Billy D - The Journey

https://x.com/TheHoopHerald/status/1974078931927216158

“If you’re goal is the trophy and not the journey, you are going to be disappointed with the result.”

Success

“Success has many fathers. Defeat is an orphan.” - John F. Kennedy

Nick Saban - Transformational

“Negative experiences without teaching kill morale.”

https://x.com/gb1121/status/1972443300264087996

Ryder Cup Leadership

Paul Azinger shares his thoughts on his leadership approach in pulling together a Ryder Cup team with The Athletic:

When Paul Azinger took over as the captain of the United States team ahead of the 2008 Ryder Cup, the Americans were at an all-time low.

They had lost three straight Ryder Cups for the first time ever, and Azinger’s 12-man team eventually included six rookies.

Azinger’s crew went out and crushed the Europeans at Valhalla in Louisville, Ky. Azinger won acclaim for his unconventional approach to the biennial competition between the best players from the United States and the best from Europe. Azinger created a “pod” system, in which he grouped players into four-man mini teams that stayed together throughout the three-day event. (He wrote a book about the process titled “Cracking the Code.”)

I love the Ryder Cup. I also find it to be an especially interesting lens through which to look at leadership. Golf, by its nature, is an individual sport. There is no one else to blame for a bad shot. (Although who hasn’t tried to blame a bad lie or a surprise gust of wind for a shank?) And yet every two years some of the best individual golfers in the world must come together and form a cohesive team.

Ahead of this year’s Ryder Cup, which starts on Friday, I called Azinger to talk about exactly that.

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

There’s such an inherent contradiction between golf as an individual sport and the Ryder Cup as a team event. What was the biggest challenge that you had to figure out or solve in that regard?

My goal was to figure out how to get 12 guys to bond in a span of about three or four days to go play their best. I started to realize that it was impossible to get 12 guys to bond. So I ended up creating these four-man pods, these four-man teams, because it was easier for four people to bond.

I copied it from a Navy SEALs concept of team-building, which is where you take large groups and break them down into smaller groups. And then I took it a step further by using like-personality types. I observed their personalities. I had Dr. Ron Braund with me, who really helped me. We understood the personality styles and types that we were looking to identify, whether they were dominant/controlling or steady/supportive or influencing/relaters. Just through observation. They didn’t fill anything out. Once we told Ron who these personality types were, he put them together creating green-light, caution-light and red-light personality types that you don’t want together.

We tried to get all green lights together on our four-man teams, and that was our secret. It was very structured and it worked.

I read that you came across this Navy SEALs idea through the wonderful habit of not changing the channel and you stumbled across a show about it on TV.

I watched a documentary — I don’t know if it was on National Geographic or Discovery. But I was interested in how they took the larger groups and made them into small groups. I just immediately thought about the Ryder Cup. Instantly.

Payne Stewart and I used to talk about the Ryder Cup all the time and try to figure out how to create more continuity because every captain does his own thing. Europe’s not like that. Everybody on the European side does pretty much the same thing. They have the same formula. We don’t.

I think this concept made it easier to pair players, and the players did truly bond. I put all the onus on them because they’re professionals, and I let them do their thing. The only thing you’re really able to do as a captain is create an environment. You hope it’s a good one and it’s one that gets the most out of them.

I wanted them to be confident. I wanted them to be sure of themselves. That was me messaging and then I just let the pod system take care of itself.

They strategized among themselves who was going to play alternate shot, who was going to play best ball. They were all empowered within their little four-man groups, and I think that made a big difference. They told me who would play alternate shot and who would play best ball in their pods. It was brilliant.

Why was empowering them so important to you?

I kind of did it at the last minute because I had so many choices from who to pick from who were good personality types. It gave me another chance to re-explain to the players how we were doing it and then I was able to say: “I’m going to empower you. I’m going to give you ownership. I’m going to let you pick who fills out your pod.”

So the three guys that I had in each pod picked the fourth player. They’d all run through a wall for each other.

