Good to hear from you, Jim.

As for your questions:

1a. What do you think makes business books by athletic coaches so popular (Rick Pitino, Nick Saban, etc.)? 

Not to be cynical, but these books are published AFTER the players (not the coaches) win championships. In many cases, I think the coaches are lucky, but I do credit them with finding players. Think about Vince Lombardi. He coached about 20 years for the Giants, but who remembers that? Then he takes over the dismal Green Bay Packers and goes on a great seven-year run with about a dozen Hall of Famers. 

All the coaches can do is create a mystique (that book buyers mistakenly think can be applied in a business setting). Coach K at Duke comes to mind. Duke was a doormat until 1986 and under Coach Foster went to the final four. At that time, a “Hoosierâ€ type of dream emerged. UNC already had its championship, the great 1957 achievement against Kansas and a guy named Wilt. Who was Kansas’s rival before then? No team. Now UNC is prominent and so Duke, just 8 miles down the road, hires a young coach from Army: Coach K. His first few seasons were dismal, but the rest is history. Success = books.

The somewhat skewed parallel (which would then not be parallel by definition) is that “team conceptsâ€ can be applied to a corporate situation. But companies are not teams, meaning none of the employees chose their “teammatesâ€ but in sports this often happens. You have to want to play with others as a group/team to succeed. Corporate situations are a “team by chance and circumstanceâ€ and managers (i.e., would-be coaches) think that sports coaches’ concepts are applicable. Not so. Corporate units are just units but teams are teams, and teams always have a clearer goal (championship) than units (pay raises, bonuses, transfers, affairs, etc.).

Companies are not teams. Teams are formed by choice, and companies are a junkyard filled by Human Resource Departments.

1b. How do you think my work's focus on the athlete's mind differs from books with an emphasis on the coaches perspective?

I think your  answer is in your  question: you focus on the athlete, not the coach. You are not a coach creating a mythology but rather an “internalâ€ coach for each athlete. You’re specific, coaches are general. There is no luck in your approach, as the performance results reflect on an athlete’s self-specific performance. In your terms, the player wins or loses not the coach. So keep your focus on the six-inch or so court, fairway, racetrack or whatever playing field is between the player’s ears. That is what you do. Let the coaches conduct the equivalent of tent revivals during the season, and particularly during the offseason, while you help the athletes help themselves.