The Player Didn’t Change. The Coaching Did

Why does the same player perform for one coach and not another?

In many cases, the player's underlying behavioral tendencies have not changed significantly. What changed was the coaching approach, communication style, expectations, or environment surrounding them. The behavioral tendencies that made that player valuable in the first place are usually still there. What changed is whether the coaching around them aligns with how they naturally operate.

The same question applies well beyond the field.  They simply reflect different natural operating styles.

Organizations often invest considerable effort identifying the behavioral requirements of a role and selecting individuals whose behavioral tendencies align with those demands. But once those individuals are hired, do we manage and coach everyone the same way, regardless of who that person is?

If so, we may be overlooking an important factor: the same coaching approach may not bring out the best in every individual.

The Player May Not Change. The Environment Does.

Every player brings a set of behavioral tendencies to the field. Some naturally prefer taking risk. Others may prefer more direction and structure. Some succeed in fast paced, changing situations, while others perform best when consistency and predictability are emphasized.

These tendencies are not necessarily strengths or weaknesses.

The question is whether the coaching environment allows those tendencies to become assets.

Consider a player who naturally prefers taking initiative, making independent decisions, operating at a faster pace, and functioning with relatively little structure. This individual may prefer being trusted to assess situations and respond accordingly rather than receiving detailed direction at every step.

Placed in a highly structured coaching environment with constant oversight and narrowly prescribed actions, that player may become frustrated or disengaged. Not because of a lack of ability, effort, or commitment, but because the coaching approach is inconsistent with how that individual naturally prefers to operate.

Now consider another player who performs best with defined expectations, detailed information, consistency, and direction. The same coaching style that creates frustration for the first player may provide exactly the support needed for this individual to succeed. Remove too much structure and replace it with ambiguity and "figure it out" latitude, and performance may suffer.

Same sport. Same level of talent. Two very different coaching approaches may be needed to bring out the best in each individual.

Same Pattern Shape, Different Intensities

Coaching becomes even more interesting when two people appear behaviorally similar.

Two individuals may share a similar Pattern Shape while exhibiting different behavioral intensities.

At a high level, their profiles may appear alike. Both may show tendencies toward assertiveness, pace, interaction, or independence. However, the intensity of those tendencies may differ considerably.

One person may demonstrate these tendencies moderately. Another may exhibit them much more strongly. As a result, two individuals who appear similar behaviorally may still respond differently to communication, autonomy, coaching frequency, and decision-making authority.

One employee may appreciate periodic guidance and occasional check-ins. Another may view the same level of oversight as unnecessary restriction.

The Pattern Shape helps us understand the direction of behavioral tendencies. The vector intensities help us understand how strongly those tendencies may be expressed.

Understanding both provides a more complete picture of the individual.

The Same Position Doesn't Always Require the Same Coaching

Even within the same position, coaching needs can vary.

Imagine two players who play the same position and possess similar talent levels. One may respond best to greater autonomy and flexibility. Another may benefit from more structure, frequent communication, and clearly defined expectations.

Neither approach is necessarily right or wrong. The effectiveness of the coaching often depends on the individual receiving it.

This distinction is important because behavioral tendencies are not typically determined by a job title alone. The environment, expectations, and demands surrounding a role often influence which behaviors are most effective and how an individual may respond to coaching.

Effective coaching begins with understanding both the person and the environment in which they operate.

The Bigger Message

Good coaching is not necessarily about changing the player. It's about understanding the player well enough to know how to coach them and motivate them.

That's a sports example, but it's really an organizational one.

While organizations often work hard to make good hiring decisions, far less attention is sometimes given to how individuals are coached and managed after they join the organization.

The result can be a common but often overlooked mismatch.

An organization hires someone whose behavioral tendencies align well with the position and then manages every person in that role using the same leadership approach.

One employee may respond positively to greater independence and flexibility. Another may perform better with more structure and clearly defined expectations. Both may be capable of succeeding, but the management approach that supports one individual may not fully support the other.

Why This Matters

When coaching, communication, and expectations consistently conflict with an individual's natural behavioral tendencies, frustration and disengagement can become more likely.

Conversely, when management approaches align with those tendencies, individuals often find it easier to contribute their strengths and remain engaged.

Good coaching is not necessarily about changing people.  More often, it begins with understanding behavior, recognizing that individuals may respond differently to the same environment, and creating conditions that allow those differences to become strengths.

The player may not have changed.  The coaching approach might need to.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What does it mean to "hire for behavior" but coach everyone the same way?

  It means an organization evaluates how well an individual's behavioral tendencies align with a role during the hiring process but then applies the same management and coaching approach to everyone once they are hired. Individuals in the same role may respond differently to communication, accountability, feedback, structure, and autonomy.

• What is Activity Vector Analysis (AVA)?

  Activity Vector Analysis (AVA) is a behavioral assessment methodology originally developed by Walter V. Clarke. AVA measures an individual's natural behavioral tendencies. Organizations use AVA to support hiring, coaching, development, succession planning, and team effectiveness.

• Can two people with similar AVA results still require different coaching?

  Yes. Two individuals may share a similar Pattern Shape while exhibiting different vector intensities. Although their overall behavioral patterns may appear similar, the strength of those tendencies can vary. As a result, they may respond differently to autonomy, communication, coaching frequency, and decision-making authority.

• Does behavioral assessment replace skill or performance evaluation?

  No. A behavioral assessment is intended to complement skill, experience, and performance information, not replace it. Skills help explain what a person can do. Behavioral assessment helps provide insight into how a person may naturally prefer to operate.