Stay in the know by selecting your interests on The Athletic:

The pods picked Hunter Mahan, they picked Chad Campbell and they picked J.B. Holmes.

Sorry to cut you off, but can you take one pod and explain to me what the personality type was, why they were in the same pod and what you mean when you say they picked the fourth person?

I gotcha. So I picked Steve Stricker as a captain’s pick as the ninth man on the team. Then we had three three-man teams we created where we had the green light personalities together.

The next step was, who is going to fill out the last spot for each of those three-man teams? I decided to call the aggressive pod first. I called all three of these guys individually: Justin Leonard, Anthony Kim and Phil Mickelson. Those three together, I gave them a list of six players that they could choose from that I thought were playing well enough and were green light personality types for their pod. I told them I wanted the three of them to call each other and get back to me in an hour and let me know who they want to fill out their pod.

They ended up picking Hunter Mahan, so I got to call Hunter and say: “Look, man, this is how we’re doing it. I’m never taking you out of your four-man group unless there is an injury or illness. You guys are going to prepare together, have a strategy together and those three guys could have picked a number of players and they picked you, Hunter.”

Now those four guys love each other, just like that. That’s how that worked.

I think I misunderstood initially. I thought you had already picked all the players for the team. But they picked Hunter Mahan not to be just in their pod but to actually be on the Ryder Cup team. Almost like a captain’s selection.

Oh yeah.

Same with Steve Stricker, Stewart Cink and Ben Curtis. Those three guys all had made the team. That was the steady/supportive personality group, and I let those three guys choose between Rocco Mediate, Scott Verplank or Chad Campbell. I told them: “I’m giving you ownership of your pod. I’m going to let you who fills out your group. You can choose from these three players.” And they chose Chad.

Paul Azinger, right, celebrates with Justin Leonard after winning the 2008 Ryder Cup. (Photo by Richard Sellers / Sportsphoto / Allstar via Getty Images)

The pod thing is what made you famous as a Ryder Cup captain. But the part I find most interesting is the personality part of it. How did you arrive at that point where you said: “Instead of trying to match skillsets, I want to match personalities.”

I completely ignored the skill set part. I figured they were all massively talented players.

I asked Ron Braund to help me and I explained to him the Navy SEALs concept. He was curious because he doesn’t know anything about golf. He said, “How are you going to put them in their small groups?” I said: “Well, we usually put like games together. Long hitters with great wedge players. Stuff like that.” And he asked me: “Have you ever considered putting similar personality types together like Myers-Briggs?”

It probably was three months later and we talked more about it and I decided that was how I wanted to do it.

It was really Ron who wanted to do the personality-type thing. And I didn’t even know how to explain Ron to people. I told people he was my runner or my shrink – I don’t know what I called him. But he was really my assistant, and I would say to him: “Man, I’ve got to say something to Anthony Kim right now.” And he’d say: “Well, you’ve got to challenge that guy. Go challenge him.” You had to challenge one guy and encourage the next.

So I walked up to Anthony Kim and I looked at him and said: “Bro, I thought you were going to show off for me today. You’re showing me squat.” He was like: “Relax, man. They’re not going to beat us.”

I think that was the biggest nuance that’s never been duplicated or repeated. I heard for a while after that Mickelson was in the team room. He loved what we did. He was using biorhythms and all this weird stuff to try to get foursomes together. Just crazy stuff. Nobody has ever really put players together again by personalities again.

Europe is bonded by nationality and small groups: the Spaniards, the Swedes, the Irishmen, the Englishmen. They play together, and that’s an advantage. They’re bonded already in small groups. We weren’t.

You once said: “Whenever I got in a situation or had to respond to something that was negative I ran stuff through him a lot. All week he rode with me in the cart, just to make sure my messaging was correct.” Give me an example.

I didn’t say much to players during the rounds, but when they got in trouble, I did.

I had dinner one night with J.B. Holmes before the Ryder Cup, watching “Sunday Night Football.” He’s quiet. He finally just says: “Man, I hope somebody pisses me off this week, Zinger.” I said: “How come, man?” He goes: “If somebody pisses me off, I’ll kick their ass.”

