Difficult Coaching Conversations
Listen First
-
Ep. 291: Difficult Coaching Conversations, feat. Ben Van Doren (BJJ Mental Models)
The relationship framework, red lines, natural vs. role-defined relationships, and how to train the skill of difficult conversations.
Ep. 291: Difficult Coaching Conversations, feat. Ben Van Doren
Listen on Apple Podcasts
Most coaches avoid difficult conversations not because they're bad at conflict, but because they've conflated "difficult conversation" with "conflict." These are not the same thing. This page covers the scenarios you will face, a framework for thinking about them, and the meta-skill that makes all of it easier over time.
The Framework: Conversations Are Not Conflict
Ben Van Doren runs Deep Blue BJJ in Michigan and spent 20 years managing people in the restaurant industry before opening his gym. His framing in Ep. 291: Difficult Coaching Conversations (BJJ Mental Models) is the most useful starting point I've found.
The key distinction is between natural relationships and role-defined relationships. Natural relationships (close friends, family) have established norms for repair and conflict. Role-defined relationships (coach-to-student, training partner-to-training partner) feel different because the norms aren't as established, and the context gives them a different purpose and potentially different endpoint.
When something needs to be addressed in a role-defined relationship, coaches often hesitate because the conversation feels threatening to the bond. But the hesitation itself is the problem. Relationships at the gym deteriorate mostly from accumulated avoided conversations, not from conversations that were had.
A few reframes worth keeping:
- A conversation is not a confrontation unless you make it one. Go in to understand, not to convict.
- Your first impression at the start of a conversation is almost always different from your impression halfway through. Listen before you conclude.
- Most people respond well when they feel heard. Most people get defensive when they feel ambushed or accused.
Red lines. Some behaviors require immediate conversation regardless of your comfort level. These are pre-identified. Someone being unsafe on the mats. Someone making another person feel unwelcome or disrespected. Someone whose behavior is threatening the culture you're building. These get addressed. The "when" on red-line issues is now, not later.
For everything below red-line level, you have more flexibility on timing. Use it.
When a Student Is Being Unsafe
This is the most common difficult conversation and, in some ways, the most urgent. The standard here is clear: unsafe behavior on the mats gets addressed, and it gets addressed quickly.
The challenge is addressing it without publicly shaming anyone and without triggering defensiveness that makes the conversation useless.
If the unsafe behavior is happening right now, stop the moment. You don't need to have the full conversation in front of everyone. "Hey, let's pause for a second" is enough to stop the immediate situation. Brief, calm, no audience. Address the specific behavior ("your cranks on submissions are coming in fast, without a warning tap opportunity") rather than the person ("you're being reckless"). Then get them back in.
If the unsafe behavior was reported to you after the fact, gather the full picture before you sit down with anyone. What exactly happened? Who saw it? What's the context? Walking into a conversation with incomplete information and strong conclusions is a reliable way to produce defensiveness and miss what actually needs to be corrected.
When you do have the conversation:
- Be specific about the behavior, not the person. "I've heard that submissions have been coming in without tapping opportunities" is different from "you're being aggressive."
- Be direct. Don't soften to the point where the seriousness doesn't land.
- Give a clear direction. "Here's what needs to change" is more useful than a general sense of disappointment.
- Follow up. If you said you'd check back in, check back in.
When Someone Isn't Progressing
This one is harder because it's less urgent and the avoidance is easier to rationalize. If a student has been training for a year and is still making the same fundamental mistakes, the kind thing is not to say nothing.
The framework here is to focus on what they can control. Effort, consistency, approach to training, willingness to try uncomfortable things, quality of attention during games. Not comparison to where they "should" be, not comparison to others.
A few useful questions before you have this conversation:
- Have we actually taught what we're now holding them accountable for, or are we frustrated by something we never addressed directly?
- Is the issue skill acquisition, or is it training approach? (Showing up but disengaging, going with only easy partners, drilling but never investing in live rounds where things fail.)
- What specifically do I want them to do differently?
If the issue is training approach, name it directly but without judgment: "I notice you tend to stay safe in your matches. You're not taking the risks that would push you forward." Then be specific about what you'd like to see change and why it matters.
The goal is not to deliver a verdict. It's to help someone see something they may not be seeing and give them a path to act on it.
When Ego Is the Problem
Ego shows up in predictable forms: being hard on less experienced partners, getting visibly frustrated or withdrawn after being tapped, coaching others without being asked, treating training like a test to pass rather than a place to develop.
The structure for these conversations is: describe the behavior, describe its impact, ask for a change.
"I've noticed you tend to go a lot harder when you're paired with newer students. It makes them hesitant to train with you, and it shuts down their learning. I need that to change."
That structure works because it doesn't attack the person's character. It describes what's observable, explains why it matters to the community, and requests a specific change. It leaves the person's dignity intact while being completely clear.
What doesn't work: vague feedback ("you could be a little more relaxed sometimes"), hoping the behavior corrects itself, or addressing it so obliquely that the person doesn't realize they're being asked to change something.
The hard truth is that some students will not change. And that's ultimately their choice. Your job is to name the problem clearly, give them the opportunity to do something different, and hold the line if they don't. If the behavior is actively damaging the culture, that becomes a different kind of conversation.
When to Escalate
Some conversations belong to the head coach, not to you.
If a student's behavior crosses into anything that could be characterized as harassment, discrimination, or physical danger, that goes to the head coach immediately. Your job in those situations is to manage the moment (separate people, create safety) and bring it up the chain right away. You are not the last line of defense, and you shouldn't try to be.
More commonly, escalation is the right move when:
- You've had the same conversation with the same person more than once without meaningful change
- The behavior involves multiple people or has implications for the whole gym's culture
- You have a relationship with the person that makes it hard to be impartial
- You're genuinely unsure whether what you observed crosses a line that requires a specific response
Escalating is not failing. It's reading the situation accurately and using the resources available to you.
The Meta-Skill
Difficult conversations get easier with practice. That is not a platitude. It's the same learning curve as everything else in jiu jitsu: the first time you do it, it feels enormous; the twentieth time, it feels like a normal part of the job.
The only way to build this skill is to do it. If you avoid every uncomfortable conversation, you never develop the calibration to know what a good one feels like, how to read another person's response, how to adjust mid-conversation when new information comes in.
Van Doren's practical suggestion: if you know a hard conversation is coming, write out the first two sentences. Define the tone and topic clearly before you sit down. Don't walk in rehearsing your conclusions. Walk in ready to listen.
The other thing worth naming: culture deteriorates gradually through accumulated silence. Every time a boundary gets crossed and nothing is said, the boundary moves. The coaches who protect culture at GJJ are not the ones who wait for problems to become catastrophic before acting. They're the ones who address things early, when the stakes are lower and the conversation is easier.
That requires accepting some discomfort now to prevent more discomfort later. That trade-off is always worth making.
More in Coaches Guide