Explore an Uncommon
Approach to Leadership!
Shortening The Rotation
I grew up a Knicks fan, but for the last, say, 25 years or so I really haven't been much of a fan. Over the last two weeks I found myself watching the Knicks on purpose for the first time since the late 90s.
Not only were the Knicks pretty good this year - making the playoffs as the fourth seed in the East - but they were incredibly fun to watch. They played a lot of guys, with 11 or 12 guys getting regular minutes in most games. They finished with a different crew almost every night. They shot the ball really well, spreading teams out on offense and sharing the basketball. They also defended their asses off. They went from being 27th in the league in defense to being 1st in the league in a year, a credit to the job Tom Thibodeau did in changing the approach and the culture.
I was excited to see the Knicks play games that mattered again, but it was also great basketball to watch. They had a lot of guys who could hurt you and they got leading contributions from different players every night. It was pretty disappointing to see them get handled by the Hawks in five games in the playoffs - and the Hawks clearly looked like the better team.
The Knicks looked completely different. One major change was in the rotation. Thibodeau stopped playing so many guys and cut down the rotation. He went with Derrick Rose for the most part at the point, leaving Elfrid Payton, who started a lot of games during the year, on the bench. With the shorter rotation, the Knicks seemed to lose some of their identity and their energy. The ball didn't move quite the same. There was a lot more isolation ball being played.
Now you can make the case that the Hawks defended really well and outplayed the Knicks from the jump, and that is why the Knicks tried to adjust. But it seemed to me like they lost what made them so good in the first place. The versatility, the connection and the different weapons that come with a deep rotation were gone. They weren't the same team.
I know it's conventional theory to shorten the rotation, but I've never really bough in to that approach. It seems to me like something Pat Riley did in the 80s and 90s, and everyone just followed suit. I guess I'm not a big fan of conventional theory. I've always loved playing a lot of guys as a coach, because I love what it can bring to your team. It makes you really dangerous and hard to game plan against. It really helps your teams confidence because everyone is engaged. It makes your practices better, because everyone shows up knowing they can earn more time on the floor (not that this matters much in the NBA, as they hardly ever have live practice). It gives you a lot of guys you can count on, and a lot of different weapons. It also seems like it creates a different energy - a connection within your team because everyone plays a key role.
I know the NBA playoffs and college basketball post-season are very different, with so many more games to play in a 7-game series. But I never liked changing my rotation in the post-season. Whenever I did, I usually didn't like the result. I felt like when things weren't going well in a post-season game for us, I got tight and shortened the rotation. It's natural to want to go with your best players as much as possible. But if your team is in trouble with your best players out there, it probably means they aren't playing that well. You probably need a different energy, and your bench can bring that for you.
I always tried to remind myself to trust the bench in the post-season. Forty minutes is still a long time, and if you start to change and your team senses you are tight, they will get tight as well. I felt like the Knicks played tight most of the series. If playing a lot of guys and having a deep rotation was part of your success in the regular season it can have the same impact in the post-season. You just have to believe in it.
Back to Backs On The Road
Do teams play worse on the second night of a road back to back? An Ivy League study done in 2011.
Pep Guardiola
An interesting article in the New York Times about Pep Guardiola, the manager of Manchester City, and his obsession with winning the Champions League title. Despite incredible domestic success, he hasn't been back to the Champions League Final since 2011 when he was on top of the soccer world with Barcelona.
Some insight into his "obsessive preparation" and how it may have hurt his teams in the biggest match of the year. Fighting the tendency to over-coach in a big game is not easy. Even the best in the world struggle with it.
By 2020, though, his players were wondering if that obsessive preparation was the problem. Guardiola was so preoccupied by what his opponents might do that he compromised his own principles. The ideas and the imagination that made first Bayern Munich and then Manchester City untouchable over the span of a season were jettisoned in favor of a more pragmatic approach.
Crucially, it did not seem to work, a view expressed inside and outside the club in the aftermath of the defeat to Lyon. Even Gundogan, as ardent an acolyte of Guardiola as one could hope to meet, used that word — “overcomplicate” — in an interview this week. The key for a final, he said, is “not to do anything different or unexpected: Stick with the stuff that you are convinced by, that works for you. You don’t overcomplicate it.” The ghosts of the last four years have not been entirely exorcised, not yet.