The first afternoon, he was out there and I’m in the dining room getting a drink, watching it on TV. My radio goes off and it’s Olin Browne. He says: “You’ve got to get down here. J.B. is in trouble.”

I was watching it on TV and I noticed after Olin called that Dan Hicks on the broadcast was talking about Lee Westwood shooting dirty looks at J.B. Holmes.

I got in the cart, high-tailed it down there and he was in the right rough on nine by the time I got there. He was walking 100 miles an hour. I said: “Hey, man, slow down here a little bit.”

I walked about two or three yards away and then I stopped and said: “Hey, by the way, they’re talking about Westwood shooting you guys dirty looks on TV.” He said: “Are you s—— me?”

It was on. They came back and almost won it.

Everything you did seemed to be on the individual level. And yet what ended up happening was creating this team atmosphere and camaraderie. It almost sounds like a contradiction in some way.

It’s all kind of counterintuitive when you think about it, but you’re right. I hadn’t really considered that.

In the end, we had three four-man teams. We didn’t have one big 12-man team – but we did. It’s like how infielders practice together, linebackers practice together, in other sports.

Now that you’ve had a real chance to reflect back on that experience, what was the best or coolest thing you learned about leadership looking back on that experience?

I learned that if you apply solid principles, you can go in completely inexperienced and lead 12 guys. They respected me, I feel, from the get go, but I believe they loved how I communicated with them and how candid I was with them.

I think my lack of experience as a leader was somehow trumped by my ability to be a people person. Ron said I had a high EQ: emotional quotient. When I communicated to the players, I was articulate and clear and I let them all know: “This is how we’re doing it.”

I feel like my lack of experience as a leader, which was zero, was trumped by the style I chose, the information I sought and I ended up having great players. The main thing is I feel like we created the greatest environment for those guys to have success, and they did it all on their own. There was no guesswork. But I would never shy away from a leadership position thinking you can’t do it. You just have to apply proven, solid principles. That ended up being the key.

Leaders Are Made

“The most dangerous leadership myth is that leaders are born-that there is a genetic factor to leadership. This myth asserts that people simply either have certain charismatic qualities or not. That’s nonsense; in fact, the opposite is true. Leaders are made rather than born." -Warren Bennis

Full Commitment

How do you get everyone on your team fully committed?

There are 3 aspects of an elite culture that increase commitment and engagement.

1. Recognition is common.

2. Relationships are important.

3. Data-driven feedback is provided.

Recognizing your team or individual members is something that often gets lost in the coaching world. I know I have been guilty of it. You set a high standard and you expect your players to meet it, to do their job. It’s so easy to spend most of your energy on the guys who are making mistakes, and you take for granted the guys who consistently do their job well. At times, I would literally schedule myself to recognize players and the team, no matter how bad I felt about how things were going. You can’t overlook recognition if you want your team to remain committed.

Connection is also crucial. How are you making sure your relationship with your team is genuine, as well as making sure they are connecting to one another? You can be hard on your team and demand a lot out of them without bringing a negative tone every day.There is nothing as powerful as a team - or a teammate - knowing that you always have their back. No matter what. Make sure you are working on relationships, both with and within your team, every day.

Feedback is also a crucial support tool for your team’s commitment. You can use data to make sure your team is aware of what you value. If you want a team to be unselfish, track the number of passes you make on offense. Celebrate the extra pass, the hockey assist, or the great screen.

With my first championship team as a head coach at Rhode Island College, I used to ask them the day after a game if they could tell me who took the most shots on our team the night before. We just had a very unselfish group, and sometimes I would look at the box score after the game and be surprised that one of our guys off the bench who wasn’t necessarily a key offensive player led the team in shot attempts. Sometimes it took our players four or five guesses to figure out who took the most shots. It was data driven feedback that reinforced the commitment we were making to each other.

