The interview went great. The candidate had experience, enthusiasm, and a coaching license. They talked about player development, building character, and loving the game. You hired them on the spot.
Six months later, you're fielding complaints. Parents say this coach pressures kids to skip other sports. Families are grumbling about year-round commitment expectations that weren't in the program description. A few athletes who played multiple sports last year have been made to feel like they're not "serious" enough. One family already left for a different club.
You didn't hire a bad person. You hired someone whose coaching philosophy doesn't match your program's values. And you had no way of knowing because you never asked the right questions.
This happens constantly. Directors interview for credentials, experience, and communication skills but skip the questions that reveal how a coach actually thinks about athlete development. Then they're surprised when the coach's approach creates exactly the culture problems the program was trying to avoid.
The solution isn't hoping you get lucky with the next hire. It's building a hiring process that surfaces development philosophy before the coach ever runs a practice.
The Culture Problem You're Hiring Into
Youth sports coaching exists on a spectrum. On one end is the development-centered approach: athletics as a vehicle for physical literacy, character growth, multi-sport participation, and lifelong love of activity. On the other end is the exclusivity approach: early specialization, year-round commitment to a single sport, and prioritizing competitive success over broad development.
Both approaches produce coaches who sound good in interviews. Both produce coaches who genuinely care about kids. The difference shows up in daily decisions: how they respond when an athlete has a conflict with another sport, how they talk about playing time, how they define success for a nine-year-old, what they expect from families during "off-season."
Programs that espouse development-centered values but hire exclusivity-minded coaches create a mismatch that damages everyone. Parents feel deceived. Athletes get caught between conflicting expectations. The program's stated philosophy rings hollow because the on-the-ground reality contradicts it.
Your hiring process is where this mismatch either gets caught or gets embedded. Every coach you bring on either reinforces your culture or undermines it. There's no neutral.
Why Standard Interviews Miss This
Traditional coaching interviews focus on the wrong things. They verify credentials, assess communication ability, and gauge general enthusiasm. These matter, but they don't reveal philosophy.
Ask a candidate "Do you believe in player development?" and they'll say yes. Ask "Is character important?" and they'll absolutely agree. Ask "Do you support multi-sport athletes?" and even the most exclusivity-minded coach will nod along, because they know the right answer.
Philosophy doesn't emerge from direct questions about philosophy. It emerges from scenario-based questions that force candidates to reveal how they actually think, what tradeoffs they'd make, and what they believe success looks like.
The coach who says all the right things about development but would bench a kid for missing practice due to a school basketball game has just told you their real philosophy. You just have to ask questions that make that visible.
The Development Mindset Scorecard
Build a scorecard that evaluates candidates across five dimensions of development-centered coaching. For each dimension, ask scenario-based questions that reveal philosophy, then score responses on a scale that distinguishes development-centered thinking from exclusivity thinking.
Dimension One: Multi-Sport Support
This dimension measures how the coach responds to athletes participating in multiple sports, particularly when those sports create scheduling conflicts.
Ask: "One of your better players tells you she made the school volleyball team and will miss Tuesday practices for the next two months. Walk me through how you'd handle this."
A development-centered response celebrates the multi-sport participation, works with the family on communication expectations, and adjusts without penalizing the athlete for playing another sport. The coach might mention that multi-sport athletes often develop better overall and that supporting her volleyball will make her a better soccer player too.
An exclusivity-leaning response shows frustration, mentions consequences for missing practice, expresses concern about "commitment level," or suggests the athlete needs to "choose priorities." The coach might frame the situation as a problem to be managed rather than a reality to be supported.
Score on a 1-5 scale where 5 represents enthusiastic multi-sport support and 1 represents clear preference for single-sport commitment.
Dimension Two: Age-Appropriate Expectations
This dimension measures whether the coach calibrates expectations to developmental stage rather than applying adult competitive frameworks to children.
Ask: "You're coaching U10 recreational soccer. A parent asks you what the goal should be for this season. What do you tell them?"