Leadership Is Contextual
One thing that gets lost in a lot of discussions about leadership approach: leadership is highly contextual. The situation you are in matters. You can read a lot of books and study leadership to develop the best approach that fits you, but you then have to make it work for your organization. Your leadership approach is not about you - it is about the people in your command.
I learned this through experience in my two head coaching jobs. When I took over at Rhode Island College, I took over a very talented team that was starting to have success, but had never really taken the next step to win championships. I also took over a group that had been through a lot together - I was their third coach in three years, and the core of the team had been together for at least two seasons. I also had a very talented freshmen class. That team was on the cusp of winning, and we just needed to come together with the right approach. I was a new head coach, so I learned a ton about leadership from that group. You can read all about it here.
At Maine I took over a team that had been beaten down by losing. The program had no recent success, very limited talent, and no real culture that everyone believed in. It was essentially starting from scratch. Everyone in the program expected to lose, to the point where they were used to it and numb to it. Everyone around the program expected us to lose as well. The talent wasn't good, the approach wasn't good - there was really nothing to build around, except a new beginning.
At RIC I was able to challenge our guys with expectations and follow that up with a demanding approach and a high level of accountability. At Maine, I had to learn to coach with empathy. The guys at RIC were eager to attack a new approach because they knew they had the talent to win and win big. I likened the Maine program when I got there to a dog that had been beaten. He would come close to you and wanted to trust you, but once you reached out your hand to give him some food, he'd back away scared for fear of getting hit. Losing had beaten the Maine program down to where I couldn't just hit the ground running.
Of course I had to build trust at both places - any new leader does. But going about how I did that was very different. At RIC I could use basketball and our approach to build trust, because our guys were ready for that. This is how hard we are going to compete, this is what I expect out of you - and when they started to see it in action and saw I was consistent, the buy-in started to come. At Maine I couldn't build trust on the court until I built it off the court. I had to spend much more time getting to know my players away from the gym, because the gym wasn't generally a positive experience for them. One of the mistakes I made at Maine was thinking I could get them bought in to what we were going to do on the basketball court, similar to what we did at RIC. But that group wasn't ready to buy in to that. We had to get to the same place mentally before we could start that process.
It's a great challenge for a leader to take over a new organization and figure out the best approach. You have to understand your team and the environment first. So much of the situation has an impact on what will work and what won't - the people, the organization around you, the expectations, finding alignment with the school. While you have to stay true to who you are, if you aren't adapting your leadership approach to your new situation, you likely won't get the right response.
There are thousands of different leadership books and I enjoy reading a lot of them. It's interesting to me that such an important topic can have so many different paths to success. Don't look for an approach that you can adopt and try to simulate in your current position. Find what resonates for you, what will fit with your current organization, and make it your own. If your approach doesn't fit your situation, and your team doesn't see it as authentic, it doesn't matter how much success it led to elsewhere. It won't work for you.
Building a culture at RIC vs. taking over at Maine
What Does That Look Like?
Your values should be reflected in behaviors. And everyone on your team should know those behaviors. Words like "Integrity" and "Toughness" look great on the wall in the locker room or the back of a tee shirt, but if they don't translate to the right behavior then your values aren't very effective.
A great question to ask is "what does that look like?" When I work with teams and businesses on leadership and culture, that is a basic question I ask a lot. We always talk about core values and what is important to them. But when I ask them about their values, and say "what does that look like," it usually takes a little time to come up with an answer.
Let's take trust as an example. Trust is a common core value, and a pillar of accountabilty and high performing teams. But what does trust look like? When I ask that question, I usually get answers like, "Well, we have to be able to trust each other to be successful. We really value integrity here." OK, that's great. But that really isn't behavior. What does trust look like?
I give them a basketball example. When our big guy leaves his man to attack the ball and help the guard who got beat off the dribble, without any hesitation, that is trust as a behavior for us. He knows he's leaving his man open under the hoop, and if nobody helps him, his man is going to get a dunk. To the average fan, he is going to look bad for giving up a dunk. The reality is he's doing his job, and the weak side defender has to rotate over to help him, and take away the dunk for his man. For my basketball team, that defender leaving his man without hesitation to help when he's supposed to - that is what trust looks like.
