The Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy - Part VI

Now that our long national nightmare, (the NBA labor impasse that resulted in almost a two-month delay in the start of the 2012 NBA season), is over, and a hectic, condensed schedule of 66 games is in full swing, it was only a matter of time before the next installment in the popular 'Jeff Van Gundy' series.JVG

Since it has been some time since the last dispatch in the JVG catalog, perhaps a brief re-set is in order.

Jeff Van Gundy, (JVG), is a former head coach of the NBA's New York Knicks and Houston Rockets. After leaving coaching in 2007, he embarked on what has been a successful career as a broadcaster, providing expert analysis for ESPN's NBA telecasts. JVG excels as an analyst not only for his basketball expertise, but for his good nature, wry humor, and keen insight into motivation, leadership, team dynamics - exactly the kinds of challenges faced every day in the corporate world. 

I have been watching NBA games forever, and chronicling just some of the Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy here on the blog for a while. You can catch up on the previous installments in the series if you wish here -  (Parts I, II, III, IV, and V).

So for this latest installment of the 'Wisdom of JVG' series, I call your attention to an observation JVG made in this week's Dallas Mavericks v. Boston Celtics game, a sloppy, uneven contest eventually won by Dallas. As the game wore on, and the poor play from what seemed like two tired teams continued, JVG offered this insight when talking about the Celtics' veteran star Ray Allen, a player known for a high work rate and dedication to the game.

Look at Ray Allen work. He has natural energy. No one has to 'motivate' him to run hard or to cut to the basket with force and purpose. He doesn't need to be prodded or pushed to give that level of effort. He just does it every night. 

_

JVG went on to talk about Allen's teammate Kevin Garnett in similar terms. But the larger point was that when the star players, the leaders, the team members that others look up to, set an example of pride, discipline, and dedication that it creates an environment where an expectation or a standard is set that in order to fit in, everyone else, who might not have all the physical gifts of Allen or Garnett have to follow. 

Organizations talk a lot about leadership development, building leadership pipelines, and the importance of leadership in the modern age. And while formal leadership capability is certainly important, I wonder if informal, in the trenches, and demonstrated by example leadership from those key players on the team that don't really have formal leadership titles or responsibility is equally important.

It's fantastic when the organization has an inspirational, charismatic, and effective leader at the top of the org chart. But it might be more important and influential in the long run to have more quiet leaders sprinkled throughout the organization that have that natural energy, setting the example for the rest of the team to follow.

For me, I'm just glad the NBA is back so I can try and mine for more 'JVG' posts!

Have a great weekend!

The Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy - Part V

The sage was at it again the other night during the Oklahoma City - Memphis NBA playoff game.

In case you don't know what I am referring to, former NBA head coach, and current TV analyst Jeff Van Gundy (JVG) dropped another bit of simple, yet essential knowledge about basketball that I think is also directly applicable to the workplace, management, and organizational dynamics.

By my reckoning, that is nothing new for JVG, and if you wish - you can check out the previous installments of the JVG 'wisdom' series here -  (Parts I, II, III, and IV).

But back to the story. During the game Oklahoma City forward Nick Collison made a smart play on defense to cause Memphis to lose the ball, hustled to the offensive end of the floor, and then positioned himself properly to make a scoring move when the ball was rotated to him in the flow of the offensive play. It was a brief series of actions that were not necessarily terribly athletic or skilled or even that remarkable, but as a kind of orchestrated series did add up to an excellent and winning (apologies Chas. Sheen) play.

Immediately after Collison, who is not a starting or star player on the team, completed the play, JVG observed that winning teams need guys like Collison, players that may not have all the physical skills of the top players on the team, but have found ways to contribute using capabilities and attributes that are mostly 'choices' and not simply genetic gifts.

The money line from JVG:

'Guys like Collison, guys that grind, are essential. The best ones are coachable, accountable, and professional. And you can win with guys like that.'

Coachable - willing to accept suggestions, able to make adjustments in style of play to fit the team goals, and cognizant that what may have worked in the past (in college, or on former pro team), might not be the desired behavior on the current team.

Accountable - understands the role, knows how the role impacts and contributes to the success of the team, makes the effort to put himself in the right situations, and simply does his job fully knowing the rest of the team depends on him to meet his objectives. And if other guys on the team, maybe the star players, are having an 'off' night, then he knows when to try and give a little more than normally needed.

Professional - in the narrow sense, we are all professional, i.e. we are paid to perform. But what JVG really meant was a level of personal integrity, pride, and dedication to himself as a player, to his teammates, and to the supporters of the team. This means showing up and giving your best effort even when times are tough, when the team is down, or when you are not meeting your personal objectives. It means being proud of your contribution in every game, and even every practice. It means setting an example for others to follow, even if you don't hold a formal title or leadership role.

Coachable, accountable, professional. All important. All under your control every day. Super talented people in any game or industry or field can get away with only one or two of these, and can still make incredible contributions to the organization. But if you are like most people, and are not in that rare category of naturally talented superstars, just focusing on being coachable, accountable and professional will go a long way in determining your success in any role.

And stacking your team, no matter what the game, with those kinds of players will make you look pretty smart as a leader as well.

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

Soft, Selfish, or Stupid

Last week in Boston the fifth annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference was held, and while sadly I was not in attendance, the excellent ESPN True Hoop blog provided an outstanding series of posts that offered summaries and commentary from the conference.Does he need more practice?

