Low Energy

You hear it a lot from the losing coach. “I didn’t like our energy tonight.” Losing teams often lament being “low energy.” We’ve all said it usually after our team struggled. But I’m not sure if it’s actually the cause of the problem, or the result.

If low energy is the cause of why many teams don’t play well and lose, then why don’t we know how to correct it? Why can’t we fix it ahead of time? We are with our teams every day and the energy we bring is important to our success. I can’t say we should expect an elite level of energy and intensity every single day, but how often should we expect low energy? If we can’t get our teams to bring the right amount of energy on the 30 nights each year we get to play games, we have to be missing something.

I’m not sure low energy is the cause of the problem. The problem is we aren’t playing well and the other team is beating us. Low energy might just be a comfortable blanket we use to cover our issues when things aren’t going well. When you really think about it, how does low energy make any sense on game night? Sure, you are going to get outplayed. And some nights you might not be mentally as focused or ready to play as you are on others. We are all human. But to go through a game with low energy and get beat doesn’t really co-exist with the way we train to compete every day.

I think “low energy” is a label we use as coaches to remain comfortable. It points the blame at the players - they are the ones who didn’t bring the energy - and simplifies the team issue. If the guys didn’t play hard enough what was I supposed to do? Of course coaches are going to try and figure out different ways to get their teams “ready to play,” but the low energy label shields the coaching from the criticism for the most part.

I think the main problem when you hear low energy is you are getting outplayed. The other team is better. They are crisper, they are more focused, they are moving the ball better - they are doing the basketball things that are important to winning better than you. Low energy is the result - not the cause - of one team getting outplayed by the other. Their game plan was better, their approach was better, their players were better. When one team is playing well, they appear to have a lot more energy, but the execution comes first.

Most teams come out of the gates ready to compete, playing hard. The skill and ability in the game starts to take over, and one team gets the better of the other. But I don’t really see too many teams who, three minutes into a game, look like “well, we just don’t have a lot of energy tonight.”

The team that gets outplayed usually looks like they don’t have a lot of energy. Prepare your team to play the game, compete hard every day, and the energy in your games will not be a problem. When things don’t work out, look to fix the basketball issues, not the energy.

Curiosity and Leadership

A trait I usually find in the best leaders I coach is curiosity. Great leaders are naturally curious about their teammates. I'm not sure this is something you can teach. It's more of a personality trait than a skill you can cultivate. And to me, it's a trait that helps make you an effective leader.

Many players don't have the ability to think about others while they are playing. It just doesn't come naturally to them. It doesn't mean they aren't good players - some of the best players I have coached are self-centered. They focus on their job and they do it well. They don't play selfish, and they can still have an impact on their teammates. They are just locked in on what they have to do, and they don't really think about anything else.

The player who is always talking practice, who knows all the plays from all five spots, who can captain the defense and continuously talk to the ball - to me, that's the guy who is the best natural leader. He's not just talking, he's talking because he's invested in his teammates and naturally interested in what they need to do. Not only that, he has the ability to do his job and think about the other guys on the floor. It's not that simple, and it's not easy for everyone. And it doesn't mean this guy is a great player. He's a great teammate, and a great leader, but not necessarily the best player.

When you are looking at leadership traits with your team or in recruiting, think about how curious a player is about those around them. You'll see clues on the court and off the court. The guy that has a natural interest in the people around him - and their feelings - that's the guy who can be a big-time leader for you.

Reasonable Expectations

Good stuff here from Mike Tomlin on expectations.

https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1669524207594528770?s=20

Production and Leadership

Production does not equal leadership. I think a lot of organizations get this wrong, and we do it with our teams. We think the best players are supposed to be the leaders. We equate their ability to produce with their ability to lead the team, and then we spend a lot of time complaining about a lack of leadership.

Do you ever wonder why you find a lot of people in leadership positions who “don’t get it?” Whether they are the CEO of a business, the partner in charge of a law firm, or the President of a non-profit organization, they don’t seem to have a basic understanding of good leadership and the skills necessary to run the organization effectively. We associate the people who have the titles with the ability to lead, but I’ve said for a long time that there is a vacuum of leadership out there in many organizations. The people in charge don’t always understand leadership.