Trust is doing the right thing for the team, even if you risk looking bad as an individual. It's more than just saying "we trust each other, and we act with integrity." It is telling the truth in a meeting, even when it's hard. It's being able to listen to criticism because you know it's going to help you and the team, even though it's hard. Trust is essential to any high performing team. But like any other core value, it should be defined as a behavior. It should look like something.
What does that look like? It's a great question to ask to help you define your core values as behaviors and show your team exactly what is expected of them.
Compete. Toughness. Trust. Selflessness.
Hierarchy of Commitment
Some good stuff from A.G. Lafley, the CEO of Proctor and Gamble, on what he had to do when he took over in 2000.
I always talk about this hierarchy of commitment. On the high end it's disciples - people who really believe in what you're doing and in you. And on the low end it's saboteurs. And there's everything in between. So I had to make sure that we got rid of the saboteurs, built a strong cadre of disciples, and moved all the fenced sitters to the positive side.
Can You Make Them Talk?
We all want our teams to communicate better. We emphasize it constantly. Great communication is essential on high performing teams. But some players naturally talk a lot, and others just don't open their mouth. No matter how much we tell them to do it, it doesn't come naturally to them. We've all coached plenty of guys who we are pleading with to talk more, over and over, without a lot of success.
The reality is it's hard to talk on the basketball court. If it wasn't, everyone would be doing it. For many players, focusing on their job in the middle of an intense environment takes up all of their concentration. It's a challenge for them to play really hard, produce and communicate while they are doing it. It's not that easy, and it's not that natural.
I'm not talking about just calling out a screen or calling for the ball when you are open. Most guys understand the practical aspect that comes a long with being a teammate to communicate essential aspects of the game. Most players will do that. But the constant communication that brings energy to your team, or the chatter that lets everyone know where you are defensively at all times - that's a little different. The guys that communicate in that way constantly really stand out. They are different.
I think it's essential to emphasize communication. I also think you have to tell them what they are supposed to say, and give them a language to speak. I like having a language for your program that breaks down key elements into one word keys - screen, right, left, help, etc. - so they know exactly what they are supposed to say and when to say it. But I'm not sure you can get guys who aren't comfortable to talk more.
We've all coached many players who are quiet by nature and not comfortable speaking up. They see the game, they know what is expected of them and they do their job. But ask them to talk and they just aren't comfortable. It's not like they are being defiant. They just can't focus on their job and compete the way they are expected to while also trying to communicate.
I've stopped trying to get those guys to talk. As long as they are communicating on essential aspects of the game - help, screen, one more pass, etc. - I'm not going to force them to talk. I've learned that if it's not part of their personality, it's like I'm trying to force something down their throat that they don't want to eat. It takes a ton of energy on my part and it makes the player uncomfortable. It's not worth it.
I do think communication is essential and I also think you can get players to talk more. It's definitely worth emphasizing. But when you are talking about players who just aren't comfortable talking, you aren't going to get a lot more out of them. You are going to get them thinking about something that is hard for them, and likely make it harder for them to produce. There are certain players who are simply not comfortable talking when they play, and I'm not going to try and force it out of them.
Momentum
Does the team who hits a shot at the buzzer to send the game into overtime have a better chance of winning?
I was thinking about this after Alabama hit a deep 3 to tie UCLA at the buzzer, but then UCLA went on to dominate the overtime session in this year's NCAA Tournament.
This is from 2011, but an interesting look at it from the Harvard Sports Analysis Collective.
Don't Add Emotion On Top Of Emotion
One of the toughest challenges of leadership is to evaluate and handle the emotion of a situation. As coaches we have to deal with it all of the time. The intensity of practice every day, the pressure of the games, the scrutiny of results and the public scoreboard all contribute to an emotional environment. Sometimes right or wrong isn't as important as handling the emotion you are faced with.
Early in my career as a head coach I learned this lesson, even though it's still not easy to recognize and deal with. We had one player I coached at RIC who was very talented, cared a great deal about success, but also had a hard time dealing with things that didn't go his way. He wasn't very mature or mentally tough when things started to break down, but he was a terrific talent who did help us win. But I had to learn to manage his emotional intelligence.