Full investment is essential for elite, high-performing teams, we all know that. Think about the specific ways you can take action steps to make sure you team if fully committed to each other and the task at hand.

“Family”

Do you consider your team a family?

I’ve never liked the comparison. First of all, I think being a part of a team is special. Using the word family implies that in certain areas - how we care for each other, the commitment we make to each other - teams come up short, and I’m not buying that. Being a part of an athletic team is unlike any other “team” or “family” environment.

The law firm you join may be a “team” but you aren’t all getting up at 6 AM to run hills together in the summer with the law clerks. And your family isn’t running extra sprints after a two and a half hour practice. Being a part of an actual team is special, and should be treated as such.

There is also one significant difference between a team and a family: My love for my family is unconditional. But being a part of a high-performing team is HIGHLY conditional. There are standards that need to be met every day, with full commitment, or you won’t be a part of that team anymore. My Uncle doesn’t get suspended from the family because he shows up late to Thanksgiving dinner every year.

I’ve always felt uncomfortable with using the word “family” for my team.

Admired Leaders has some more good stuff about potential issues with calling your team a family.

It’s not uncommon for some leaders to treat their teams as families.

They ask everyone on the team to care, trust, respect, and support each other unconditionally, regardless of their performance or contribution.

As leaders, they show concern for others both professionally and personally, and work hard to make everyone feel included, accepted, and valued as an integral part of the team.

Just like in a family, leaders and teammates celebrate successes and milestones together, and share ideas, concerns, and feedback without the fear of judgment.

Over time, the goal is for everyone on the team to care deeply and genuinely about each other and to make the necessary sacrifices for the family to prosper and develop.

Research suggests that teams that operate like families are more trusting and collaborative and instill more pride, commitment, and loyalty for their members.

The strong sense of belonging and connection members feel increases retention and shared responsibility for the work.

Leaders who treat their teams like a family don’t believe the approach must weaken expectations and accountability. Instead, they believe high standards coupled with high caring can create high morale with sustained long-term success.

Sounds pretty good.

Yet, most leaders don’t bring the family metaphor to life with their teams. They instinctively know that, despite many known benefits, family-like teams are commonly plagued with issues that undermine long-term effectiveness.

Here are a few:

• Family-like teams often blur the lines between personal and professional life, leading people to feel pressured to sacrifice their well-being for the team. This often produces burnout and work-life balance issues that diminish job satisfaction.

• Unlike families, team members sometimes want to leave or to separate their private lives from their work lives. The family approach makes them feel an exaggerated sense of guilt any time they feel their actions might disappoint their “work family.” This creates stress and the dissatisfaction that comes with it.

• Because they are dedicated and loyal to team members, leaders may delay or avoid making necessary decisions that affect people negatively. When they do what’s right for the enterprise, it contradicts the notion of family and produces strong reactions of hypocrisy and accusations of leaders acting cruel and uncaring.

• In a family-like setting, feedback and performance reviews become more personal rather than constructive. This can often create defensiveness and conflict that would not occur in a more typical team. Like in families, feedback is often withheld so as not to upset people. This undermines performance.

• Without realizing it, leaders can easily become caught up in unhealthy power dynamics where they act parentally and treat team members like children, directing their actions, rewarding them inconsistently, and demanding that they make sacrifices to maintain the family harmony. Like with parents, favoritism often occurs or is perceived.

• Family-like teams encourage conformity and discourage dissent and disagreement. Diverse voices and viewpoints are seen as disloyal and out of step with the family. As a result, any debate becomes constrained, and people often go along without expressing their honest views.

• Leaders and team members in a family focus often have a difficult time setting professional and personal boundaries. Protecting personal time or advocating for themselves can prove troublesome. In work families, saying “No” can be seen as an act of disloyalty at times.

The list goes on.

When it comes to the workplace, the team metaphor is far superior to the family trope. The best leaders don’t treat work groups as families. Instead, they harvest the honey of trust and connection without recreating the hive.

Know Your Personnel

Knowing the personalities of your players is essential to coaching them the right way. Understand who they are as people and figure out the best way to get the most out of them. But there is a difference between making them better and trying to fix their flaws.

