minimisation structure and they should be rewarded.
I think they have too, however I’d love to see Eddie back coaching the wallabies one day. Everyone deserves a second chance.
Interesting observation re people safe to leave an environment should they not feel it suits, and I was always disappointed when players where labelled as “unloyal” when they moved clubs, especially as clubs moved on loyal players all the time.
Ps: Go the Wallabies. Just about to get on the plane to Brisvegas!
See you at Suncorp! Go wallabies!