Building a culture of performance in and out of the weight room
One of the most common denominators among strength coaches is that nearly all of us were student-athletes at some point — certainly in high school, and for many of us in college. When asked why we pursued this profession, the most common answer is simple: We wish we had known then what we know now. We want future generations of athletes to avoid the mistakes we made — whether related to physical preparation, injury management or navigating the pressures of athletics.
Those lessons from our own careers have become the foundation of our professional philosophy, and that philosophy continues to evolve as we move forward.
Being in athletics means being part of a team. From sport teams to departmental teams, every group operates with different types of leadership. Some leaders lead by example, some lead vocally, some do both — and some carry the title without knowing how to lead at all.Whether it’s a position group leader within a sport or a foreman overseeing a sport-specific grounds crew, leadership exists at every level.
Within the NCAA structure, athletic directors serve as the leaders of athletic departments as a whole. However, every level below that position includes leaders responsible for their own teams. Depending on the structure, leadership might extend two or three levels deep and down to specific unit or group assignments. Whether it’s a position group leader within a sport or a foreman overseeing a sport-specific grounds crew, leadership exists at every level.
A very successful coach once told me the best teams she ever coached were the ones where everyone clearly understood their role. To her credit, she didn’t stop there — she made time to regularly meet with every student-athlete, creating open communication where they felt seen and heard.
That same principle applies directly to the weight room. When athletes and staff understand their role in a training environment, whether it’s setting the standard, pushing the pace or keeping the group accountable, culture becomes self-sustaining. Everyone knows how they contribute, whether they are pulling the group forward or acting as the coxswain, keeping the team on pace and on the right track.
That belief carries over into how I build my staff. I have always approached staffing by focusing on the skills each individual brings to the table. We cannot and should not be the same. Different sports have different physiological demands and different athletes require different psychological approaches.
Enhancing our athletic programs depends on identifying individual strengths, supporting sport-specific knowledge and ensuring that knowledge can be applied effectively. With 20 Olympic sports, a strength staff must bring a wide range of expertise — not just individuals willing to continue their own education, but those willing to share that knowledge with others.
Hiring people who bring perspectives different from those already on staff only diversifies our approach and expands our toolbox. I do not believe the best staff members are those who simply say yes. The best environments allow for respectful disagreement — people who can challenge ideas, agree to disagree and still move forward together. For that to work, leaders must be willing to lose their ego and not take disagreement personally. Engaged and curious staff members will ask questions, seek feedback and request justification. That is not a threat to leadership, but a sign of growth.
In the ever-evolving world of college athletics, administrative demands continue to increase. Often, we are asked to support decisions without fully understanding the complexity behind them. In those moments, I’m reminded to take a page from my own coaching philosophy.
As strength coaches, we routinely work with student-athletes who believe they aren’t receiving the playing time they deserve. Our job is to convince them to keep investing in training, to continue preparing, so they are ready when their opportunity comes. We preach delayed gratification. We remind them that hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work.
Our responsibility remains the same: Adapt to the situation in front of us and continue building a culture of performance from where we stand, starting in the weight room and extending outward.
That same mindset applies to our role as professionals. When decisions are made that don’t appear to be in the best interest of our programs or when support feels uneven, we still have a responsibility to show up prepared, coach to the best of our ability and provide the highest level of support possible to the athletes in our care. The only thing we can control is the environment we create and the development we provide.
Change in college athletics is constant, and as coaches, we are accustomed to adapting. Training philosophies evolve. Exercises are added and removed — sometimes ones we once swore by. As directors, staff turnover occurs, reporting structures change and leadership shifts. Some changes we embrace and others we don’t.
Regardless, our responsibility remains the same: Adapt to the situation in front of us and continue building a culture of performance from where we stand, starting in the weight room and extending outward.
Time and time again, I’ve found the more trust I place in my staff, the more trust they return. In the weight room, that trust shows up as consistency, accountability and effort, and that is where culture is truly built.
All of this comes together to create a culture that drives performance, not just in the athletes, but across the entire program.
At the end of the day, building a culture of performance isn’t about titles, policies or waiting for someone else to lead. Rather, it’s about showing up every day in the weight room, setting the standard, empowering your staff and holding athletes accountable. When everyone knows their role, trusts each other and works toward a shared goal, culture stops being something we talk about — it becomes something we live.
You Might Also Like