Understanding that difference will make you a better coach.

From Admired Leaders:

People are shaped by a unique blend of biology, experiences, and environment.

Some things about them are highly malleable, while other features are more permanent.

In other words, some personal attributes can be changed while other qualities can’t. Understanding this distinction is crucial for leadership success.

A leader’s role is to change how people act, engage, and respond to make them more effective while at the same time accepting that many of their flaws and failings can’t be influenced or modified.

Qualities steeped in personality and biology are highly resistant to change, and good leaders know what to focus on and what to ignore or accept.

For instance, a team member who is naturally introverted may learn to become more comfortable in social situations over time with the right guidance, but their core preference for independence remains.

Personality traits, like introversion, are relatively stable throughout adulthood. While people do grow and evolve as they mature, these changes occur at the margins rather than in dramatic leaps.

Leaders who attempt to “fix” qualities rooted in biology and personality are doomed to fail and make the target of their repairs feel scrutinized and disfavored.

The better path is to avoid fixing people and attempt to change behavior instead.

While some may contend that behavior emanates from personality, the actions, habits, and routines that make people more effective do not.

For example, anyone can learn how to give a more compelling and persuasive presentation by incorporating best practices regardless of their personality traits and biological tendencies.

Showing others a more effective strategy or tactic is fundamentally different than trying to fix their personality flaws and gremlins. Too many well-intentioned leaders spend way too much of their time trying to fix people instead of attempting to change their behavior.

This is not to say that all personality characteristics must be overlooked or accepted. Some of the qualities people bring to the table may eliminate them from ever being highly effective.

Team members with high anxiety, emotional instability, low self-discipline, and the need to dominate, among other traits, likely render themselves incapable of performing on a team.

Such uncorrectable weaknesses must be discovered during the selection process and not addressed by leaders in the business of performance.

Leaders can’t fix people and nor should they try. Leadership is not about repairing issues rooted deeply in a person’s DNA. It’s about coaching and guiding people to incorporate new behaviors and best practices that will make them better at what they do.

Are you a fixer? Do you have a strong need or desire to repair the dysfunctional personality traits of your team members? You’re likely doing damage to your relationship when you do. And with nothing to gain.

It’s time to change your approach. Stop trying to fix people. Coach them up instead.

Steve Kerr/Pete Carroll

Some great stuff from Steve Kerr and what he learned from visiting Pete Carroll with the Seahawks.

Steve Kerr’s four core values:

1. Competitiveness

2. Mindfulness

3. Passion

4. Joy

One of his team rules: “Protect the team.”

https://x.com/TheHoopHerald/status/1958717812995670421

Making People Feel Good…

“I do think at times in this job you have the choice between doing things one way — making the decision you think is best — and making people feel good,” he says. “That is a constant dynamic in this job. If you keep doing things that make people feel good, you’re not going to be doing this job very long.” - Vikings GM Kwesi Adofo-Mensah

Valuing Input

Zack Scott, a former MLB GM and the founder of Four Rings talks about when the Red Sox traded for Dave Roberts in 2004, a move that ended up changing the course of history in Major League Baseball. He uses this as a great example of the importance of valuing input from everyone on your team.

Not every great trade comes from sophisticated analysis. Sometimes it’s about delegating and setting others up to succeed.

The Dave Roberts trade almost didn’t happen. And if it hadn’t, the 2004 Red Sox probably wouldn’t have become the first team in history to come back from down 3-0.

Theo Epstein asked an intern to research available outfielders. The initial list was terrible, but instead of dismissing it, he challenged the young staffer to think differently. That’s when the intern heard the Dodgers were trying to acquire Steve Finley. Since they already had plenty of outfield talent, maybe they’d be willing to trade away Dave Roberts. The intern rushed to Theo’s office with the idea. Within hours, we’d made the trade.

