Doc Rivers and Buying In to the System

Even though the Miami LeBrons dropped a discouraging loss on the Boston Celtics last night in the NBA Eastern Conference playoffs, the Celtics run over the last several years, (including an NBA title in 2008), has been one of the most compelling stories in all of sports. An experienced, veteran team, led by three aging hall of fame caliber players, (Pierce, Garnett, Allen), and driven on the court by a mercurial and fabulously talented young point guard, Rajon Rondo, that together present a unique set of challenges in terms of management and coaching. How to keep star players who were always the leaders and best players on every team they'd ever played on happy in a system that, in order to achieve sustained success, often demands that individual egos be sublimated to the greater good. How to blend in new and talented players like Rondo, and lesser (but still important), additional players to fill needed roles on the squad.

It is easy, and in fact every professional sports team and coach talks about the need for players in a team sport to be willing to sacrifice their individual goals at times for the benefit of the team's goals, but very often all the talk is well, just talk. For a myriad of reasons many players and teams never can reach that point where team goals are seen as more important that player's individual goals. Particularly on the professional level where each player might have one eye on his next contract, which very likely will be enhanced by his ability to post impressive individual scoring statistics, whether or not these statistics are achieved in the context of team play.

The fact that everyone talks about 'team play' and 'team goals' and very few teams ever seem to manage to actually buy-in to the concept, makes this short video (embedded below, email and RSS subscribers will need to click through), from Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers worth  two-and-a-half-minutes of your time on Friday. Rivers lays out the three simple, yet hard to pull off things a leader needs to do to get the best performance out of a team.

Short and sweet, but really a key point. Role players in the NBA, and perhaps even in your organization, don't necessarily see themselves as just role players. In order to get them, as well as the stars and former stars of team, to accept and truly buy-in to the overall team concept you really have to three things firmly in place.

One - First, the team has to buy-in to the leader as someone they trust and believe can lead them

Two - The team and each player has to buy-in to the actual business or team strategy and see it as a winning approach

Three - They have to understand their individual role and beyond that, have to see how the effective or exceptional performance of their individual role is essential for team success.

This last one seems to me the most important and often the most overlooked. We talk a lot in talent and performance management about things like goal alignment and line of sight and making sure employees and team members understand and buy-in to the organizational mission. And those things are certainly important and necessary. But that last bit that Rivers talks about in the video, that every player on the team needs to believe that their individual contribution is absolutely critical to the team's success, and that every contribution is essential in order to win, well it seems to me that part of the 'buy-in' formula often gets underplayed.

There are lots of variables and components that have to be assembled in just the right way to have a winning basketball team as well as a effective and productive work team. In the clip above Doc Rivers lays out his take on what a leader needs to install in order to get everyone on the team bought in and he does it in under three minutes. Nicely done Doc.

Now just take all the extra time on your hands and figure out how to keep LeBron from dropping 50 on you in Game 7.

Have a Great Weekend!

Regretful Turnover and Saying Goodbye to the NJ Nets

Yesterday the NBA's New Jersey Nets played their final game in their soon to be former home court in Newark, New Jersey. Next season the team moves to its latest new home, this one a brand new arena in Brooklyn, NY, where they hope their fortunes will improve, the basketball hotbed of New York City will embrace them as the 'other' NYC team, (NYC will always be the Knicks town), and more highly prized free agent stars will be more likely to want to play for the team.

In the USA, professional sports franchises are usually seen as community assets, and when new franchises become available, either through league expansion or the occasional team relocation as in the Nets' case, you typically see cities trying to one-up each other for the chance to have one of these pro teams call their city 'home'. While the long-term economic benefits that accrue to a city or even a neighborhood from having local professional sports are certainly debatable, that usually has not stopped cities from making concessions, raising local taxes, funding arena construction and committing to infrastructure improvements and the like, in order to attract or in some cases retain a pro sports team for their city.