We were playing our first league game of the year at Eastern Connecticut in a very intense environment, and this kid was struggling. He missed a couple of easy shots, and then he went to the basket and got hit pretty hard, with no foul called. He got frustrated and jogged back defensively, shaking his head. Our team all saw him jog and was pretty upset, as was I. When I took him out of the game he continued shaking his head and bitching about the missed call. I responded by yelling "stop making excuses and play!" at him as he sat down, in front of the whole team. He had stopped competing because he was unhappy with what happened to him, and that was unacceptable. I had every right to say what I said to him.
What I didn't factor in was how emotional he was as a player, and how my comment - and the way I said it - would add to the emotion in an already intense environment. It didn't help the situation. Now the player was on the bench even more upset, and useless if I wanted to put him back in the game. You can say he has to grow up, and it's on him to handle the situation better - and I wouldn't disagree with you. But my job as the head coach is to understand the personalities of the players and how to best handle them. Making that point at that time, the way I did, only added fuel to the fire. It made the situation worse.
Fast forward to the conference tournament that same year, with us involved in a tough semi-final game and the same player getting a little emotional. He was struggling on the court, shaking his head and showing visible frustration with the officials. He had only been in the game for a minute, and I took him out. However this time, I didn't say anything to him as he walked off the court. I let him sit down, and I told my assistants to coach the team for a minute. I walked down the bench, knelt down in front of him and just talked to him. He was shaking his head and frustrated, wondering why I took him out. I explained in a calm voice that when he got frustrated like this, he wasn't helping the team. I took him out simply to let him catch his breath and calm him down. I wanted to make sure he was okay and that he wasn't going to let the emotion take him out of his game. I told him we needed him to win the game, but we needed him at his best. When he took a deep breath and said "I got you Coach. I'm good," I put him right back in the game.
The right time to coach him on how to better handle his emotions wasn't in the middle of an intense game. It was talking to him off the court and pointing out examples during practice - calmly - where his emotions were starting to impact his play. During the game, when he got emotional, adding more emotion to the situation was never helpful. Even if the point I was making was the right one, with the added emotion he wasn't getting the point. The message wasn't getting across because I was making the situation more emotional with my response.
Recognize the emotional level of a situation as the leader, and think about taking a measured approach. Don't add emotion to an already emotional situation. If you do, you won't often get the response you want.
Core Values Vs. Core Behaviors
I've gotten a lot of great feed back on my book, "Entitled to Nothing," and one of the questions that comes up a lot is about core values. I didn't go in as a head coach and list our core values and paint them on the wall of the locker room. I did know who we wanted to be and what I expected our program to look like, and I shared with my players what was important to me (how hard we compete, toughness, unselfishness...). But I didn't have a list of core values to start.
Part of that was because I was a first-time head coach and I think approach and philosophy are always evolving. But part of it was because I wanted to focus more on behaviors than the words on the wall or the back of a shooting shirt. Effective core values translate into behaviors, and I've learned it's essential to define whatever your values are in behavioral terms for your team.
Our core values evolved into core behaviors, and what we settled on was three things - compete, produce, and be a great teammate. Those were our core behaviors as a program, and what essentially would stand as our core values.
I knew when I became a head coach that I wanted us to be defined by the way we competed. That was what we could control every day. To us, it was 100% effort all of the time, without compromise. That encapsulated physical and mental toughness, effort, work ethic, commitment and all of the other related buzzwords that coaches painted on the walls. I wanted our core behaviors to be broad, so that we could emphasize all of the things that were important to us within them.
Production is actually often underrated, believe it or not. A lot of coaches like to talk about how hard their kids work and how committed they are, without translating it into production. It's not reasonable to just say you are going to start the five hardest working players on the team. If that work doesn't turn into production, then something is wrong. Either you are competing the wrong way or emphasizing the wrong things. Great competitors can turn what they do into production. For us, production was anything that helped our team win.
Being a great teammate is very broad, and can mean so many things. That was the point. It involves attitude, approach, selflessness, and caring about those around you. There are plenty of different ways that you can be a great teammate, and those behaviors were things our program really valued.
