I don’t know that guy, but we’ve all known THAT guy or THAT lady at work, relative, in-law, et cetera.
They are not genuinely interested in others when engaging in such conduct, and much of this is gaslighting 101 and worse too.
The tell is often when your response is something like, “Well not now.”
Then they can be taken aback or not, but if they repeat the request at some future time it is not clumsy or awkward. It’s who they are and they almost always do persist and not for forthright or good reasons, including especially in a professional environment asking personal questions.
According to multiple sources, one of the most serious concerns was a meeting that occurred away from team facilities that included “several minutes” of looking through a phone. That was beyond the scope of what was initially understood to have occurred.
Well now we have for the first time some evidence of him doing something inappropriate, namely looking through someone’s phone. That wasn’t the case previously and as the article says he had already been previously been cleared by all involved including the NHLPA.
So indeed where there was some smoke there was at least a bit of fire or at least a small spark. In the past this would have been minor but in today’s culture you will lose your job.
I recommend that this example be used to remind spouses that they don’t have the right to look at your phone.
But yeah - the hardass, yell at players, pick on people, age is past. There are a lot of other ways to get your point across without that stuff.
That and most of the kids now - have been through juniors and they learn so much about the game they just want to learn what they need to do in your system.
Funny part is - there needs to be a relatability factor for the coach too. I know McTavish in has last year said that was why he was hanging it up. He felt like he didn’t relate to the guys well enough any more.
That and there are a lot of good young coaches around. Enough teams should stop recycling the same old guys over and over.
I am a casual hockey fan and mostly starting in January due to sports saturation in autumn, and like you I have taken an interest as well.
As noted above, my interest is because I figure most of us have at some point run into “that guy” at work or otherwise, and in my experience it’s never been a situation that worked out for the better when you have somebody who is generally so toxic to others.
Back in the last decade of the last millennium when I was in my early 20s, like a few other times, I once took a personality test for an insurance employer for a sales position. I was not a match. The results of the test were dead on though.
Now these tests, and there are several newer legal matters that arise before they are administered and as to how they are handled, are not terribly expensive and done online with an evaluation within one day for the better ones examined by a professional.
I don’t think those tests were $500 even back then, and I bet they are far less than that now as used by larger employers and the public sector.
Even one of those tests would indicate reliably many basic character traits in a person. Myers-Briggs is just one that comes to mind.
Maybe somebody here with experience in human resources or who works with these tests knows more on the matter.
As many of you have probably experienced as well, complete background searches, such as for public positions of trust and for licensing or bonding purposes, of course can cost far more and do take much longer.