Why coaches like drills and how they are killing creativity

Scott Barry Kaufman is one of my favorite scientists! Not only does he host the fascinating 'The Psychology Podcast' weekly where he talks to leading people in the world of psychological science but he also founded and edits one of my favorite blogs, 'The Creativity Post' as well as being the author of several books including my bedside ever present 'The Complexity of Greatness' and 'Ungifted: Intelligence redefined'.

In a recent article for Scientific American, Dr Kaufman reviews Anders Ericsson's latest book co-authored with Robert Pool "Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise". Dr Kaufman makes a reference to a passage in Ericsson and Pool's book which he thinks is key. Dr Ericsson and Pool suggest...

"...the techniques of deliberate practice are most applicable to "highly developed fields" such as chess, sports, and musical performance in which the rules of the domain are well established and passed on from generation to generation."

But Dr Kaufman feels that deliberate practice is best suited to specific activities that are limited in variability and require repeatable actions instead of creative ones.

"Deliberate practice is really important for fields such as chess and instrumental performance because they rely on consistently replicable behaviors that must be repeated over and over again. But not all domains of human achievement rely on consistently replicable behaviors. For most creative domains, the goals and ways of achieving success are constantly changing, and consistently replicable behaviors are in fact detrimental to success."

As Dr Kaufman further argues, creative people "...are under constant pressure to surpass what they and others have done before, and it is precisely this pressure that drives them toward ever increasing originality".

He goes further by saying...

"Creative products, by definition, are the antithesis of expertise. This is because creativity must be original, meaningful, and surprising...

Original in the sense that the creator is rewarded for transcending expertise, and going beyond the standard repertoire.

Meaningful in the sense that the creator must satisfy some utility function, or provide a new interpretation.

Surprising in that the original and meaningful creative product must be surprising not only to oneself, but to everyone".

All this got me thinking...

Have we been looking at sport from the perspective of expertise when we should be looking at sport from the perspective of creativity?

If you look at sport from an expertise perspective then you will agree with Prof Ericsson's standpoint that Deliberate Practice is important as the rules of the game are fixed and the techniques are the techniques. Master the techniques or face the consequences later.

On the other hand if you look at the development of sports people as a creative endeavour then you would want to work to avoid providing technical information and allow techniques to emerge as an adaptation to problems presented by the ever changing and dynamic environment.

Witness the emergence of Dwayne Bravo's slower ball bouncer or Tilekaratne Dilshan's 'ramp shot' in T20 cricket or Christiano Ronaldo's dipping free kicks or Sonny-Bill Williams one hand offloads or Tiger Wood's 2 iron 'Stinger' as examples of originality that is meaningful and also surprising.

All of these techniques are being created by these great players as solutions to problems that are presented by changes to the rules, changes to equipment or changes to the nature of the way the game is played in order to find an advantage.

In other words they are adapting to their environment....

In this blog post the excellent Mark O'Sullivan talks about how this methodology works against the way human beings are designed to navigate their way through the world. He argues...

"Humans are not systems that behave like machines. They are dynamic, not static and not predictable in their behaviour. Humans (in this case as individual athletes and sports teams) are complex adaptive systems"

So the more we try to use methods that encourage players to behave alike and in predictable ways the more we are likely to produce players that cannot adapt to changes in the game effectively and yet it is precisely this adaptation that is at the heart of the creative process.

By looking at skill acquisition as a creative endeavour we force ourselves to design challenges that will challenge players to come up with ways of performing that will be original, meaningful and surprising.

Imagine a world where young people are given permission to create their own methods without being told by adults. Imagine a world where there is the freedom to try things out and fail again and again without fear of being given 'feedback'. Imagine a world where trying new things was applauded rather then met by side of the mouth whispers by arm folded tracksuits on the sideline.

This world sounds a lot like the world inhabited by kids in underdeveloped nations where access to 'coaching' is limited and facilities are sparse. This world also sounds a lot like a world inhabited by kids in nations that have adopted game based or constraints based coaching methods decades ago. The youngsters from these places are forced to adapt to their surroundings and work it out and then some of them mesmerise us with their abilities to do things that others can't.

The problem is I still see a lot of coaches who are using techniques and approaches that are clearly designed to generate automaticity and replicability. The very concept of a 'drill' that involves repeating a movement pattern again and again can only be used to create players that will behave in predictable ways.

I imagine that coaches feel that they can then establish a tactical game plan for these players who will execute effectively and with a good degree of consistency.

The irony is that these same coaches will go crazy when players do something that isn't in the game plan but they are then surprised when the players fail to react to something that the opponent does that is unpredictable.

I wonder how many coaches are out there using methods that are killing creativity without realising?

How long will it be before we wake up to this and change the way we do things?

Can we ever become a nation that goes from producing a lot of good players to a nation that produces' great players'.

Here's hoping!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you liked this post and would like me to beam it straight to your inbox using my telepathic powers (regular readers of the blog will know what I mean) then please click here and subscribe to my newsletter so that you never miss another rant!

For those of you that are still waiting for the 'superpower series' don't worry it is still coming I just had to get this one off my chest before I exploded!

How I developed coaching superpowers - by shutting up!

I was blessed with a loud voice and I like to talk...(no kidding I hear many of you cry!)

Not surprisingly, I could also be a very loud coach... a loud coach that spoke a lot!

I used to use my voice as a major tool in my coaching toolbox. I would provide a lot of feedback to players in an effort to create a high energy, motivational climate. I would fill the airwaves with positively descriptive words and phrases like "good", "excellent", "I like it!", "good thinking!", "good effort" Sometimes I would go further and start throwing in the odd instruction like '"watch the back post", "use the space" or sometimes..."give it" or "carry to space".