The challenge was to make sure to define the behaviors within the values, so they became tangible to our team. When somebody turned the ball over but sprinted back at full speed to get a deflection and stop a fast break, that was competing. We made sure to stop practice and point it out. When someone set a great screen to get his teammate open for a lay-up, that was production - along with the ability to score and rebound. We made a big deal out of it. When players picked one another up after a mistake or a bad play, that was being a great teammate. We made sure we emphasized and celebrated the behaviors that went into our core values.
Compete, produce, be a great teammate. Those values started with questions about playing time, when the players wanted to know what they had to do to get on the floor. They became the day to day core values of our program - everyone wanted to play, so they lived the behaviors.
Core values are important for any organization if you believe in them, but only in so much as how they turn into behavior. I'd start with the behavior you want, make it clear to your team and celebrate it when you see it. That behavior will define your team's core values.
Authenticity
From Rich Diviney's book The Attributes: 25 Hidden Drivers of Optimal Performance.
Among all of the leadership attributes, authenticity is the most important for building trust.
Authenticity, by definition, can't be faked. It can't be copied: There's not template, no checklist of external behaviors or attitudes that are the model of authenticity. Being firm and taciturn doesn't make one any more or less of a leader than being easygoing and funny. What matters more is whether that person is authentically firm or authentically easygoing.
The simplest measure of authenticity is consistency: consistency of action, consistency of thought, consistency of values. Consistency builds trust, and a lack of consistency instills doubt. Think of it this way: If stepping on the brake pedal didn't consistently stop your car - if sometimes it made the engine race or turned on the wipers instead - you wouldn't trust the brakes, right? The same idea applies to humans. If you don't believe you're seeing authentic versions of people, if you suspect they are play-acting or pretending, presenting insincere facades that shift with their audience or their own whims, it's impossible to build an honest foundation of trust.
To make it even simpler: Authentic people are genuine. They aren't markedly different in private than they are in public.
"We Can't Do That Here"
I was sitting at a recruiting event about 10 years ago talking with a friend of mine who had just finished his first year as a Division I head coach. I had been the head coach at Rhode Island College (Hey, I wrote a book about it) for 5 or 6 years at that point, and we had built a really strong program that would go to 8 straight NCAA Tournaments. He had taken over a really good job late, didn't have time to change much, but won enough games so that his fan base was excited about the future.
We were talking about running a program, managing practices, playing time, and getting everybody bought in. Just a general conversation about everything you have to deal with as a head coach, and how you really establish your culture and approach. He was telling me about his best player, a guard who led his team in scoring but didn't shoot a very high percentage or help make his teammates better. He kept going on about all of the things wrong with the kid - selfish, lazy uncommitted. He said he had a hard time coaching him.
"Why did you play him?" I asked, with a pretty good idea of the answer I'd get.
"We had nobody else. I had to play him." Yup, as expected.
"How many games did you guys win again?"
"Seven."
"Seven games. And how many do you think you would have won without him? I mean, playing him all those minutes got you seven wins. Did it really matter?"
"He was our most talented player. We had no one else," came his reply.
We got into talking about playing time and buy-in, and how you get everyone on board with your program. He was convinced he had to play this guy because of his talent, and I kept pointing out that his talent could not have made that big of a difference if he still only won seven games. At that point, we had been really good at Rhode Island College, and he asked about how I went about establishing playing time. I told him I liked to play a lot of guys. We had a lot of good players, but I also liked the competitive edge it brought to practice. I played 10-11 guys every game, and they knew coming to practice that they could earn playing time if they competed hard and produced. There was no set rotation. What was expected at practice was laid out very clearly, and the guys knew what they had to do to play.
He said he didn't have that much talent, so he couldn't play a lot of guys. He said he had to keep his main guys on the floor, or they would have gotten smoked. I reminded him they won seven games. He kept asking about how guys dealt with a different rotation each game, not knowing when they were going to get off the bench or how much they were going to play. I told him the criteria for playing time was explained very clearly, and everyone knew they had to be ready. I'd make the decisions based on what guys earned in practice every day.
His response was "We can't do that here. That wouldn't work at our level."