A development-centered response focuses on skill development, love of the game, learning to be part of a team, physical literacy, and fun. Winning might be mentioned as something that happens naturally when kids are engaged and improving, but it won't be the headline.
An exclusivity-leaning response emphasizes competitive goals, standings, preparing for "the next level," or building habits for future travel teams. The coach might talk about teaching kids to "compete" in ways that suggest adult competitive frameworks being applied to ten-year-olds.
Ask a follow-up: "What would make this season a success for you personally as a coach?"
Development-centered coaches measure success by athlete growth, engagement, and retention. Did kids improve? Did they enjoy coming to practice? Will they sign up again? Exclusivity-minded coaches measure success by competitive outcomes or by identifying "talented" players who can advance.
Dimension Three: Playing Time Philosophy
This dimension measures how the coach thinks about participation and what they believe kids deserve simply for being on the team.
Ask: "It's a close game in the second half. You have a player who struggles with the sport and hasn't had much playing time yet today. How do you handle it?"
A development-centered response at the recreational or developmental level prioritizes getting that player into the game because participation matters more than the outcome of any single contest. The coach might acknowledge the tension but comes down clearly on the side of the athlete's experience.
An exclusivity-leaning response prioritizes the competitive situation. The coach might rationalize keeping the struggling player on the bench "for their own good" or "because it wouldn't be fair to them to put them in a pressure situation." This framing often sounds reasonable but reveals that winning the game matters more than the player's participation.
Ask a follow-up: "How would you explain your playing time approach to parents at the start of the season?"
Listen for whether the coach sets clear expectations and follows them consistently, or whether they leave playing time ambiguous in ways that allow competitive considerations to dominate.
Dimension Four: Response to Pressure
This dimension measures how the coach handles pressure from parents, competitive situations, and the temptation to prioritize short-term results over long-term development.
Ask: "A parent corners you after a game and says their child should be playing more because they're one of the better athletes on the team. The parent is clearly frustrated. How do you respond?"
A development-centered response maintains boundaries while remaining respectful. The coach explains their approach, invites a scheduled conversation if needed, but doesn't change their philosophy based on parent pressure. They might acknowledge the parent's feelings without agreeing that playing time should be merit-based at this level.
An exclusivity-leaning response either capitulates to the pressure or responds with defensiveness that suggests they do see playing time as something to be "earned" rather than shared.
Ask another scenario: "Your team loses a game you felt you should have won because you rotated players evenly rather than playing your best lineup the whole game. How do you process that?"
Development-centered coaches are at peace with this outcome because they know rotation was the right decision regardless of the result. Exclusivity-minded coaches express regret or suggest they might make a different decision next time.
Dimension Five: Long-Term Athlete Perspective
This dimension measures whether the coach sees their role as serving athlete development across years or optimizing for immediate competitive success.
Ask: "What do you hope your players remember about being on your team ten years from now?"
Development-centered responses focus on love of the sport, confidence, teamwork, memories with friends, and lessons that transfer beyond athletics. The coach talks about who these kids become, not what they achieved.
Exclusivity-leaning responses focus on competitive achievements, toughness, learning to win, or athletic accomplishments. The coach talks about results and performance more than growth and experience.
Ask a follow-up: "If a player on your team decides after this season that they want to try a completely different sport, how would you view that?"
Development-centered coaches see this as a success. The athlete explored, discovered their preferences, and is continuing in sports. That's the goal. Exclusivity-minded coaches see this as a loss, a player who "didn't work out" or who "wasn't committed enough."
Using the Scorecard
Score each dimension on a 1-5 scale during the interview. A candidate who scores mostly 4s and 5s across all five dimensions is aligned with development-centered values. A candidate with mixed scores might be coachable but will need clear guidance and monitoring. A candidate who scores 2s and below on multiple dimensions is not a fit for a program that values multi-sport participation and child-centered development, regardless of their credentials or experience.
Consider setting a minimum threshold. Perhaps you require an average of 3.5 across all dimensions to proceed. Or perhaps any score below 3 on Multi-Sport Support is disqualifying because that dimension is so central to your program philosophy. Define your standards before you start interviewing so you're not rationalizing borderline candidates in the moment.