Production, believe it or not, is often the big issue. People get promoted in the business world based on production - the best sales person rockets through the company, eventually getting to a VP level. The best fund-raiser continues to get promoted until she is running the company. In coaching, the best recruiters put themselves in position to become head coaches, and many of them get head jobs based on their production as a recruiter. The problem is that level of production doesn’t necessarily correlate to the leadership skills necessary to do the job when you are in charge.

We all try and make our best players our leaders. In sports, we talk about how the best players have the clout and respect necessary to lead, and we often say someone who doesn’t start or play much can’t lead, because his teammates won’t listen to him. Is that really true? I guess it is if you allow it to be. I understand that teammates will admire and look up to the best players based on their ability to help the team win. There is a certain level of respect given to the better players. But if you are teaching leadership the right way you can define it so that your team knows exactly what you expect from the leaders, and how to understand the important elements of great leadership. Respect, trust, consistency and humility are more important elements of effective leadership than talent. We just have to teach our teams to see it that way.

The production/leadership trap is a really easy one to fall into. We expect people to advance based on their ability to do the job. But some people are just great producers and that is the value they bring to the organization. Their ability to organize, get people to believe and to lead doesn’t match their production. That is a hard truth in a lot of cases, but it needs to be recognized or the organization is going to suffer.

I’ve learned over the years that sometimes my best players just needed to be my best players. That was it. “Why are you trying to force a sandwich down their throat when they aren’t hungry?” Eric Musselman once said to me, and it makes sense. When you try and make someone a leader who does not want that role you are probably making them worse.

You can find great leadership from your great leaders, and they may be different from your great players.

First Responder

How do you handle setbacks? There is a great chapter in Daniel Coyle’s “The Culture Code” about Gregg Popovich and the Spurs, after having just lost game 6 of the NBA finals to a Ray Allen’s famous dagger three-pointer off of a loose ball rebound. The Spurs had a restaurant rented out for the celebration, and Popovich had his team go to the restaurant to be together, even after the loss. One of his assistants described it as “filling their cups.” The Spurs went on to lose game 7 of that series, but came back to win the NBA title in 2014, and almost everyone around the Spurs attributes that title to a mindset that started the night after losing game 6 to the Heat.

The concept of “filling their cups” is an interesting one, something that isn’t easy to think about as a head coach in the moment. When yo lose a game, especially a big one, you immediately want answers, you want to speak, you want to figure out what happened. We like to have discussions in the locker room right after a game, and I realized in those moments what I was saying was more based in emotion than it was fact. I had a college coach who never went into the locker room after a game, he’d simply just write “Practice, tomorrow, 4:00” on the board, win or lose.

Why are we so intent on figuring it out right after the game? Most of that is about us, and how we feel. I do think there is value in making sure your team’s mentality is still okay after a tough loss, just to keep everybody positive and believing in what you are doing. But important decisions and messages should rarely be delivered right after a game, win or lose. The most important thing is to figure out what your team needs, and dismiss how you are feeling. A lot more negative than positive can come out of a post-game speech after a tough loss.

Fill their cups. Get them back to the right place mentally, and then you can start coaching them and making them better, usually the next day. I was struck by this set of Field Notes from Admired Leaders, about how leaders should show up like first responders after a tough loss:

After a major setback, mishap, or defeat, the best leaders don’t immediately act like cheerleaders. Rather, they show up more like first responders. 

Just as real-world technicians who are trained to respond immediately to an emergency situation, the best leaders are first on the scene after a setback to provide the care necessary for a quick recovery.

In the case of a team mishap or defeat, the care most required is simply the presence of the leader and a willing ear. Anything more, and a leader actually impedes recovery, not aids it. 

Leaders who don’t quickly arrive at the scene and offer the support of their presence miss the boat. They don’t need to offer optimism or words of wisdom. They simply need to be present. 

The best leaders resist the urge to add any more value. At least initially. They just show up. Without pointing fingers or finding blame for whatever has transpired. 

Until the emotional sting of the setback or defeat begins to fade, their highest and best use is to simply engage positively. The team is not yet ready for words or explanations or cheerleading. They need to get past the disappointment or disillusionment of the negative outcome. 

This usually doesn’t take very long, depending, of course, on the severity of the mishap and the likely consequences or repercussions of the event. The time it takes for most teams to recover is measured in minutes, not hours. But those are precious minutes where the only essential message that must be conveyed through the facial expressions and body language of the leader is one that has no hint of disappointment or disgust. 