I was confused. He kind of pulled the division I card out on me, as if being a division III coach, I just wouldn't understand. Things were different at that level, according to him. You couldn't offer up playing time to everyone and let them earn it. The players wouldn't accept it They wanted to know "where they stood." I told him my guys knew exactly where they stood. They knew exactly how they had to earn playing time. Everyone had the same chance. It made our team better, made practice that much more competitive.
"I like that. I just don't think it would work for us."
I'm a strong believer that leadership is highly contextual and situational. There is no one right answer when it comes to leadership approach. It has to fit who you are as a leader and the environment you are in. I'd never tell anyone this is how you should do things. I think leadership development is about sharing ideas, getting your mind to think a different way, and seeing the possibilities in a new (and maybe uncommon) approach. It's not about taking somebody else's approach and making it yours.
I've always been surprised - and a little confused - when I've heard coaches say that over the years. "That's great. But we couldn't do that at our place." A clear and direct message. A chance for everyone to compete for playing time. A transparent approach. It seems like that would work in most programs.
Over the years, as I've worked with different coaches, teams and organizations, I've learned that "we can't do that here," or "that would never work for us" are the battle cries of the mediocre. It is a comfortable place that allows them to stay average - and to remain comfortable. I hear it a lot in coaching, but also with any organization that is contemplating change. High school coaches say that couldn't work for us. College coaches see an idea they like from a high school coach and say, "yeah, but it's high school." Small businesses look at something that works in an athletic arena and say "but that's a little different." It is a common mentality that cripples progress, maintains the status quo, and gets in the way of any meaningful progress. But it keeps us in our comfort zone.
I have a good friend and mentor who uses the phrase "terminally unique." His take is that most organizations are terminally unique, in that they look at great ideas and say, "I like that, but we could never make that work, because we are School X!" Every play I have worked at has some level of terminally unique qualities on display.
Yes, context is important. Yes, you have to find an approach that fits your organization and works for you. But that doesn't mean you should stay close-minded to new ideas. If you don't like the idea or it isn't a good fit for your team, that's fine. Don't mess with it. But don't let the fact that you are terminally unique keep you from trying new ideas or making progress.
"We can't do that here" is a comfort zone for the mediocre.
Steph Curry Is Never Satisfied
"Curry has that unique trait that all extremely talented people possess: He behaves as if he doesn’t have talent."
Motivation: Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic
In Daniel Pink's excellent book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, he discusses the difference between intrinsic needs and extrinsic needs, and how intrinsic needs are much more powerful motivators. Things like money, reward and punishment hold little value. What Pink says are the three elements of true motivation are autonomy, mastery and purpose.
Think about that when it comes to how we coach our teams. When we think about motivation, do we think about giving our players autonomy, mastery and purpose? I think most of us look at motivation as a reward and punishment model. Winning, playing time and success are the ultimate reward for our players, so that is what will motivate them to work hard, right? Conversely, if there is a punishment for the wrong behavior, that will motivate players to do the right thing. I think most of us are trained to see motivation in that context. If we can increase reward, or threaten them with punishment, we'll get the most out of them.
That isn't how the human mind works. Sure, people like having success and want to avoid failure, I'm not saying it doesn't have an impact. We all want to be good, we all want to win. It's fun. But in my experience there is a limit to that level of motivation. If everything you do is based on winning, eventually that will get stale. The best way to motivate people to win is to eliminate the result from their mindset. Focus on other things that are more important.
According to Pink's research, those things are autonomy, mastery and purpose. How much do we think about these values when we are coaching? Autonomy is giving the players control, allowing them to own the process. This is crucial to sustaining long-term success for any organization (Hey, I even wrote a book about it!). Get your players to the point where they own what they are doing every day, and they will be highly motivated to succeed.
Mastery is something we probably do think about, although maybe in a different way. We all want to make our players better. We spend a lot of time working with them on their skills to improve, helping themselves and helping the team along the way. When player see that what you are doing is making them better, that is the ultimate motivation. They love coming in the gym, even if it's really demanding, if they know you are making them better. We all emphasize individual development, although we probably don't call it mastery. However, I'm not sure we see it in the context of motivation.