You know how that story ended—bottom of the ninth, Game 4 of the ALCS. Roberts steals second, scores the tying run, and we complete the greatest comeback in baseball history. That trade happened because Theo had created an environment where everyone’s input was valued.

Motivation - Daniel Pink

To engage deeply with work, Dan Pink explains that we need three key elements that are examples of intrinsic motivation::

• Autonomy – the chance to do things our own way, follow our instincts and feel like we matter

• Mastery – a sense of growing confidence and competence, informed by rapid feedback that lets us understand whether what we’re doing is ‘working’

• Purpose – the feeling that our work is having a genuine impact, and contributing meaningfully to something bigger, and part of a greater good, whether that’s for our colleagues, clients, or society at large

When all three come together, the depth of our motivation can inspire us to overcome all sorts of challenges, helping us navigate times of change and respond to setbacks with determination and resilience.

Pete Carroll - Leadership

“They teach them how to think.”

As a leader do you tell your team what to do? Or do you teach them how to solve problems?

https://x.com/_willcompton/status/1951444260395561278

Michael Lewis - Luck

Spend the 15 minutes to listen to Michael Lewis’ speech to Princeton graduates from 2012. Terrific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiQ_T5C3hIM

“Motivation Comes and Goes”

“I’m not motivated, I’m disciplined. Motivation comes and goes.”

- Francisco Lindor

https://x.com/SNYtv/status/1944840050362954013

Scottie Scheffler

I’ve learned this to be true over the years - the best players I have ever coached usually have one thing in common: Perspective. They get it. They don’t take themselves to seriously. They aren’t big ego guys who are full of themselves.

Scottie Scheffler raised some eyebrows with his quotes about this week about how winning golf tournaments doesn’t fulfill him. Great perspective.

Brendan Quinn from The Athletic with a great look inside his head.

PORTRUSH, Northern Ireland — This here was going to be about Scottie Scheffler trying to find his way. His way around the fifth Open Championship appearance of his career. His way around the links at Royal Portrush. His way, perhaps, to the three-quarter mile marker in golf’s career Grand Slam.

A golf story.

Except then Scheffler started talking, and the room started shifting, and his management started squirming. Who cares about pot bunkers when this happens? Out of nowhere, the honest-to-goodness best golfer in the world, perhaps the most unexplored mega-star in all professional sports, decided to let everyone inside.

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf?” Scheffler responded Tuesday morning, answering the final question of his pre-tournament press conference. “Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it, because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport.”

All well and good. But Scheffler kept pulling on the thread.

“To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers,” he continued, raising eyes away from notebooks and iPhones. “I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world because what’s the point? This is not a fulfilling life. It’s fulfilling from the sense of accomplishment, but it’s not fulfilling from a sense of the deepest places of your heart.”

Maybe it’s the Irish air. Maybe it’s getting one year closer to 30. Whatever it is, Scheffler, an athlete often capable of saying a lot and revealing little, poured forth an answer that is likely to stay with him for a long time.

Now pens were moving.

“There’s a lot of people that make it to what they thought was going to fulfill them in life, and you get there, you get to No. 1 in the world, and they’re like, what’s the point?” Scheffler said. “I really do believe that. Because what is the point? Why do I want to win this tournament so bad? That’s something that I wrestle with on a daily basis.”

This version of Scheffler — Nihilist Scottie — has shown face before. Last summer, before the Paris Olympics, he was asked about the possible significance of winning a gold medal and carving a place in the pantheon of sports. He responded by shrugging and giving the least-Olympic answer imaginable: “I don’t focus much on legacy. I don’t look too far into the future. Ultimately, we’ll be forgotten.”

The moment made for some easy quips.

Tuesday, though, went further.

And wit wasn’t necessary.

This Scheffler is worth understanding.

He kept going …

“We work so hard for such little moments,” Scheffler said. “I’m kind of sicko; I love putting in the work. I love getting to practice. I love getting to live out my dreams. But at the end of the day, sometimes I just don’t understand the point.”

The room laughed, both in agreement and amazement.