One of the True Hoop posts reviewed a panel discussion titled 'Birth to Stardom, Developing the Modern Athlete in 10,000 Hours?'. This panel was moderated by 'Outliers' author Malcolm Galdwell, famous for his '10,000 hours' theory, (the time one needs to put it to achieve mastery at any given skill), and included (among others), Steve's HR Technology favorite basketball analyst, the great Jeff Van Gundy.

The discussion centered around the modern athlete and the debate surrounding the age-old question of nature vs. nurture. Do sports stars have innate, natural ability that assures success, or are they developed due to the combination of training, early identification, and almost obsessive focus on performance? In other words, does the '10,000 hours' theory apply at the highest levels of athletics?

While in athletics, the inherent physical characteristics that place most of the top performers at an advantage can't realistically be debated (if you are only 5' 3", putting in the 10,000 hours still likely won't land you in the NBA), what is open to discussion is the relative importance in athletic achievement of 'nurture', and the necessity of supremely physically talented athletes to diligently practice, refine, and improve their skills over time. As we know, many of the games greatest stars were not necessarily the hardest workers (see Iverson, Allen in 'Talkin' About Practice').

And certainly the access to and the involvement of mentoring and coaching play a role in athletic development as well; even the most dedicated pracitioner will need guidance along the path, and coaches have to be prepared to adapt their approaches to better fit the talents and goals of the athletes.

In the end, there seemed to be agreement (perhaps obvioulsly), that for most athletes, a combination of 'nature', (raw, physical traits and ability), combined with 'nurture' (work habits, dedication, ability to accept coaching), were necessary conditions for athletes to achieve their greatest potential.  Sure, it could be argued whether the '10,000 hours' level is really relevant in athetics (often the length of time needed to put it 10,000 hours would result in a loss due to aging and injuries of some of the raw physical abilities needed to succeed), but the basic equation of Raw Talent + Hard Work = Success seems to hold.

But beyond the obvious conclusion, the great Jeff Van Gundy offered up this nugget of wisdom, observing that all players that arrive in the NBA have at least a baseline of physical ability, i.e. there are no slow, short, unathletic players, but the real differentiators were more intangible.  According to JVG professional athletes need to balance the physical with the attitudinal.

JVG's money line: “Soft, selfish or stupid. You can be one of these things, but you can’t be two.” 

Super point, and one that likely applies beyond sports as well. While we all have this idea in our minds when we are managing, leading, or recruiting for our organizations of what the 'perfect' or 'high potential' employee looks like, the reality is those 'perfect' employees and candidates are almost impossible to define and to find. But often we don't admit this, and we just keep grinding, keep sourcing to uncover that one person out there that isn't 'soft, selfish, or stupid', when in reality we could live with having two of the three characteristics, and manage around the one that is missing.

The greatest players certainly, win on all three variables, but the other 95% that make up our teams, (and almost all of us) will fall short of at least one of them. Maybe instead of holding on to a mostly unrealistic chase for a once-in-a-generation star, we build up a solid team of role players that can feed off each other, and perhaps make up for one another's shortcomings, (as well as yours).

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.

The Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy - Part III

He is at it again!

The great Jeff Van Gundy, former NBA head coach for the New York Knicks and the Houston Rockets and current TV analyst, who has been the subject of not one, but two posts here on the blog, gave us more sage wisdom to chew on during the telecast of Game 3 of the NBA Finals between the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers this past Tuesday night.

During a timeout the camera cut to a shot of the Lakers team huddle, and we saw the team's star and best player Kobe Bryant emphatically and forcefully giving instructions to several of his teammates. Bryant had the rapt attention of the other players, and while the audio did not pick up what he was actually saying, it was clear from facial expressions and body language that he was delivering a tough message. Perhaps a message that the other players were uncomfortable hearing.

Observing this activity in the huddle, JVG shared with us this gem: 

You don't want your best player to be your best liked player.

Think about that one. When the best player is also the leader of the team, that often means having to get in the other player's faces, to make sure that the effort and passion is there, and also to simply instruct and coach.  When the best player takes on those responsibilities, and stops worrying about being 'liked' all the time, chances are overall team performance will improve. 

Being the 'best' carries with it another level of commitment not only to personal excellence, but to doing the kinds of things that can impact the performance of the other players on the team.  In basketball that may mean sharp criticism, aggressive play in team practices (Michael Jordan was notorious for this), and putting in extra time in the weight room or doing additional running or sprints.

In the workplace the same kind of rules can apply. When the 'best' or most respected employee consistently sends the right message, displays a high level of integrity, actively supports and coaches the newer members of the team, and essentially models the kind of behaviors that indicate the expected 'way we do things', then the other members of the team, and the overall organization can improve, and can win.

It doesn't really work in the converse, a sports team can almost never be led by the last guy on the bench.  He or she may understand the key leadership skills, but without that respect or standing that comes with actually excelling on the court or field then it is less likely the team will choose to follow.

In basketball, there are dozens of 'best' players, but there are only a precious few great players.

Inside organizations that same ratio probably applies.  Every group has their best performer, but only a few make an impact on the team and the organization in the broader sense. 

And you don't necessarily get there by being liked all the time.