One of my biggest tasks for my annual workload is creating, managing, programming, and coaching a 5 month high performance off-season training camp for elite level hockey players from peewee to professional. This camp involves a 3 month prep camp where I have athletes come in at different times following their seasons to de-load and then prepare for our main camp and get ready for the next season ahead. Our main camp is a full integrated on and off ice program that has me in contact with these athletes coaching at least 10 hours a week for 8 weeks, along with more casual interactions as they are around the facility and ice most of the day. Some athletes have worked with me for years, and some are brand new, all having the same goal to reach.
Learning how to interact with each player is absolutely critical in getting the most out of athletes, whether that be in an individual setting, group or team settings. There are many different types of interactions that need to occur in a number of different situations in order to understand what drives or motivates an athlete, and the sooner you can find that out, the more effective their training will be. I recently had 3 Swiss international players with me for 3 weeks in order to prepare for their upcoming U-18 tryouts. They all had goals of coming to Canada within the year to either play CHL or NCAA hockey, and wanted to learn how North Americans play and train. In order to get the most of these players who don’t speak fluent english in such a short period of time I needed to gain their trust, that I am the guy that can deliver them on their path to success. In order to interact well, you must observe well. I observed their behavior on the training floor, off the training floor, and went to watch their practices on the ice. Through this I was able to differentiate how to interact with each one individually and as a group. By the end of the 3 weeks, they didn’t want to leave and had an unbelievable experience with data to show big improvements. All 3 of them made the U-18 Swiss national team and 1 has been called to the U-20 camp.
When it comes to attempting to understand athletes behavior, there is one tool that my coaches and I use that narrows the athletes down into categories or who they are. Each category has a unique characteristic that highlights weaknesses and strengths, along with how to best interact with each athlete. This table was derived from coach Brett Bartholemew’s book “Conscious Coaching” through his research in the art of coaching and building buy in or trust from athletes. After week 2 of our 8 week main camp, we had a staff meeting bringing each athlete we work with to discussion in order to collaboratively decide what archetype(s) each athlete relates to. Athletes often do not portray one certain archetype, but can be a combination of a bunch. Check out the table I have placed below that shows the archetypes that Brett has created.
Anyone can create a solid program on paper, some coach that program very well, but few can coach that program and get every single athlete bought in and performing at their absolute highest ability. I find the skill of being able to effectively interact with athletes consistently to be a rare trait in coaching and often differentiates the best from the rest.
| Archetype | Who they are? | Weaknesses | How to connect |
| THE TECHNICIAN | Perfectionist. Takes pride in performance. Seeks understanding, knowledge and mastery. | Mind can get in the way when in a chaotic environment. | Acknowledge interests. Offer technical insights for efficiency. Sandwich technique Postive/Insight/Positive. |
| THE ROYAL | An aura of superiority. Great self belief and confidence. | Trouble getting out of comfort zone, hides weaknesses. | Talk to them, allow them to share strengths and relate exercise to that. If they struggle with an exercise public praise to someone who does it well. |
| THE SOLDIER | Does as told with vigor regardless of skill and ability. | Forge ahead at all costs. Walks a fine line. | Lay out a “mission” and let them align it with their personal goals and values and then provide support. |
| THE SPECIALIST | Their sport is all that matters. | One track mind to their sport – miss out on connecting the dots. | Meet them where they are and bring it all back to their sport. |
| THE POLITICIAN | Charismatic, know what they want and how to get it. Will only appear when it suits their needs. | Don’t want to inconvenienced with something not important to them – miss out on the process. | Present them with choice but limit their options. |
| THE NOVICE | Wide-eyed, overwhelmed, over-eager. Starting with fundamentals. | Eager to keep up. | Remember when you first started, show empathy. Be steady and consistent while you control their path. |
| THE LEADER | Ability to use their own strengths to bring out the best in others. | Carry the burden of others, inappropriately take the blame for a loss while replaying every step in the process. Get inside their heads. | Acknowledge and appreciate what they bring to the table and give power. |
| THE SELF-SABOTOGER | Two kinds: Hard worker with self doubt or a natural talent who lets outside events and actions derail the process. | Paralysis by analysis. | Find areas that give confidence. Use that to guide them through areas that induce fear/anxiety. Face fear in the face safely through reps. |
| THE MOUTHPIECE | A distracting force but can heighten energy and rally their peers. | Spend too much time and energy on what to say. | Compromise – let them do their thing but know when to pull them off stage. |
| THE WOLVERINE | Rage, introversion, distrust and rogue tendencies fuled by past traumas. Very self sufficient. | Struggle finding an outlet when their emotions run hot. | Takes time and trust. Be real, stable and consistent. Don’t sugar coat things. |
| THE FREE SPIRIT | Everything they do is in a constant state of play. | Lack of focus/Absent mindedness. | More task oriented than ego driven. Guide to achieve mastery. Show your relaxed side while giving task oriented goals. |
| THE MANIPULATOR | Lay low until they see an opportunity to help you but they have their own intesrests in mind. | Short term success runs their friends out of favour. | Involve others in the process and seek to understand why the manipulator is trying to disguise their intentions. |
| THE UNDERDOG | A person who is at a disadvantageous to succeed. | The ability to stay consistent in their constant uphill battle. | Continuous help and support. Find a partner to help them along. |
| THE CRUSADER | An athlete with a higher purpose. An inspirational force. | Nurturers who need to let others help themselves from time to time. | Learn more about purpose and path, then get them involved in the process. |
| THE SKEPTIC | Always asking why! | Adaptations take time and the many why’s may get in the way while disrupting the buy-in of others. | Understand origins of skepticism and keep your emotions under control while responding. |
| THE HYPOCHONDRIAC | Heightened sense of awareness in their body. A good beacon for the training program you are delivering. | Minor blips stunt progress and mask confidence. | Remind them there is no ideal state of being, get to the bottom of the issue while pumping their tires. |
| Athletes aren’t always one archetype. They can change from year to year, month to month or week to week. It depends what group they are in. In general athletes aren’t just one archetype they are a blend. | |||
This is Great Sean – thanks for sharing! I was definitely able to find the archetype I best fit into, as well as a few others I know well in my sport. Pretty spot on!