Purpose is one we probably don't spend enough time on. If our purpose is simply to win, the motivation will only last so long. We need to spend more time with our players discussing their purpose. Talk to them about why the play. What are they doing all of this for? If it's just for fame, money or winning, their purpose is pretty shallow. If they see the value of what they are doing every day - the work ethic, the commitment, the sacrifice, the discipline - and the impact it is going to have on their life beyond basketball - that is true purpose. That is much more of a motivating factor than success, and it's probably something we need to unlock more often as coaches.
Autonomy, mastery and purpose. Intrinsic factors that are the key to motivation. It's not about running sprints at 6 AM to motivate your team not to do something - although that type of punishment can certainly play a role in the discipline necessary for your team. Find ways to get at the intrinsic factors that impact your players to make sure you are motivating your team.
Communication About Communication
Communication has been a challenge on any team I've ever been a part of. It's just not that easy. You can't just tell your team to talk and expect them to talk - especially with the intensity level at which we practice and play. If you go to the old, "Off the court, you guys never shut up!" approach, you are missing the point. Communicating while operating at a fast pace in an intense environment isn't that easy.
Great teams communicate about how they are going to communicate. I've learned to talk to my teams about the way we are going to talk to each other. It starts with how important it is - giving them behavioral examples so they see the value. - calling out a screen, getting matched-up in transition, finding an open man with the extra pass. Then it's an understanding that it is going to be hard, and at times it will be abrupt. The message might be delivered with some intensity, because the environment is intense. We can't respond to the tone in the heat of battle. We have to get to what's important - the message, and what needs to be done. Finally, we have to understand we are always on the same team - the goal with communication is never to humiliate or demean a teammate. We have to get quick, direct messages across immediately. It's never personal. It's about making the team better.
Are we mature enough to accept that as team?
I've been on many teams where the communication caused more problems than it solved. If that is the case, you are creating your own obstacles. Communication must eliminate confusion. That is always the goal. If it creates confusion you have a lot of work to do. You can't simply tell your team to communicate more, and then complain when they don't. You have to teach them how to do it, and talk to them about how it will be delivered. You have to work on it constantly, just like you do your rebounding our execution.
We always started our first team meeting with one statement to our team - Communication can never be an issue in this program. To get to that point, it's something you really have to work on - just about every day.
David Nwaba
DAVID NWABA: NBA BLUE COLLAR MINDSET
• David Nwaba, graduated from Cal Poly with a sociology degree & earned a contract with G-League LA D-Fenders after paying $125 to tryout
• “David figured it out; he embodies BLUE COLLAR. He was probably the best defender in his only season in the G-League. 2/3 into his 1st season he’s playing for the Lakers” says Coby Karl, D-Fenders head coach
• Former Lakers Coach on David Nwaba’s strengths: “He doesn’t seem to care about anything but winning and playing defense.”
• While playing for the Chicago Bulls, Coach Fred Hoiberg said this of David Nwaba: “His skill is he goes out & plays harder than everybody else on the floor.”
• “David Nwaba’s ability to play hurt underlines his character & winning attitude,” says Coach Stephen Silas, Rockets Head Coach
Nwaba is currently with the Houston Rockets (5th year in NBA).
2020-21 Stats:
22 mpg / 9 ppg / 3.9 rpg
David Nwaba on his path to the NBA:
* I had the faith that it would work out, but I had to be patient
* I had to — as they say — trust the process
* So if you take anything away from my story, I hope it will be this: No journey is a straight line—every single one looks a little different
* Trust yourself & GO TO WORK
Stan Van Gundy - Notes
From a talk Stan gave at IMG Academy in 2019.
- Older generation of coaches share with one another a lot more. There was less paranoia. We need more of that.
- There is a serious lack of leadership in our country right now. We need coaches more than ever. Leadership is really only taught in the military and in sports.
- Geno Auriemma - "Coaches are afraid to coach their players now."
- If you want to advance in coaching there is one thing you can control - get better as a coach. Be as good of a coach as you can be. It's not about networking. Get better as a coach and you have to get lucky.
- Players want 3 things - 1) To win - they want to be part of a great team. 2) Have fun - they want to enjoy themselves. 3) They want to get better.
- People who are happy get over themselves and get into other people. "No matter how good you have it, if you are thinking about yourself, it's never going to be good enough. You are are going to be unhappy."