Once the team recovers their equilibrium, it is time for positivity and optimism to flow from the leader. Valuable lessons and insights can now be shared. While every situation calls for a distinct message, the key is not to go there too quickly. Leaders must resist the urge to give the pep talk before the team can actually hear and appreciate it. 

The best leaders are first responders and then masterful coaches. They don’t skip the responder part. Show up physically as soon as you can, but don’t say much until people are ready. You’ll know when. 

“Until the emotional sting of the setback or defeat begins to fade, their highest and best use is to simply engage positively.”

“Leaders must resist the urge to give the pep talk before the team can actually hear and appreciate it.” 

“Show up physically as soon as you can, but don’t say much until people are ready.”

Act like a first responder. Fill their cups. Then you can start to teach again.

The Last Lesson

Sixteen years ago, on the Monday after Thanksgiving in 2008, I was getting ready to head down to practice at RIC when my cell phone rang. At RIC my office was in the Recreation Center, across campus from the Murray Center where we practiced and played, so we had to actually get into our cars and drive down to the Murray Center for practice. As I walked out of the Rec Center towards my car, I looked at my phone. It was my Dad calling.It was odd that my Dad would call at that time, because he knew we practiced late in the afternoon. I had a lot going on getting ready for practice, so I let the call go. I’d give him a call back after practice. I got in my car and started driving down the Rec Center, and my phone rang again. It was my Dad calling again. I figured maybe he just had to ask me a question about something so I picked it up.

It’s hard to describe the feeling you get when your caller ID says “Dad” yet the voice you hear when you say hello is one you don’t recognize. My insides felt hollow. I was sitting at a stop sign waiting to make a right turn when I heard “Detective with the Tampa Police department.” My father had recently bought his retirement home in Tampa. “I’m very sorry to inform you…” My father had been found by his cleaning lady, dead of a heart attack. He was 63 years old.

I was too stunned to know how to feel. I drove down to the Murray Center, parked in the parking lot, and called my brother. I got his wife, who said he was not feeling well and was sleeping. I told her he had to wake him up. When he came to the phone I just said “I just got a call from the Tampa Police department. Dad’s dead.” They had picked up my Dad’s cell phone and looked at his text messages. I had texted him the day before to let him know Providence College was in Anaheim in a tournament, and their game was on TV if he wanted to watch it. He never got the text. The Tampa Police did.

I went inside the Murray Center, totally stunned, and told my AD. I went into the gym and gathered my players who were warming up before practice, and told them. It seemed weird that I told my team before I told anyone else in my family, but I had to let them know I wasn’t going to be at practice. I called my girlfriend – now my wife – and can still hear the shock in her voice.I went home and called my brother again, and we started calling family and close friends. The feeling is hard to describe, it’s like being in a daze. I was shocked, stunned, empty, yet there was a lot of work to do. We had to let people know, to start thinking about arrangements.

Throughout all of it, as bad as I felt, I had this one overriding feeling: Lucky. It's still hard to explain how I felt that way in that moment.  I had a great relationship with my father, and I just felt lucky to have had the relationship I did with him for 36 years. I still feel that way to this day.  As stunned as I was, I just kept thinking about how lucky I was, and I guess that helped me get through that day somehow. My father was very successful. He grew up in Parkchester in the Bronx and had to work hard to get to college. He attended Iona College just North of the City, joining the Marine Reserves to help pay for school, and started a career in business upon graduation. He took a job out of school with KPMG, one of the big accounting firms in New York City, and ended up spending 38 years with the company. By the time he retired he was a senior partner with a big office on Park Avenue. He was very actively involved at Iona College, his alma mater, as the President of their Goal Club, as well as their Alumni Association. He joined a golf club in Westchester and served a stint as the President there. He served on a number of different Board of Directors for different organizations.My father’s wake was a few days later on Castle Hill Avenue in the Bronx, the neighborhood where he grew up. He was still a working class kid from the Bronx, but he had worked his way into being very well off and connecting with some very successful people.

It was overwhelming to see so many people show up to pay their respects. Whenever you're in the situation where someone close to you has a death in the family and you feel like you're not sure what to do, just show up. That’s what you do. You show up. It really helped my brother and I to see so many people who cared about and had been impacted by our father.The wake was a who’s who of powerful people. College President’s, executive VPs, high-powered attorneys, wall street millionaires. It made my brother and I feel very good to see so many of my Dad’s friends and associates. The line was long and it took a couple of hours to see everyone.