But not all locals or more specifically local government officials feel the same way about pro sports teams, at least not every sports team. In the case of the Nets' exodus from New Jersey, Garden State Governor Chris Christie offered these remarks among others (emphasis mine) :

''My message to them is, goodbye,'' Christie said at an afternoon news conference at Newark Beth Israel Hospital where he signed a bill to promote organ and tissue donation. ''You don't want to stay, we don't want you.''

''That's one of the most beautiful arenas in America they have a chance to play in, it's in one of the country's most vibrant cities, and they want to leave here and go to Brooklyn?'' he asked. ''Good riddance, see you later. I think there'll be some other NBA team who may be looking to relocate and they might look at that arena and the fan base in the New Jersey and New York area and say, 'This is an opportunity to increase our fan base and try something different.'''

Christie could be forgiven for not expressing any sadness or disappointment at the loss of the Nets, given their 35-year history playing in New Jersey has been mostly unsuccessful, uninspiring, and uninteresting. Apart from 2 appearances in the NBA finals in the early 2000's, the Nets have largely been a forgettable bunch, (this player being the exception).

But even still, Christie's ripping of the Nets and their decision to leave New Jersey offers us a chance to think about what we do and say in our own organizations when faced with a dissapointing resignation of an employee that we truly need, one that we fought hard to land, and that for we perhaps even made some concessions in our own hiring and business processes to secure.

Big giant flame-out resignation letters (or blog posts or videos), on the employee side often make the news. It is always fun to read about the dirt and dysfunction of organizations we know and sometimes admire. Usually, unlike our pal Christie, employers take the high road, refrain from commenting publicly, and go on with their business hopefully addressing any truths or lessons learned as needed.

Bashing someone on the way out, for making the best career decision for them, seems like an incredibly petty and short-sighted approach to handling regretful turnover. Unless you can honestly say you were deceived or can prove you have been played, (neither true in the Nets' case), then I think you'd be much better off wishing the departing employee well, taking actions to stay in touch, and working your angle as 'This is still a great place to work' as you walk the person out the door.

Sure sometimes that can be really tough. And sure it is much, much easier to bark 'good riddance', but aside from giving you about 30 seconds of hollow satisfaction, how does that really help your cause?

And all this spoken as a New Jersey native who never cared one bit about the Nets!

March Madness and the problem of peaking too soon

Taking a bit of a risk running back-to-back sports posts this week, but I need to make sure that Tim Sackett doesn't surpass me in next year's 8 Man Rotation E-book, but after watching some more (not all that much, admittedly), of the NCAA Men's College Basketball tournament, ('March Madness'), I wanted to weigh in with a short observation and perhaps note some parallels to work, specifically what can happen when projects drag out too long.Bill Russell - 1956

Here's the observation - March Madness is the only major sports-related championship tournament (or playoff or process) that actually gets less interesting and compelling as it progresses. At the start of the 68 team tourney, fans and casual observers around the country are excited and energized, eagerly filling out tournament brackets where we pick winners of games played by teams we have never seen play, and often never even heard of. These bracket challenges, even when just for bragging rights amongst friends and co-workers, give us more of a stake and rooting interest in the action. The tournament's first full round is usually highlighted by a few startling upsets, adding to the overall sense of excitement and hype. And since many of these early games are played on weekdays during 'normal' working hours in most of the USA, (something that almost never happens in major US sports any longer), for many fans taking an extended lunch, or sneaking some looks at the online live stream from the office add to the fun. Lots of games, some underdogs, (not that many) winning, and for at least the first day or two, a chance to maybe even win some cash if your bracket seems to be holding up well.