“I don’t know if I’m making any sense or not,” Scheffler said to longtime Associated Press golf reporter Doug Ferguson, the one who uncorked all this. “Am I not?”

He was, but the faces looking back at Scheffler couldn’t quite believe what they were hearing.

“(Golf) is one of the greatest joys of my life, but does it fill the deepest wants and desires of my heart?” Scheffler said, before answering a question that wasn’t asked. “Absolutely not.”

Scheffler’s stream of consciousness was worth hearing because it was free of intention. This wasn’t planned. His team didn’t craft this. Nor was it a self-serious, esoteric illumination. No. This was real and honest and open — as if Scheffler was trying to figure it out as he went along. At 29, he has now sat atop the world rankings for 148 of the last 173 weeks, won two Masters and emerged as one of the faces of the PGA Tour. Winning more than $130 million on the golf course doesn’t mean he doesn’t question his day-to-day existence just like the rest of us.

He kept going …

“Every day when I wake up early to go put in the work, my wife thanks me for going out and working so hard,” Scheffler said. “When I get home, I try and thank her every day for taking care of our son. I’m blessed to be able to come out here and play golf, but if my golf ever started affecting my home life or it ever affected the relationship I have with my wife or my son, that’s going to be the last day that I play out here for a living.

“This is not the be-all, end-all. This is not the most important thing in my life. That’s why I wrestle with, why is this so important to me?”

Scheffler, right, is joined by his wife, Meredith, and son, Bennett, after winning the PGA Championship in May. (Andrew Redington / Getty Images)

The questions Scheffler is asking himself are likely different from what many would assume. A certain staid version of Scottie Scheffler was fairly cemented long ago. The guy who aw-shucks his way to win after win. The wholesome family man. The devout Christian.

Not exactly Nietzsche.

But Scheffler’s ability to avoid tying his identity to being the world’s best golfer is actually a helluva explanation for why he’s the world’s best golfer.

Raymond Prior, a performance psychologist who’s worked with several major champions, explained in a conversation with The Athletic this past spring the difference between those who care about the big picture and those who question what that picture reveals.

“What the research tells us is the more you’re trying to smother your inner experience, the more f—ed you are, pardon my language,” Prior said. “I can have whatever thoughts and feelings without necessarily needing to do anything with them. I can shift my focus to, what if I just did the thing in front of me, which is technically the only thing that I actually have to do. I don’t need to manage other people’s opinions. I don’t need to ensure my legacy. I don’t need to save myself from my past. The only thing I need to do is get this golf ball started and see how it plays out.”

Going further, the emptiness Scheffler feels between who he is and the game he plays does, in fact, have a place in his faith. Take a look at Ecclesiastes. Or just leave it to an Irish poet to sum things up.

As W.B. Yeats put it: “Where there is nothing, there is God.”

Scheffler wrapped up his Tuesday press conference by making it clear he maintains “a deep sense of gratitude and appreciation” for his accomplishments and his place in the game. At the same time, one more time, he wanted you to understand — life is larger than a golf ball.

“I love being able to come out here and compete,” he said, “but at the end of the day, it’s not what satisfies me, if that makes sense.”

It does.

What Do Your Players Wish You Knew About Them?

How well do you get to know your players? The ability to adapt your leadership style to meet your players demands is an integral part of success.

I really liked this from Admired Leaders:

Several years ago, elementary school teacher Kyle Schwartz wrote “I wish my teacher knew _______” on the board and asked her 3rd-grade students to complete the sentence.

They responded with honesty, comedy, and vulnerability. What she learned changed her as a teacher.

She found that her students desperately wanted her to know more about them. They wrote about their favorite sports, who meant the most to them, and their hopes for the future.

But many of the students particularly wanted her to know of their hidden struggles. The revelations altered her entire approach to how she wanted to teach.

One student said he wished his teacher knew that other kids didn’t like him. Another student shared that she wished her teacher knew she was always nervous. Yet another student wanted her to know she didn’t have pencils at home to do the class assignments.