- 9 C's of Communication:
- Communicate Competently - You must show competence in how you communicate. Anders Ericson, Peak - High-performers don't just accept good coaching, they don't just welcome it. They demand it."
- Communicate Courteously - Understand your team and their goals - respect them.
- Communicate Collaboratively - 1) Listen 2) Use others to get your message out 3) Talk to EVERYONE
- Communicate Consistently - "Do not tolerate in victory that which you would not tolerate in defeat."
- Communicate Confidently - you must study your craft, know your message.
- Communicate Clearly - "Cluttered minds = Slow Feet" - communication must eliminate confusion.
- Communicate Candidly - Frank, open, sincere, honest and straight forward. "There is nothing more important in coaching than to be honest. Always."
- You want to play more? Don't tell them they need to rebound better, turn it over less - it's not true! "You have to be better than him!" - that's the honest answer.
- Communicate Constructively - Give them stuff to do. "C'mon guys, we're playing like shit right now!" - What does a player do with that?
- Your job as a coach is to tell them the truth, as you see it, all the time.
- People say I'm too negative as a coach - how much should I be positive vs. negative? Carol Dweck, Mindset - "That's the wrong question. The question is which one do you want? Do you want me to tell you how great you are, or do you want me to make you better?
- Communicate Courageously - You cannot be afraid of confrontation and conflict.
- How do you know if you are being effective as a communicator? - Look at the performance of your team. If your communication is working, you should see it out there.
- The coach/player relationship is one that is designed to get a result.
Tara VanDerveer
Tara VanDerveer used to bring the best basketball to the park so the boys would have to play with her.
Model The Behavior
Perhaps the most consistently powerful approach you can take as a leader is to model the behavior. You send a powerful message with what you do every day, and if you are talking about something and not doing it, the message is just as powerful. Your team needs to see the behavior you expect out of them in you (and your coaching staff) every day. What you do is so loud, they can' hear what you say.
Coaches love to talk about body language. They hate to see any negative body language, usually saying it's a sign of weakness. I've never been a big fan of the concern over body language, one of the main reasons is most coaches don't model the behavior they expect when it comes to body language. Take one look at the sidelines during most college basketball games and you'll see coaches making facial expressions, raising their arms, giving the "palms up" look and generally stomping up and down like someone who didn't get their way. How can you talk to your guys about body language if you are acting that way? Try filming just yourself on the sideline one day at a game or a practice. If you don't see the type of body language you say you want out of your players, don't expect to see it from them.
Focus is a word that coaches use all of the time. We want our teams locked in and ready to go for practice every day. If that's the case, you better show them you are focused every day. You have an organized practice plan that is ready to go. Your message is prepared, clear and concise. You don't get distracted by anything - any visitors who are watching practice, talking with your staff during drills, a cell phone or whatever it may be. If focus is required of everyone in the gym, it needs to be required of you first. If you are distracted throughout practice, don't expect your players to lock in.
We all want our teams to play with composure, but do we coach that way? Are we composed on the sideline, despite what happens, good or bad? I think it's crucial for your team to keep their poise in big spots to be successful. But the only way they are going to do it is if you do the same. If the emotion and intensity of a game gets to you and effects your process, expect the same out of your players. We all wonder at certain times how some players "lose their mind" out on the court. You might get the answer by looking in the mirror.
I always felt as a head coach that anytime I started to get into it with the officials, I'd feel my team slipping away from me. If I started to lose my composure, my players would do the same. I'd often have to catch myself, regain my composure, and get back with my team. I don't think "Don't worry about the officials, that's my job!" approach really works. It's just a cop out. If you want your team to play with composure, they need to see a composed coach.
So often we get upset with our players for the way they communicate, or a lack of communication. Not only is it important to tell them how to communicate, but you have to show it to them as well. If you are going to attack someone verbally for making a mistake, they'll likely communicate the same way. They may not come back at you like that out of respect for the fact that you are the head coach, but notice their communication with one another. If it's too aggressive or not very clear, take a look at how you communicate with them. It's likely your communication style is having an impact.
"Do as I say, not as I do," does not work in any effective leadership model. Being the head coach is not a pass to poor behavior. If you are going to demand it out of your team, they have to see you demand it out of yourself first.
Body language. Focus. Composure. Communication.