But once the tournament progresses and the teams are whittled down from 64 to 32 to 16, the excitement generally trails off. Most 'Cinderella'-type early upset winners lose in their next game, (not always but pretty often), our bracket selections begin to start unravelling as it is revealed that picking winners in college games is not in our core competencies, and the several day break in the middle of the tournament tends to take the air out of the entire spectacle.  And as the rounds progress knocking the field down to 8 and then the Final Four, traditional powers of the sport usually re-emerge, and fans are subjected to what seems like hours of platitudes from network announcers about the remarkable leadership skills displayed by middle-aged million-dollar head coaches.  By the very end, many fans are left to ask questions like, 'This thing isn't over yet?', and 'Do we really need another Rick Pitino book?'

March Madness is great, spectacular even for about two days and then it slowly loses steam, energy, and becomes far less compelling as it meanders to its finish. Sure, the actual championship game sometimes provides a bit of a spark, but often becomes immediately forgettable once the last strains of 'One Shining Moment' fade away. And if you don't get the reference, that is ok, 97% of the rest of the public is right there with you. Only the most ardent fans could tell you who won the championship just one year ago, and I challenge anyone reading this post to name the title winners from 2010 or 2009 without looking it up.

So that's my observation about March Madness. Starts great, loses momentum, drags on too long, then lifts a bit at the end, and finally most of us are really glad its over.

Seems to have quite a few elements in common with many of the projects that work on all the time. Lots of fanfare at the beginning, maybe a lavish kick-off meeting and some rousing speeches, then quickly morphing into a kind of long slog with many fewer people remaining engaged, then hopefully, a success at the end, (a shipment, a 'go-live', a completed contract), almost immediately folllowed by an Outlook invitation for a 'lessons learned' or 'post-mortem' meeting.

People love March Madness. And most of us love new projects and the excitement of that bit of the unknown inherent in both.

The trick is to make that excitement sustainable past the opening night. 

Why You're Wrong about LeBron James

Subtitled : I am not sure I completely believe what I am about to argue in the post either, but someone had to take an opposite position.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts of the case are these:

1. Last summer two-time league MVP, consensus best player in the NBA, and one of the best all-around players in league history LeBron James, a free agent no longer under contract with his team of seven seasons the Cleveland Cavaliers, elected to sign a contract to play for the Miami Heat. The 'decision' by James to join the Heat was panned not so much for the actual business and competition factors, but rather for the manner in which it was announced - a one-hour TV special on ESPN, that in combination with the backlash against James from the jilted Cleveland community, ended up backfiring on James, portraying him as an out-of-touch, arrogant, self-important and egocentric person.  

2. James, (and his new teammates Heat stars Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh), compounded the PR disaster spawned by 'The Decision', with an over-the-top, flashy, introduction event in Miami, where James and the others (in uniform), pranced around a smoke-filled stage and opined about winning not just one NBA title, but 'six, seven, eight... ' titles. I am paraphrasing a bit, but you get the idea.

3. The Heat concluded an up and down season, (it was painful at times to watch these three star players attempt to co-exist on the court, when each was accustomed to being 'the man'), with a 58-24 record, good for first place in the NBA's Southeast Division, and the third-best overall record in the league.

4. Entering the NBA playoffs the Heat then defeated in succession the Atlanta Hawks; their nemesis, the Boston Celtics; and the league's top regular season team the Chicago Bulls. Each series was decided 4 games to 1, making the Heat an impressive 12-3 in the first three playoff rounds.

5. In the NBA finals, the Heat were defeated by the Dallas Mavericks, a veteran team playing at the top of their form, 4 games to 2. James was harshly criticized for poor play in the series, particularly in the 4th quarters of Games 4, 5, and 6 (all Dallas victories). James lack of production in these situations served in stark contrast to Dallas leader Dirk Nowitzki, who consistently made big plays and shots to lead Dallas to the title.

6. Immediately following the Game 6 loss, James further damaged his already shaky reputation by implying that people hoping he and the Heat would lose would 'got to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before.' While James would also have to wake up and continue his life, strongly implying that his life, with his millions of dollars, mansions, private jets etc. was somehow superior to yours, mine, and pretty much everyone else's.

These are the basic facts of the case, my apologies for going on so long about them prior to mounting my apologist defense for King James.