Is this something you’d share with the athletes or just among the coaching staff. What did you use it for once an athlete’s archetype was identified?
Hi Chris,
It can be interesting to go through and recognize where you think you fit on the matrix. Athletes can be a mix of different archetypes, and can also change as they mature, progress, and build relationships with coaches.
I haven’t shared this with athletes before, just coaching staff. I would have a feeling some athletes might have a negative response to some of their identified archetypes, however, it would be interesting to see where they see themselves in comparison with how our coaches view them.
Sean, congratulations on a very successful start to the off-season and thanks for a comprehensive reflection on interaction!
I agree with your observation that coaches appear to be reacting to their athletes more frequently, or following a strict formula for periodization, as opposed to watching and listening to gain understanding of how best to lead. It’s been my experience that masterful coaches set themselves apart with their powers of observation, and asking questions, of their athletes.
In your table, Bartholemew offers a more human, well-flushed out, and functional approach, which you’ve clearly used effectively to build athlete trust. His categorization, and suggested cross-categorization, of athletes reads very similar to popular tests like the MBIT, which professes sixteen personality types. Do you know what sources Batholemew drew upon for this model? Have you noticed an drawbacks or challenges from using this model?
Finally, if time permits, please tell us more about your “de-load” phase following the competitive season prior to starting training camp. Very interesting. Is the major focus here on injury prevention?
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the detailed comment and interest in my work. I couldn’t list off the resources he used, but can say that it was years of research and development on him to create this model of categorizing athlete types, and wouldn’t be surprised if the MBIT was a key resource.
The de-load phase following the competitive season does have a component of injury prevention, however I like to look at injury prevention as an on-going variable to the yearly training plan. There is a strong emphasis on postural corrections, mobility, and balancing connective pathways in the body. Thinking of this phase almost like a reset to the software and hardware of the body.
Sean, some great reflections on your recent camp. I also think that Chris and Ben have left some great comments and questions. I am not familiar with Bartholemew and similar to Ben I would be interested to know the validation of the tool used to assess the archetypes. Similarly, like Chris suggested, I am also interested in whether the athlete gets to pick their archetype or perhaps top 4 archetype. I am sure that this may affect they way that they perceive themselves. Finally, depending on the research background of the archetypes, it could be good to do a validation study in relation to hockey player. It would be good to read you comments to Chris and Ben.
Thanks Dave,
Like I mentioned to Ben, I’m not entirely sure what the resources were on this, however, I know it was years of development and research. I think my mentor Matt might have a better idea of this, as I know he works with Brett fairly often.
Like I mentioned to Chris’s comment, I haven’t had athletes go through this themselves, but might be interesting to see how they perceive themselves in relation to the how our coaches do. Perhaps this might give a greater insight about the athlete to the coach in that the athlete will view themselves on many different levels and situations that our coaches don’t see among the training environment.
Thanks for this post, Sean. I know Brett very well and I think he gave something great to our profession with his book. I would completely agree that human behaviour is quite situational. For example, how I behave at home with my wife can be very different compared to when I’m coaching. Similarly, I think the archetypes might give coaches a heuristic for working with behaviours rather than athletes. Brett’s table above helps us to recognize common behaviours we often encounter in training. I would love to hear a couple of examples when this worked for you and maybe when it didn’t. Nice job on a very thoughtful post.
Thanks for the comment Matt,
I can relate with you on the changing behavior from the work/training environment and the home-life, as my fiance even recognizes my work/coaching voice and behavior very different than home, I see this as a positive behavior change, having the ability to switch in and out of focus depending on the environment.
I find Brett’s table has best helped me in larger group settings such as our sport training camps or team training sessions, with it being more-so during training camps. I have used behavioral characteristics to determine which group I place athletes in. In one case I moved one of my midget level hockey players up to train with our junior level players for some sessions as I recognized him as a leader and crusader and I knew he would be challenged by the older athletes. In the older group he became more of a soldier and a specialist which I think was the best thing for him as a young leader. He is now the Captain of his Junior team.
Harder archetypes to deal with in the group setting are the mouth piece, and sometimes the royal. I have worked with enough groups and teams with these (every team has them) that I try to make a point of identifying them first and dealing with it accordingly.