SPECIAL GUEST POST FROM DAN CHRISTENSEN
When athletic directors hire a coach, it is natural to focus first on the program.
Can this person recruit?
Can they coach the sport?
Can they build a competitive roster?
Can they connect with student-athletes?
Can they create a healthy team culture?
Those questions matter. But there is another question that deserves just as much attention:
Will this coach be a good colleague inside the athletic department and at our school?
That question does not always get enough time in the search process. A candidate may be impressive when talking about their sport, their system, their recruiting plan, or their vision for the program. But once hired, that coach will not work in isolation. They will become part of a larger department and campus ecosystem.
They will need to work with compliance. Academics. Sports medicine. Strength and conditioning. Admissions. Financial aid. Facilities. Communications. Advancement. Other coaches. Administrative staff. Senior leadership.
At smaller colleges especially, the coach who cannot collaborate well can create strain far beyond one team.
A Head Coach Is Not an Island
One mistake in coaching searches is treating the job as if it exists only inside practices, games, and recruiting conversations.
It does not.
A college coach leads a program, but they also operate inside an institution. Their decisions affect other people. Their communication habits affect other offices. Their follow-through affects the credibility of the department.
In searches we have been part of at Bechler Leadership, one of the strongest indicators of long-term fit is whether the candidate understands this reality. Some candidates talk almost exclusively about their roster, their system, and their needs. Others clearly understand that building a successful program requires cooperation with many people who do not report to them.
That difference matters.
A coach who sees campus partners as obstacles will usually create frustration.
A coach who sees campus partners as teammates will usually make the department stronger.
Listen for How They Talk About Support Areas
One of the simplest ways to evaluate department citizenship is to listen carefully to how the candidate talks about the people around the program.
Do they speak respectfully about compliance, even when discussing limitations?
Do they understand the role of athletic trainers and sports medicine staff?
Do they value academic support as part of student-athlete development?
Do they see admissions as a partner in finding the right students, or simply as a gatekeeper?
Do they understand that strength and conditioning is not just a service, but an important part of athlete development?
Do they speak about other coaches with respect?
Language reveals mindset.
A candidate does not have to pretend every relationship has been easy. In fact, honest examples of tension can be helpful. But the tone matters. If a coach consistently describes support units as people who “get in the way,” “do not understand winning,” or “make things harder,” that should get an AD’s attention.
Good colleagues can disagree without becoming dismissive.
Ask About Real Departmental Friction
The best way to assess collaboration is not to ask, “Are you a team player?”
Almost everyone will say yes.
Instead, ask for a specific example:
“Tell me about a time you had a significant disagreement with compliance, academics, sports medicine, admissions, facilities, or another coach. What happened, how did you handle it, and what would they say about working with you?”
This question is useful because it forces the candidate to talk about real behavior.
Listen for whether the candidate can describe the other person’s perspective fairly. That is often a strong sign of maturity. A collaborative coach may still believe they were right, but they can usually explain why the issue was complicated and how they tried to preserve the relationship.
Be cautious if every example ends with the coach as the only reasonable person in the story.
In a college athletic department, there will always be competing pressures. Compliance has to protect the institution. Sports medicine has to protect student-athlete health. Academics has to support progress toward a degree. Admissions has to maintain institutional standards. Facilities has to manage limited space. Administrators have to balance resources across all programs.
A strong coach understands those tensions.
A difficult colleague only understands their own frustration.
Evaluate Responsiveness and Follow-Through
Department citizenship is not only about being pleasant. It is about being reliable.
Does the coach answer messages in a timely way?
Do they submit paperwork correctly?
Do they follow recruiting, travel, eligibility, and purchasing processes?
Do they communicate problems early, or do they wait until someone else has to clean them up?
Do they do what they said they would do?
These details may not feel exciting during a search, but they matter every day after the hire.
A coach can be energetic, relational, and competitive, but if they are consistently disorganized or dismissive of process, the department will feel it. Compliance will feel it. Athletic training will feel it. The business office will feel it. The athletic director will feel it.
A good interview question is:
“Tell me about a commitment you made to your department or administration that became inconvenient or difficult to keep. What did you do?”
This question helps reveal integrity and reliability under pressure. Strong candidates can name a real situation. They understand that follow-through matters most when it costs something.
Include Campus Partners in the Process
If department collaboration matters, then campus partners should have some structured voice in the process.
That does not mean every office needs decision-making power. But finalists can meet with selected representatives from compliance, academics, sports medicine, admissions, strength and conditioning, and other relevant areas. The key is to make those interactions consistent across candidates.
Give each stakeholder the same general lens:
Can this person work well within our institution?
Did they ask thoughtful questions?
Did they listen?
Did they understand our role?
Did they seem collaborative when discussing difficult scenarios?
Did they show respect for the realities of a smaller college environment?
The feedback should be gathered in a structured way. Otherwise, it can drift into personality preference. The goal is not to ask, “Who did we like?” The goal is to ask, “What did we observe that connects to the job?”
Some candidates perform well with the athletic director but reveal more in smaller meetings with support staff. Pay attention to that.
How a candidate treats people who do not control the final decision often tells you a lot.
Use Scenario-Based Questions
In addition to behavioral questions, scenarios can help reveal judgment.
For example:
“A key player is medically cleared but still hesitant to return. The team is struggling, and the next game is important. How do you handle that situation?”
“Admissions tells you that one of your top recruits is unlikely to be admitted. What do you do?”
“An academic support staff member tells you a student-athlete is missing appointments during conference play. How do you respond?”
“Compliance slows down a recruiting situation because of a rules question. How do you communicate with your staff, the prospect, and compliance?”
These scenarios are valuable because they show instincts. Does the coach immediately push for what helps the team competitively? Or do they balance competitiveness with student-athlete welfare, institutional standards, and respect for colleagues?
Good coaches want to win. Strong departmental colleagues want to win the right way, with the right people involved.
Check References Beyond the Obvious
References can be especially helpful here.
When possible and appropriate, do not only talk with supervisors or people the candidate knows will be positive. Ask about working relationships across the department.
Helpful reference questions include:
“How does this coach work with compliance and administrative processes?”
“How do they respond when told no?”
“Do they communicate early when problems arise?”
“How do support staff experience working with them?”
“Would colleagues describe them as collaborative, demanding, dismissive, organized, or difficult?”
Patterns matter. One frustrated reference may not mean much. But repeated comments about poor communication, arrogance toward support areas, missed details, or blame-shifting should not be ignored.
Hire the Coach the Department Can Trust
The goal is not to hire a coach who never disagrees.
Healthy departments have disagreement. Strong coaches advocate for their programs. They ask for resources. They challenge assumptions. They want to compete.
That is not the problem.
The problem is when advocacy becomes entitlement, when urgency becomes disrespect, or when competitiveness becomes an excuse to ignore institutional expectations.
The best coaches are strong leaders of their programs and strong teammates inside the department. They communicate clearly. They respect expertise. They follow through. They disagree professionally. They understand that the student-athlete experience is shaped by more than one coach.
Athletic directors should evaluate that carefully.
Because after the interview is over, the coach will not just lead a team.
They will join yours.
Dan Christensen is the Director of Collegiate Consulting for Bechler Leadership. Founded by Jamy Bechler in 2018, Bechler Leadership helps schools, athletic departments, and organizations build stronger cultures and maximize their potential. In the last three years, they’ve worked on 60+ searches, specializing in meeting the needs of “smaller” colleges. Dan can be reached at dan@bechlerleadership.com.