Main Navigation

INTRODUCTION

Making decisions is one of the most important tasks coach has to do. Exceptional trouble espying and their adequate solving is the key to the quality of coach’s work. However, that is not a simple process. There are many factors that influence making right decision, respectively, to choose one of the offered alternatives, which is actually the quintessence of resolution process.
Picture 1. Illustrates process of decision making

Picture 1. Process of decision making

Problems arising in resolution process are lack of information, unreliable data, insufficient coach’s knowledge level, limited resources, ect. Decision is the choice between two or more alternatives in way of brining out the best way to solve some problem. Out of this assumption comes out that decision is the step within towards action. Decisions coach makes aren’t always long-lasting, complex or clear to external observer.

In this research is endeavored to see how much basketball coaches in Tuzla County know the resolution laws. Aims set to the research, and in collaboration to coach’s competence in terms of resolution are:

• how much coaches know principles of effective decision making
• Determination of distinctions and weaknesses when making decisions, as well as approaches in decision improving.
•  

Subject and problem of research
Individuals who are heads of basketball teams have central role, they are in the central position when making decisions and directly on then depends weather or how the future of the team they lead will be resolved (Huseinagić, 2010).
The intention is, trough the empiric research among basketball team coaches, to determine in what way they make decisions considering their choice and maximum contribution of those decisions in improving values in domains of specific limits.

Research tasks
            Considering research subject and setting the aims, there are next tasks specified:

• determine how big dexterity of basketball coaches is when resolving
• can that dexterity improve when resolving
• what are the weaknesses when resolving
• How is possible to decline those weaknesses.

Hypothesis
            Considering aims in this research, theoretical acknowledgments, conducted research results, as well as the experience so far, the assumptions are:

• Basketball team coaches in Tuzla County know the resolutions laws.
• Treated coaches know the principles of effective resolving.

Research methods
Conducted research among basketball team coaches in Tuzla County is in domains of quantitative data analysis. Quantitative analysis tried to find outcomes with possibility of numerous allegations. Research method is descriptive and partly theoretical.

Research techniques and procedures
Inquiring is research procedure which examinees, heads of educational institutions, set questions about facts of interest for treated area. Inquiry was dimensioned by Helle and Hindle, 1998. (in Material MMU). Structured inquiry includes 25 closed questions with different value judgments. This inquiry offers different dimensions of coach’s resolving, which contribute larger or smaller efficiency of the team they lead.  Data given by application research procedure and instrument, have given a possibility of indulgence onto research questions that apply to determination of philosophy and practice of decision making.

Research specimen
In treating procedure 25 examines took part. These specimens go to probable ones.
Specimen is:

• typical, because is consistent of basketball team coaches,
• aiming, because is consistent of basketball team coaches in Tuzla County,
• Accidental, because it was conducted with xx coaches in Tuzla County.

By settling and statistic data elaboration, table, description, graphic and resolution techniques were used.

Research limits and validity
Limits of conducted research are evident and experiment in next:

• Inquiry is not examined enough and there aren’t any valid outcomes from this kind of research.
• Individual perception and self-evaluation aren’t adequate way in analyzing and determining philosophy and practice of forming resolution in sport, and they give an insight into “their own picture” decision quality in a team they lead.
• Taking larger specimen would result more valid.

Research result analysis
Although results are pretty extent, there will be only some interesting examples stated.
            Graphic 1.ilustrates analysis of inquired basketball coaches in a way of their dexterity when resolving.

Graphic 1. Knowing resolving processes at basketball coaches in Tuzla County (%)

Out of 25 treated coaches, two coaches or in percentage 8% has showed that resolving process is not satisfying. Areas in resolving process…..
Research shows that coaches would probably get better results if they understand three problem characteristics: to articulate the problem, to be ready to react and own needed resources for action. Indecision to act is a disposable problem. To initiate resolving process, coach must be pressured in order to react. Pressure can be initiated in domains of organized politics, deadlines, financial crisis, opponent reaction or incoming effect evaluation. This way, to coaches, won’t characterize something as a problem because their authority is questionable. Rational decision making means that decisions are made in order to get the best interest for the team. It means, that coach as a decision maker should increase interests of the team to the maximum, and not his own as in case with these two coaches. Also, what is interesting for this group of coaches is that they, because of short data analyzing deadline, satisfy them selves with current being, and in the way of getting the maximum. These coaches express only their own approaches to resolving process, and by that show their partiality at making decisions, which isn’t good for the team they lead.