Then somebody gave me some feedback about my coaching and questioned my use of voice and my constant communication. I was made aware that I was probably just filling the session with an incessant barrage of noise which the players would just tune out. It was explained that the players either ignore me or they start to become dependent on the feedback which could prevent them from truly exploring different ways of doing things for fear of not receiving a positive reinforcement message.

Either way it meant that my delivery was less effective and there was no space for the players to learn through exploration.

I went into a bit of a meltdown...

I went through all of the classic stages of the Kubler-Ross change curve.

The initial shock left me reeling...

At first I rejected it and looked for examples of why it was wrong...'there are other top coaches who give a lot of feedback...why is it OK for them and not for me?

I got frustrated when in my sessions and felt that I was way less effective as a coach...'why wasn't my natural style good enough?'

I was depressed and really had a bit of a crisis of confidence...'I am clearly not all that good!'...

Then I started to use it more and more and slowly through experimentation I became more comfortable with this approach...'maybe their is something to this!'...

I began to read about the technique and found some very interesting research into implicit learning and using feedback. I realised that I had become overzealous and had become a bit of a 'joystick coach'. I decided that this was something that was going to make me a lot better...'this could take me to the next level'...

I became comfortable will saying a lot less and realised that it was a potent tool to shape learning. I have integrated it into my coaching toolbox and it is now a standard methodology...'this is great, why haven't I use this before?

That said making the adjustment to saying less hasn't been without it's challenges...

• I have found myself questioning whether learning is taking place when I see certain actions in a game and I suspect that the player isn't even aware that there were other options that they could take. I had to fight the urge to step in

• I have found myself silent for long periods of time and I couldn't help but think that I am just being a passenger and not really adding much value to the session.

• I have had to really work to find the right balance point between allowing space for learning and ensuring that learning moments are not lost.

So what was I to do?

I heard Professor Keith Davids use this phrase recently on the excellent 'Perception & Action Podcast' hosted by Dr Rob Gray..

"you can't adapt to an environment you don't inhabit"

So I have adapted...

This change to my environment where I have not been able to use my voice as much as an instrument to coach has forced me to adapt and has enhanced my coaching a lots of ways so that my abilities feel more like superpowers. Here are a few examples...

• Preparing like Batman - Batman does not have superpowers so he has to be really well prepared both physically and also in the way he would tackle a group of bad guys. His planning both before the engagement and also during is key. My planning has become even more essential and I have had to really dial in my preparation work to make sure that the tasks and games that I am using in the session are hitting the mark from a learning perspective I am also much more prepared to adjust the plan in the moment if I think that something isn't working or could work better.

• Using my 'Spidey sense' like Spiderman - Spiderman could sense if there was a problem before it happened. Being constrained by not being able to issue instructions as meant that I have upgraded by intuitive side which has become much more tuned in to what is going on in the moment and I have become much more creative in using task constraints within the sessions to draw players attention towards the key learning area.

• Challenging like 'Nick Fury' from the Avengers - Nick Fury was famous for bringing together the Avengers by putting them in a stressful situation . I agree personal challenges related to the learning theme with each player before the session starts so that they are developing as individuals as well as a group. I also set group challenges so there is pressure

• Create connection like 'Professor X' from X-Men - Professor X mentored a group of young people with special abilities. He used his ability to connect with people to tap into their inner motivations and help them develop. I have a lot of 1 to 1s with players so that I can ask them questions about certain moments or certain phases in a game and/or draw their attention to an element within their personal challenge that may need reinforcement (I often use this as a task constraint also to deliberately create overloads or underloads for periods of time)

• Listening like Daredevil - Daredevil lost his sight as a child but his other senses developed as a compensation. Saying much less has enhanced my listening skills a lot more, either in the reviews that the players lead or in the game where I am listening at what the players are saying so that I can pick up what they are learning or feeling. I will often reference this in a review "I just heard Owen say X, tell me more about that..."

• Observing like Superman - Superman has X-ray vision and also super sight where he could spot danger from high above the ground. My observation skills have become way more attuned so that I can spot moments that I want to reference or draw players attention to. I am also seeing the gaps in the task so that I can tune it in even more and challenge learning as much as possible.

I will be writing a series of posts in future weeks that expands on each of these areas and explains some of the techniques I use in more detail. Sign up for email notifications so that I can beam them straight to your inbox via my telepathic powers and you don't miss out!

The runner, the coach and the disease - A story of genuine grit that brought me to tears

This amazing story from ESPN's E:60 is one of the best things I have ever seen, it literally brought me to tears!

Not only is the story genuinely inspiring there are also some messages in here for talent developers that are worthy of mention.

• Another example of how an athlete overcoming adversity and the traumatic experience of being diagnosed with a life changing and debilitating disease acts as a driver to help her improve.

• Adapting to the constraint of the loss of sensation in her legs but exploring the things that this also affords..."I can't feel my legs so that means that I struggle to pace myself but it also mens that I can't feel the pain".

• The way Kayla describes her relationship with her coach "He's like a father..." tells us a lot about how great talent coaches connect with their athletes.

• Kayla's mother says "he pushes her, just enough" which suggests to me that Kayla's parents clearly understand what the coach is trying to do which shows how much they are engaged in the process.

• The way her coach talks to her: He says things like "that was beautiful, kiddo". He shows genuine affection and empathy with her.

I would be interested to hear what anyone else took away from this.