Towards the end of the night a man walked in who looked a little out of place. He was wearing a baseball cap and a pair of khakis with a golf shirt and a rumpled jacket. He had a work ID badge hanging around his neck, looking very blue collar in a white collar crowd. I noticed him as soon as he walked in, and I didn’t recognize him. He didn’t talk to anyone, he just waited on line and made his way up to our family to pay respects. He shook my hand and simply said “I’m so sorry for your loss. Your father was a great friend to me.”

I said thank you, but didn't ask him who he was. After he got through the line, he went and sat in the back in a chair by himself. I noticed he said a few words to a few of the people from my Dad’s office. Then he got up slowly, put his cap back on, and started to walk out.I wanted to talk to him before he left, but I hesitated because I didn’t want to make him uncomfortable. I didn’t want him to think that I was stopping him because I didn’t know who he was. I watched him walk out the door of the funeral home and head back down Castle Hill Avenue – past a number of car service Town Cars ready to take some of the attendees back into Manhattan. He put his cap on and walked back towards the 6 train.

This man was on my mind all night. Before everyone left, I asked one of my father’s work associates if they knew who he was. I thought I had seen him talking briefly with some of the people from my Dad’s office. It turns out he did work in my Dad’s office – in the mailroom. He delivered the mail to my Dad’s floor of his Park Avenue office building, and my Dad had asked him what his name was, befriended him, developed a relationship with him. He asked him about his family. He found out he had two young kids in catholic school.  He'd buy them Christmas gifts so they had nice toys under the tree.  At different times when things were a struggle, my Dad had helped out by paying the tuition for his kids so they could stay in the Catholic grammar school in their neighborhood.

When I learned about this, I couldn’t hold back the tears. This man had gotten on the 6 train in Midtown Manhattan and taken a one hour subway ride to Castle Hill, then walked the six blocks to pay his respects, to say “I’m sorry for your loss” to two sons he had never met. He didn't know us, and hardly knew anyone at the wake. He certainly looked a little bit out of place.I think about this man all of the time. I can still see him putting his hat back on and slowly walking up Castle Hill Avenue to the Subway station. He spent at least two hours on the subway and waited at least 30 minutes in line just to pay his respects. I didn't even know who he was, nor did my brother.  We would have had no idea if he didn't show up.  But he made the trip anyway.

I am very lucky to have had the relationship I did with my father, to spend the time with him that I did. I’m also very proud of the way my Dad lived his life. He made a lot of money and traveled in circles of very successful people. But he was always the same person, the kid who had worked his way out of the Bronx. He had no sense of entitlement about him. I learned so much from him, simply from the way he lived his life and how he acted towards others, even those he didn't know. He treated everyone with dignity and respect and went out of his way to help people in need.

That night, that moment, that man who showed up to pay his respects for my father made me think about how I live my own life. Do I treat everyone with the same respect? Am I courteous and genuine to everyone I meet, regardless of their circumstances and what they can do for me? Do I give people the benefit of the doubt if they are struggling with something, not knowing what might be going on in their life? Do I show the right amount of gratitude in my daily routine?

How do I treat the people in my "mail room?"  We all have people in the mail room in our life. How do we interact with those people? Do we treat them with respect and go out of our way to make sure they are comfortable? Do we think about what we can do to help them? Or others who might not come from the same background that we do?

What am I doing every day to make sure, when it’s my time, that the guy in my mail room is going to show up for me?

That was the last lesson my father ever taught me.

Leadership Presence

“Leadership is about making others better as a result of your presence and making sure that impact lasts in your absence.”

-Sheryl Sandberg

Emotion

When emotion takes over, the message becomes irrelevant.

I have a house in Rhode Island that abuts the local public high school. The school has been falling apart for years and the town recently got approval on a bond to build a new school, an investment of over 100 Million dollars. The town supports the new school, but the local residents have some concerns about the contractors and their work. They are digging up a ton of soil and piled it up about two stories high, and the residents are worried about chemicals in the soil that can be hazardous. It’s turned into a pretty emotional dispute over a number of meetings.