18 or 72% own larger dexterity in resolving. For this group of coaches is interesting that they know process of resolving. To them, that process begins with problem recognition and decision criteria, and goes on with development, analyzing and choosing the alternative that can solve the problem; it is used and estimation of decision dexterity is concluded. This group of coaches, when decision is made, besides expressing their own approach to decision, projects also onto “practical rules” or heuristics, in order to simplify resolving. In sport practical rules are the most frequently useful for decision makers because they help to explain complicated, insecure and indistinct information. Also, it doesn’t have to mean that these rules are always reliable; reason is that they can bring to coach’s mistakes and prejudice. Picture 2.ilustrates 12 usual coach’s mistakes and prejudice:

 

Picture 2. The most common prejudice and mistakes when resolving (Robbins and Coutler, 2005:148)

Five coaches or 20% of them, have very good dexterities when resolving. Considering the fact that making effective decisions is in their interest, they wish at any cause to choose “the best” alternative, use it and determine if it solves the problem or if there is a reason for making decision. They include actual resolving approach; consider existing conditions when making decisions and their own way of resolving. Actually, they know that, beside them, onto resolving influence many factors, first of all security, risk and incertitude. They consider that ideal situation for resolving is the state of security, which means, that situation in which coach can make correct decisions, considering that outcome of every alternative is known (Weinrich, H. and Koontz, H. 1998:214).

Risk is the most frequent situation in which basketball coach makes decisions. Ability to predict outcomes is the most frequent result of coach’s individual experience or secondary situations. Incertitude is the state when coach makes decision for which outcome he isn’t sure, and in fact can’t even estimate the probability.  Under these conditions, the choice of alternative is influenced by limited quantity of disposable information that coach own as a decision maker.

With this resolving process dimensioning, this group of coaches sees them selves as patient, practical, realistic, theory oriented and as expected creative. To Majers-Brigs theory, this style is identified as “sensitive type” (Erić, 2000:265).

CONCLUSION

Research conducted with basketball coaches in Tuzla County has confirmed that over 50% basketball team coaches in Tuzla County know laws of determination process. Also, the other hypothesis is confirmed, and it refers to knowing the principles of effective decision making (23 coaches – 92%).

Research itself shows that the best answer to uncertain situation is professional organizing with a goal to sight unexpected occurrences and fast adjustment to changed state which in basketball in inevitable. Basketball today demands teams, organized with high level of reliability which cites that coaches have universal competences. Firstly, they are not satisfied with their successes, respectively they are turned onto their eventual failures. Further, they rely on first team players and they let them participate in the process of decision making. Third, players are let to create solutions in unexpected situation and fourth, when predicting, they (coaches) consider their own and players’ limits.

As the process of making decisions in fast changes in sport today isn’t easy, successful coaches will have to be exceptionally skillful when making decisions, in order to effectively plan, organize, lead and control.

LITERATURE

1. Erić, D. (2000). Uvod u menadžment. Beograd: Ekonomski fakultet Beograd – Viša škola za sporstke trenere Beograd -  Čigoja štampa Beograd.
2. Huseinagić, E. (2010). Vođenje u školi. Tuzla: PrintCom. Doo.
3. Robbins, P.,S. & Coulter, M. (2005). Management. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as  Prenmtice Hall.
4. Weihrich, H. i Koontz, H. (1998). Menadžment. Zagreb: Mate, doo.
5. Materijali MMU – Manchester Metropolitan University.
   

Copyright 2010 | Faculty of physical education and sport, Tuzla University |

• Home |
• Current Issue |