If you are like my friends and fellow bloggers Kris Dunn at the HR Capitalist, or John Hollon at TLNT.com, you have taken LeBron to task for arrogance, lack of humility, inability to win or lose gracefully, and over-confidence. While Kris and John and the hundreds of other writers that have participated in the LeBron dogpile have their points, I'll offer three (hope I can come up with three), reasons why they and you are wrong (or at least a little hypocritical) about LeBron.

1. History 

LeBron is most often compared, unfavorably, to Michael Jordan, the greatest player in NBA history. Jordan won six titles with the Bulls, the first one in his seventh season in the league. This was on a team with another all-time Top 50 player in Scottie Pippen and the greatest coach of all time, Phil Jackson. LeBron just completed his 8th season in the league falling just two games short of winning his first title. And since he started his NBA career at a younger age, LeBron is only 26, while Jordan was 28 when he claimed his first title.

Sure, maybe we take shots at LeBron because he compares unfavorably to Jordan, but lets not forget Jordan was a a transcendent, once in 50 years or so player. Everyone compares unfavorably to Jordan. No matter what line of business you are in, be in basketball, software development, or running a company, chances are you won't hold up well either when compared to the legends of your field. 

2. We like to selectively remember

LeBron left Cleveland, and several million dollars in salary on the table, to play for Miami in a situation that he (rightly) assessed as providing a better opportunity to win the title. In sports, fans usually take to task players that are perceived as being only in it for the money. Now LeBron likely earns so much from off the court endeavors that the few million he walked away from in Cleveland did not play into his decision rationale all that much, but it still sets him apart from probably 90% of professional athletes whose primary objective is to wrest every last dollar from their team. LeBron gets bashed for taking proactive steps in his career management to attempt to improve his chances to win and we kill him.

Remember that Cleveland team that LeBron single-handedly dragged to the finals in 2007? That was the worst team I have ever seen that actually made the finals. LeBron was not going to win in Cleveland. But he played out his contract, did not whine to the press and try to force his way out via a trade, and exercised his right to choose the team that best fit his goals and career aspirations. The same process any of us would do. And that over the top 'Decision' TV show? We usually fail to mention that show raised over $2M for the Boys and Girls Clubs, one of James' favorite charities. Finally our friend Michael Jordan, who we like to compare LeBron with since we know LeBron can't measure up, let's also not forget how he quit his team to pursue an irrational dream of playing major league baseball, only to come back a year later.

3. You're only angry because LeBron didn't win

Much of the heat LeBron is getting is not so much because he and the rest of the Heat bragged, strutted, and pranced around before they had won anything, but because in fact they did not win. We give lots of slack to arrogant winners, not so much to arrogant losers. We look back with reverence about the famous Larry Bird three point contest story, where Bird famously derided his competition prior to the event by telling them they 'were all playing for second place', and then proceeded to win the contest. We can either take shots at arrogance or take shots at talking too much and not backing it up, but it seems a bit hypocritical to have it both ways. In business and in sports, we want our leaders to be confident, to project strength and resolve, we need to have someone to follow into the competition.  Do you really want a person leading your team or your company that doesn't predict victory? If all LeBron ever said was 'We will take one game at a time' and 'We have to continue to work hard', the media would kill him for being a drone or a cliche-spewing dullard..

4. (Hey, I actually thought of another reason) - There are bad guys everywhere.

LeBron is an easy target, in fact he has placed the target right on his back. But the fact that the target is there doesn't mean we need to take shots at it. But professional sports is full of guys of questionable character, that have had run-ins with the law, and a demonstrated history of bad behavior. In fact some of those kinds of guys play for the Dallas team that everyone adopted as some kind of rag-tag, Hoosiers-like plucky band of underdogs, (who were led by Dirk Nowitzki and his $17.2M salary). If you don't believe me, just Google 'Jason Kidd domestic violence' or 'Deshawn Stephenson arrested'. Sure blast LeBron for being arrogant or out-of-touch, but let's not give guys who have done much, much worse things a pass while we are at it.

