[If you are TLDR, just read the last sentence.] This is from a Training Magazine article from 1988, by Thomas and Marilyn Gilbert. They were performance experts, and believed the following general rules:

1. Exemplary performers differ very little from average ones, but the differences are enormously valuable.

2. It’s vitally important to observe exemplary performers instead of just interviewing them.

Then they turn their attention to Bear Bryant. When interviewed, he might say his success came from selecting great players, inspiring them to perform well, and letting them know he cared about them. The Gilberts said this is bunk. This is the meat of what they learned from observing Bryant at work, rather than talking to him about it:

“Bryant practices what we call observation-based training. He had reliable observations of exactly how his exemplary performers did their jobs, and he established that performance as an objective to be reached by players at every position. He had cameras and specialist viewing each position, gathering detailed information. For example, the expert on right defensive guards observed the feet of right defensive guards….

Cameras filled the field…. He was gathering data. When a boy consistenly moved his feet wrong, Bryant had him on film. To make him feel bad so he’d promise to do better next time? No. A player saw the films only when he was unable to correct his mistakes…he used the films only to distill useful information.

How did he get his players to adjust? He showed them films of exemplary players at their positions. To inspire them? No to provide them with exact models of what he wanted. They could see, in slow motion, precisely how a great offensive center placed hi hands on the ball, how he positioned his fee andhips, and how he moved hisknees on particular kinds of plays.

Here’s something else we saw him do. He provided his players with regular and frequent feeback—just as positive as he could structure. “I focus on their progress, not their failures…” Hardly an hour went by that assistant coaches weren’t shoing the boys where and how they stood.. But we was nobody berating them if they did badly nor hugging them if they did well….They told the boys where they stood, how much they were improving and what they could do to improve further. And they left it at that. All the hugging and hollering was saved until after a victory, when the press could see it.

Thus, training, to Bear Bryant, consisted of about 1 percent talk, 20 percent observation of exemplary performers on video, and the remainder doing the job with a lot of feedback and coaching.”

“Certainly we should interview the performers we study as well as observe them. In fact, we gleaned an especially good lesson from Bryant as wer were interviewing him while observing him. “You sure use a lot of cameras,” we noted. “Care to comment?”

Bryant stared down at Denney Field until we thought he hadn’t heard the question. Then, thoughfully, he drawled, “If I were coaching a boxer, every inch would count. If he develops a habit of throwing his left jab an inch too high or an inch too low, he’s going to get battered. To prevent that, I’d have to observe him carefully, since he has no way of knowing. It’s the same with my team, except there are 11 of them throwing a left jab all at once. So we have to observe them, inform them and train them. And you can’t do this sloppily. The winning coach is the one who does these things extremely well.”

“But Coach,” we protested, “what about all that talk of leadership and inspiration being your keys to success?”

“Aw, most people like to hear that s*,” Bryant replied. “Winning inspires my boys.”