It’s not that simple
‘Good job!’ is a symbol. It is not the sole focus of what I am about to discuss, instead it is an example of one side of the argument. Allow me to elaborate:
If you are a coach of any kind I’m sure you would be privy to this back and forth debate between positivity and negativity. And whilst it seems like this has been at the forefront of discussions only recently, the truth is the discussion has been around long before coaching was even considered a profession.
Psychologists and researchers have been using Positive Reinforcement (rewarding a certain desired behavior when seen) and Negative Reinforcement (implementing a consequence when the desired behavior is not seen) for decades. There is research to support the implementation of both, therefore deciding which research article to read could very well mean you believe in and implement that method.
It’s the same with coaching.
For most coaches, their coaching style and the language they use is largely influenced by how they were coached, as well as the mentors and peers they surround themselves with. The people coaches are around, much like the research articles, will largely determine the coaching methods and language they choose to implement.
It’s the reason why we have such a black and white debate regarding coaches being overtly positive, and if they aren’t then by default they are negative. Very few are being authentic or exploring the grey area in the way they coach, rather they are mimicking the actions of those who came before. Much like Terence Fletcher and John Hancock (the movie character, not the former president of congress).
A lesson in complacency & morale
In the movie Whiplash, actor J.K. Simmons plays Terence Fletcher, conductor of the jazz band at Shaffer conservatory. Throughout the movie Fletchers actions include; throwing a chair at one of his students, and endless amounts of profanity, threats and abusive language, all of which are extreme (at times illegal) uses of negative reinforcement – what you also learn is that some of these acts have been done by conductors before him, people who he admired.
If you’ve seen the movie I’m sure you would think that Fletcher’s actions are outrageous, but allow me to play devils advocate by saying the following; all he wanted was for his band and it’s members to be the best version of themselves they possibly could be. He wanted to breed the next best jazz musician, and was willing to do anything to do so, in his eyes, ‘good job!’ (which is an example of positive reinforcement), is nothing more than an opportunity for complacency:
The way Fletcher get’s the desired outcome is through negative reinforcement, he introduces a consequence or stimulus for any behavior that he does not deem desirable.
Now on the contrary to Terence Fletcher is John Hancock, played by Will Smith in the movie Hancock.
Hancock has superhero abilities, but lacks the demeanor or appearance of one, and because of that he rubs people the wrong way, until he meets Ray Embrey. Ray encourages Hancock to be more positive, to celebrate and compliment those around him a little more. The result is another extreme version of reinforcement, much like Fletcher, except this time it is on the positive end, as seen by the following scene where Hancock goes a little over the top with the use of the phrase ‘good job!’:
Hancock’s forced attempt at positive reinforcement displays someone who is in a struggle to find how he authentically leads, so instead he repeatedly copies what Ray had practiced with him, the phrase ‘good job!’.
Positivity, negativity, or authenticity?
We’ve seen extreme examples of positive and negative reinforcement. And in both cases we’ve seen characters who are influenced by those before or those around them, in Hancock’s case positive reinforcement does not suit him, in Fletcher’s case he is almost to a tee copying Jo Jones (a famous conductor who once threw a cymbal at famous Saxophonist Charlie Parkers head).
So which is right?
In my opinion, the answer lies in the middle as it always should.
There is absolutely a place for both positive and negative reinforcement, obviously not to some of the extremes you’ve read above, but never the less if you aren’t using one then you are probably missing a tool that you require.
Urban Meyer, current head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars, talks about above the line and below the line behavior, where the line is the standard, and anything above it should be praised (positive reinforcement), where as anything below it should be confronted (potentially negative reinforcement). Ever since I heard this it has really stuck with me as it is such a simple and clear way to implement positive and negative reinforcement.
You see coaching is not about set styles, rather it is about acquiring tools and knowing when to utilize them. It is the understanding that no two contexts are the same, nor are any two people. So whilst positive reinforcement may be the way for some, it may be an opportunity for others to become complacent or take advantage of your good nature. And whilst negative reinforcement may drive some, it also may destroy others.
The only thing that should remain constant in the way you coach is being true to yourself. The things that you value and deem important in life should be evident in the way you coach, and they should not waver, even when challenged, other than that though the way you coach is probably going to be in a state of constant flux. Which means at times, ‘good job!’ is going to move the needle and other times it won’t, the job of coaches is to know which scenario it is required and which it isn’t.