Well there it is, my 1400-word defense of LBJ. While I am sure I have not convinced most of you, especially the Cleveland fans, I hope that I made you pause just a bit to think about LeBron in a wider context. Let me have it in the comments...

Have a great weekend!

The Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy - Part IV

It has been a while, and certainly not for a lack of watching the NBA on ESPN on my part, but after a fairly long break, the latest installment of the ‘Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy’ series is back. JVG The Wise

As a reminder, Jeff Van Gundy (JVG), is a current analyst on ESPN’s NBA broadcast coverage, a former head coach of the New York Knicks and Houston Rockets, and a provider of consistently insightful observations and commentary on leadership, teamwork, and talent management.

Earlier installments of the JVG series can be found here - (Part I, Part II, Part III).

For this installment, I submit for your consideration an observation JVG made during a recent game telecast on the importance of star players to the overall (potential) success of the team -

If you want to be great, you have to have guys that are irreplaceable

JVG was talking about a basketball team, but I think the message and idea is broadly applicable to most workplace teams, whether they are creating systems, designing processes, or developing new and innovative products and services. ‘Irreplaceable’ is certainly relative, and in the workplace almost definitely transitory, as most groups do in fact carry on when star employees leave. But the essential idea that the team, in order to be truly great, (in basketball terms defined simply and clearly as winning championships), must have at least some superstar talent, and not just a collection of good, serviceable, and reliable players.

What are some of the implications of having irreplaceable talent?

Commitment - you have to be fully committed to acquiring, supporting, and quite frankly recognizing and rewarding top talent.  You have to, at times, demonstrate to these irreplaceable stars that you are willing to create an environment where they can showcase their talents and actually achieve great things.  You may have to bend or even break the rules sometime, as truly irreplaceable talent can take their talents to many willing and competing organizations. Finally, top talent often wants to go where other irreplaceable talent can be found. Just paying them may not be enough, (see James, LeBron).

Overall Talent Level - In sports, irreplaceable talent is often credited with raising the performance of the supporting cast.  In basketball this can be attributed to superior talent, e.g. making better passes that create easy shots for teammates, drawing more attention from opposing defenses, and inspiring other players to work harder and perform better to live up to the star’s standards and expectations. Making the rest of the team better is a trait ascribed to the very best basketball players, and I bet is also seen as a positive attribute of the best employees on any team. Whether its dealing with the toughest customers, solving the most complex issues, or skillfully navigating the company politics, irreplaceable talent creates a kind of vacuum effect that creates more opportunity for others to raise their games as well.

Confidence - As a basketball player when you walk into the locker room and you see a Magic Johnson or a Michael Jordan lacing up the sneakers, you are suddenly filled with confidence, enthusiasm, and belief that you are not only on a good team, but a great team that has the legitimate chance to win titles. Really successful workplace teams and organizations have the kind of talent, that one person that everyone can look to and (sometimes quietly), think ‘We got this, we have some superstar players on this team. Let’s get after it’.  When you have those kinds of situations, you had better treasure them, because one they are gone, and the ‘irreplaceable’ talent moves on, it can be a cruel shock.  As one-time Celtics coach Rick Pitino famously remarked after the departures of irreplaceable talent -  ‘Larry Bird is not walking through that door’.

It is often remarked and observed that organizations need solid workers, ones that come in every day, get the assigned work done on time and in an acceptable manner, don’t cause any trouble in the office, and go home. And that is certainly true. But an entire team, or organization, made up of these kind of role players is unlikely to be great, the kind of greatness that becomes transformative, enduring, and even legendary.  

If you want to be great, you have to have guys that are irreplaceable.

One last thing, JVG was clear to stress the ‘want’ part of the equation, simply having irreplaceable talent guarantees nothing, just a shot at greatness.

And that my friends, is the Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy.