Organization Structure

As a senior on my high school varsity football team, we successfully clinched our first playoff berth in several years, beating the traditional powerhouse schools in our division along the way.  Not only did we make it to the playoffs, we won the first two rounds easily, and lead the eventual state champs 17-0 at halftime in the third game, however, a breakdown in leadership led to us losing the game 34-17.  I will go into this debacle later.  For now, let’s take a look at how this team was organized, and what is was that allowed us to be so successful.

The fundamental team configuration followed a dual authority model.  I believe this is fairly common across and sports organization. This is due to the fact that there is simply too much for one person to handle in terms of physically coaching players, and managing all three phases of the game (offense, defense, special teams).  The head coach is the first boss.  He then delegates authority to coordinators for each phase of the game as I mentioned.  They have the authority over each of those areas while the head coach has the ultimate say in matters as well as handling the general game plan, talking to players, team morale, etc.  After this second level of bosses, the structure becomes what I would say it something of a hybrid between dual authority and a simple hierarchy.  For example, from the head coach to the offensive coordinator, the structure follows dual authority.  From the offensive coordinator, there are several position coaches such as running back coach, wide receiver coach, quarterback coach, etc.  However, each of these positions have equal authority which is why I believe it fits the simple hierarchy definition better.  As a running back, I reported directly to the running back coach during most of practice, but at times would be involved in drills run by any of the other position coaches, there was no difference in their level of authority over me. 

When we look at Katzenbach & Smith’s distinguishing characteristics, several stand out to me as defining characteristics of the team I was part of.  First, high performing teams shape purpose in response to a demand or opportunity.  This was definitely a huge aspect of the team when I played.  Coaches communicated their goals and expectations to the players, and in turn the players knew what they needed to do in order to keep the team functioning as a well-oiled machine, avoiding conflicts and collectively growing stronger as a team.  The second characteristic also holds true.  I remember very clearly our stat board hanging on the wall outside the locker room.  After every game, the coach would post key stats on the board, really allowing us to absorb what we had accomplished that game, or sometimes, not accomplished.  This served as a powerful motivator in several ways.  When the stats were great, we felt great as a team.  Confidence is a powerful factor in any sport.   On the flipside, when the stats were not so great, we were embarrassed and sometimes a little angry.  Pride is another powerful motivating factor, not just in sports but in life. The last characteristic, members of high performing teams hold themselves collectively accountable, was a major driving force the entire season.  When someone on the team failed, missed a play call, blew an assignment, or anything else, the rest of the team felt collectively responsible, and in turn we did our best to not let that particular thing happen again.  This is a huge boost in morale for the player involved, and ultimately leads to the team, truly playing as a team where everyone is involved and nobody is left on an island to suffer the consequences of their mistake.   Feeling a mistake was one person’s fault creates division within the team and division leads to failure.

Ironically, as I mentioned at the start of this post, we were leading the eventual state champs 17-0 at halftime.  However, our head coach decided to change the structure of the organization to a one boss structure.  He allowed his ego to get in the way and began calling the plays himself, deviating from the original game plan which was working perfectly.  This completely changed the tone of the game and ultimately led to us losing the game.  Sure, there were mistakes made by players, but only due to the coach putting us in a position where we weren't able to perform at our best.