Use the scorecard consistently across all candidates. When you evaluate everyone against the same criteria, you can compare meaningfully and avoid letting charisma or credentials override philosophical fit.
Questions to Avoid
Some questions seem useful but actually tell you very little.
Avoid asking directly about philosophy. "Do you believe in development over winning?" will always get a yes. The answer is socially obvious. Scenario questions reveal actual beliefs.
Avoid hypotheticals that are too abstract. "How do you think about athlete development?" invites rehearsed answers. Concrete scenarios force candidates to make choices that reveal priorities.
Avoid leading questions that signal the right answer. "We're a development-focused program. How do you feel about that?" tells the candidate what to say. Keep your values implicit until the candidate has revealed their own thinking.
Red Flags That Should End the Conversation
Some responses should disqualify a candidate regardless of other strengths.
Any suggestion that athletes shouldn't play other sports, or that your program should be their primary commitment, is disqualifying for a development-centered program.
Language about "weeding out" less committed players, identifying who's "serious," or building a team of athletes who "want it more" suggests an exclusivity mindset that will damage your culture.
Dismissiveness about participation expectations, such as suggesting that equal playing time "doesn't prepare kids for real competition" or that struggling players "need to earn" minutes, reveals values incompatible with child-centered development.
Framing youth sports primarily in terms of preparation for high school, college, or professional athletics signals a perspective that sees childhood as a means to an end rather than a valuable experience in itself.
After the Hire
The scorecard helps you hire well, but hiring is only the beginning. Even coaches with strong development mindsets operate within the culture you create.
Set explicit expectations during onboarding. Share your program's philosophy in writing. Explain how you expect coaches to handle multi-sport conflicts, playing time, and parent pressure. Don't assume that because you hired someone aligned with your values, they'll automatically know what that looks like in practice.
Observe early and provide feedback. Watch new coaches in their first few weeks. Do their actions match what they said in interviews? If you see exclusivity patterns emerging, address them immediately before they become habits.
Create accountability mechanisms. Parent feedback, athlete surveys, and retention data all reveal whether coaches are living the values they professed. A coach whose teams have high attrition or frequent complaints about playing time may not be practicing what they preached.
Be willing to part ways. If a coach consistently demonstrates exclusivity culture despite feedback and support, they're the wrong fit regardless of their other qualities. Keeping them damages your program's culture and sends a message to other coaches that philosophy doesn't really matter.
The Culture You're Building
Every coach you hire either reinforces or erodes your program's values. There's no neutral position. A single coach with an exclusivity mindset can drive away families, create pressure that other coaches feel compelled to match, and undermine years of culture-building work.
The scorecard isn't about finding perfect candidates. It's about making philosophy visible before it becomes problematic. A candidate who scores moderately on development mindset can be coached and supported if you know where their gaps are. A candidate whose fundamental beliefs conflict with your program's values will create problems that no amount of feedback can fix.
You've worked hard to build a program that values multi-sport participation, child-centered development, and athletics as a vehicle for growth rather than a winnowing system for identifying elite talent. Protect that work by hiring coaches who share those values, not coaches who merely know how to describe them.
The interview is the last easy moment to ensure alignment. Once they're coaching, you're managing the consequences of whoever you chose to hire. Choose carefully.
Ian Goldberg is the CEO of Signature Media and the Editor of the largest and fastest growing sports parenting newsletter. He's been recognized as an industry expert by the National Alliance for Youth Sports, the US Olympic Committee's Truesport, and the Aspen Institute's Project Play. Ian is also a suburban NJ sports dad of two teenage daughters and has over 2,000 hours of volunteer time coaching them (which he calls the most fun form of R&D for his newsletter content). Ian and his team provide players, coaches, parents and program directors with the articles and content they need to have a great sports season. Ian has spent most of his career in digital product development and marketing and got his start at the White House where he worked for the economic advisors to two US Presidents.