Challenges of poverty, hunger, family challenges, and loneliness offered Schwartz and her colleagues a window into the hardships children face that they weren’t aware of.

They learned that school children will share their realities with teachers if they are given the invitation. And teachers could listen to them and understand how to create a learning environment that took their challenges into account.

Adults aren’t much different.

Every team member has a unique set of challenges and hardships they must stare down and face before showing up for work.

Some have learning disabilities, while others are going through a trying time within their families. In addition to their challenges, they all have aspirations, concerns, ideas, and hopes.

If given the invitation to share with a leader who cares about them, most will gladly disclose some of their uniqueness.

Good leaders who spend the time to ask and listen to what others are facing generally gain a different perspective on how to value, validate, motivate, and push people to reach their potential.

Knowing what team members confront in their lives away from the workplace isn’t about compromising on work quality or making excuses for people. Having a more complete context simply allows leaders to adapt their style and timing to fit the person.

What do your team members wish you knew about them?

You don’t need them to conduct a complete-the-sentence exercise to learn about what they want you to know. All you have to do is ask them without prying. A multitude of questions can solicit real insights.

Start by sharing your own backstory and asking them for theirs. What you learn might change how you lead.

The Right to Lead

WHAT GIVES A MAN OR WOMAN THE RIGHT TO LEAD?

It certainly isn't gained by election or appointment. Having position, title, rank, or degrees doesn't qualify anyone to lead other people. And the ability doesn't come automatically from age or experience either. No, it would be accurate to say that no one can be given the right to lead. The right to lead can only be earned. And that takes time.

You can pick captains but you can’t pick leaders.

Leadership emerges.

• John Maxwell

Tom Izzo

"You might think my job is to win championships, It's not. My job is to build smart, strong, talented men who win championships”

https://x.com/TheHoopHerald/status/1940396144871522627

Psychological Safety

Really good stuff on psychological safety from Admired Leaders:

Psychological safety is no management fad.

Its role in improving performance is so critical that it has superpower status on the best teams.

The bottom line is this: When people believe they are protected from embarrassment, ridicule, and humiliation for what they say and do, they operate more openly and learn more actively.

A team environment that is psychologically safe encourages people to share their honest thoughts without worrying about harsh judgment or repercussions. Without the fear of rejection, people take interpersonal risks to admit their mistakes and share their concerns.

The end result is higher-quality conversations, decisions, and performance.

But creating psychological safety is not easy, and practicing it correctlyrequires leaders to distinguish between safety and comfort.

Contrary to popular misconception, a psychologically safe environment is not always a comfortable or agreeable domain. While it is always respectful, a psychologically safe discussion does not avoid disagreement, candidness, or passionate expression.

In fact, the most psychologically safe discussions occur when everyone feels they have the group’s permission to speak their mind, including the leaders.

This does not always look like a kind, caring, or comfortable conversation for a reason. It’s not.

What makes an environment or discussion psychologically safe is the freedom to be open and honest without the fear of negative evaluation or judgment. That doesn’t mean people will agree or hold themselves back from passionately expressing their views.

Psychological safety arises from the commitment leaders and peers have to learning from each other and finding shared understanding and meaning through dialogue.

Safety is demonstrated and created with each group interaction that is free of disrespect, evaluation, and contempt. People who take interpersonal risks to speak up are rewarded for their honesty by being heard, included, and respected.

When asking questions, admitting mistakes, expressing agreement and disagreement, and sharing hard truths are met with inquiry and curiosity, rather than dismay and judgment, then safety exists.

A climate of safety elevates openness, learning, and quality decision-making because it rewards candidness, not because it constrains it.

As good leaders know, psychological safety has nothing to do with job security, the acceptance of unpopular decisions, or holding people accountable. It has everything to do with people knowing that speaking up is expected but free of negative consequences.

Psychologically safe environments are candid places where comfort is replaced with a permission to express ideas freely and where every viewpoint is valued for its honesty.

Too many leaders believe that kindness, support, and niceness create psychologically safe environments. Instead, they often get in the way of learning together.