SPECIAL GUEST POST FROM DAN CHRISTENSEN
Every coaching candidate has weaknesses.
That is important to remember. The goal of a search is not to find a perfect coach. No such person exists. Every candidate has growth areas, blind spots, and situations they have not handled as well as they would like.
But there is a difference between a normal growth area and a warning sign.
Athletic directors do not need to become overly suspicious in interviews. A good process should be fair, respectful, and open-minded. But it should also be honest. When a candidate shows repeated signs of poor self-awareness, blame-shifting, thin skin, or contempt for the people around them, those signals should not be ignored.
In coaching searches we have been part of at Bechler Leadership, the concern is usually not one imperfect answer. It is the pattern that develops across the interview, campus visit, references, and follow-up conversations.
Red flags are rarely about style alone.
They are usually about substance.
Vague Answers With No Real Examples
One of the clearest warning signs is a candidate who cannot get specific.
They may talk about culture, accountability, standards, family, discipline, trust, and leadership. But when asked for an example, they stay at the same general level.
“We built a great culture.”
“We held people accountable.”
“We changed the mindset.”
“We demanded excellence.”
Those statements may sound good, but they do not tell you much.
A strong candidate should be able to explain what actually happened. What was the problem? What did they do? Who was involved? What resistance did they face? What changed? What did they learn?
When a candidate repeatedly avoids specifics, the athletic director should keep probing. Sometimes the issue is nerves. But sometimes the candidate has learned the right language without having the leadership substance behind it.
Good coaches can live inside real examples.
Blame-Shifting
Every coach faces difficult circumstances. Some inherit unhealthy teams. Some deal with injuries, admissions challenges, resource limitations, staff turnover, or unrealistic expectations. Context matters, and athletic directors should be careful not to dismiss real obstacles.
But pay attention to how a candidate explains difficulty.
If every problem was caused by someone else, that is a concern.
The athletes were entitled. The assistants were not loyal. The administration did not support them. Admissions made recruiting impossible. Compliance slowed everything down. Parents were the problem. The previous coach ruined everything.
Any one of those may be partly true in a specific situation. But if the candidate’s stories consistently place responsibility elsewhere, you may be hearing a pattern.
Healthy leaders can describe difficult conditions while still owning their part. They can say, “That was a hard situation, and here is what I wish I had done differently.” They can explain what they learned.
Blame-shifting is dangerous because coaching always involves adversity. If a coach cannot take responsibility in an interview, they may struggle to take responsibility once they are leading your program.
The Hero Narrative
Another warning sign is the candidate who is always the hero of the story.
They saved the program. They fixed the culture. They held everyone accountable. They saw what no one else could see. They succeeded despite everyone around them.
Confidence is good. Coaches need it. But leadership is rarely a solo act.
A mature coach can share credit. They can talk about assistant coaches, captains, administrators, athletic trainers, academic support, strength staff, and student-athletes who helped move the program forward. They understand that successful teams are built by many people.
The hero narrative can sound impressive at first. But over time, it may reveal ego, control, or an inability to value others.
Ask follow-up questions:
“Who helped you most in that process?”
“What did your staff contribute?”
“What did you learn from the athletes?”
“What would others say your role was?”
A strong leader can answer those questions easily.
Thin Skin Around Feedback
Coaches need conviction. They cannot change direction every time someone criticizes them. But conviction is not the same as defensiveness.
One of the best interview questions is:
“What feedback have you received in the last few years that was difficult to hear, and what have you changed because of it?”
Listen carefully.
A self-aware candidate can name real feedback. They may not enjoy talking about it, but they can explain how they processed it and what changed.
A thin-skinned candidate may dodge the question, minimize the feedback, mock the person who gave it, or turn it into a disguised strength.
“I care too much.” “I am too competitive.” “I hold people to too high of a standard.”
Those answers are not always dishonest, but they are often incomplete.
The concern is not that a candidate has weaknesses. The concern is when they cannot identify any meaningful weakness that required growth.
A coach who cannot receive feedback will eventually struggle to lead people who need correction.
Contempt for Support Units
A college coach does not work alone.
They rely on compliance, academics, sports medicine, strength and conditioning, admissions, financial aid, facilities, communications, advancement, and administrative staff. Especially at smaller colleges, the best coaches understand that department citizenship matters.
That is why contempt for support units is a serious warning sign.
A candidate may have had legitimate frustrations in previous roles. But if they consistently talk about campus partners as obstacles, bureaucrats, or people who “do not understand winning,” pay attention.
A coach can advocate strongly for their program without disrespecting the people who protect the institution and support student-athletes.
Ask:
“Tell me about a time you had a disagreement with compliance, academics, sports medicine, or admissions. How did you handle it?”
A strong candidate will describe the tension with maturity. They may explain disagreement, but they will also show respect for the other person’s responsibility.
A weak answer may reveal entitlement.
No Real Examples of Growth
The best coaches are still growing.
They can usually point to ways their leadership has changed over time. Maybe they communicate more clearly. Maybe they delegate better. Maybe they listen more before acting. Maybe they have learned to develop captains more intentionally or manage staff with greater consistency.
If a candidate cannot describe meaningful growth, that is worth noting.
Ask:
“How are you a different leader today than you were five years ago?”
A strong candidate should have a thoughtful answer. Growth does not have to be dramatic, but it should be real.
Leaders who stop learning often create programs where others stop being honest.
Do Not Explain Away the Pattern
Every search involves judgment. Athletic directors should be fair and avoid overreacting to one awkward answer or isolated comment.
But they should also resist the temptation to explain away repeated warning signs because the candidate is charismatic, experienced, or has won games.
The question is not, “Can we justify this concern?”
The question is, “What will this concern look like after the hire?”
If the candidate is vague now, will they be clear with your student-athletes?
If they blame others now, will they own problems later?
If they show contempt for support units now, how will they treat your staff?
If they cannot name growth now, will they be coachable under your leadership?
Red flags do not always mean “do not hire.” But they do mean “slow down, ask more, and verify.”
The best hiring processes do not ignore concerns.
They investigate them with discipline, fairness, and courage.
Because the warning signs you minimize during the search often become the problems you manage after the hire.
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 two years, they’ve worked on 40+ searches, specializing in meeting the needs of “smaller” colleges. Dan can be reached at dan@bechlerleadership.com.