The residents have a point to make, they have the facts on their side. But the meetings have now gotten very emotional on both sides. Everyone who shows up has something to say. They are upset that their neighborhood might be unsafe and they want their voice to be heard. The contractors and school building committee are tired of hearing the same questions and accusations. Everyone is frustrated, and frustration is a useless emotion. Nothing good comes from it. The meetings are no longer productive with the same arguments and accusations being thrown about over and over.

The situation with the school reminds me of something I thought about a lot as a head coach. When emotion takes over, the message becomes irrelevant. I constantly reminded myself of that when I felt frustrated with my team. There were plenty of days when I couldn’t get the most out of them and the more emotional I got, the worse they got. Whatever point I was trying to make was lost in the intensity (and anger, at times) of the moment.

This wasn’t just the case with myself or the coaching staff. I noticed it all the time with the players. How many times do you see one of your players get upset and jump a teammate, only to have the teammate jump right back at him? The point to the message is irrelevant. His teammates have no idea what he just said, it just becomes a battle of emotion. They get into it with each other, but nothing really gets accomplished. It happens in team settings all the time. Marshall McLuhan said “The medium is the message,” meaning the way the message is delivered is more important than the message itself. I think this idea is only heightened in the intensity of team competition.

Emotion is a big part of team sports an competitive athletics. I’m not suggesting we need to take the emotion out of it. There are plenty of times when your team needs to see emotion out of you and it can be very effective. If anything, as a head coach I was guilty of being too even-keeled - there were probably times when my team needed more emotion out of me and I didn’t supply it. But as coaches we have to learn how to use emotion to our advantage, and to teach our players the same.

When emotion takes over, the message becomes irrelevant. Emotion will undoubtedly be a part of your program, but it’s important to learn how it fits, the impact it will have on your team, and how to manage it. Every player and team will react differently to emotion. But you have to make sure the message is still being received, and it’s being received immediately. When emotion dominates production suffers, and your team is getting worse.

Are You A Fan?

Are you a fan of your players? There is a lot of research that says one of the best ways you can motivate is to be a fan.

When you coach your team, are you actually a fan of your players? Do you root for them to do well? Do you let them know how highly you think of them? Do you actively cheer for them?

It’s a simple act that motivates, but one that gets lost often. Being a fan. In a lot of ways, it doesn’t fit with what we think of as coaching - being in charge, telling people what to do, raising our voice, correcting mistakes. That’s where we get high on our own power and control. We tell people to do, and we stop being a fan. Instruction is important, of course. We have to teach. But when we get lost in simply telling people what they are doing wrong, we aren’t motivating. We are correcting and instructing, but not always in a positive tone.

Be a fan of your players. It really isn’t that hard. Don’t get drunk on power and control. If you want to motivate your team better, cheer for them. You can instruct them and correct them as well. You can be demanding and hold them accountable. Practices can be tough. But make sure they know you are rooting for them.

“The most important thing you can do to motivate your team is to be a fan”. - From the website Admired Leadership

Leading Through Losing

I got a great text last week from a former player of mine at the University of Maine who shared a picture of him finishing a marathon in under three hours. He thanked me for the way we coached him at Maine, and told me that the mental toughness we helped instill in him through our program was a big part of his life today - and a big reason why he was able to finish a marathon in under three hours. He’s hoping to qualify for the Boston Marathon in the future. I’ve said this many times - texts like that are really the reason why I coach.

Pat Reilly once said that the essence of coaching was when you see a former player 25 years down the road - a player you didn’t have the best relationship with - and you greet each other with a smile and a hug. There is an understanding between great competitors that everything you did was about pushing each other to the edge to try and find success. High performance is rarely easy and isn’t always pretty. We do what we do in a very intense environment and sometimes that isn’t fun. But it’s all a part of a bigger cause, the chance to touch excellence every day.

I love hearing from my former players, but texts like that from my players at Maine are validation in a different way. We didn’t win at Maine, losing three starters to season ending injuries two years in a row, and losing nine players in four years who transferred to higher level schools. It was a great learning experience for me as a head coach. I came from a place (Rhode Island College) where I coached the best team in the league for nine years and our culture was as tough and tight as anywhere in the country - I promise you that. On top of that, we won big - six tournament titles in nine years and eight straight trips to the NCAA Tournament. Winning validated what we did, as shallow as that sounds. Even the kids who didn’t understand what we were all about had a helluva ride because we were a championship program and a dominant team in New England.

Can you build the same culture if you don't have success? I’ve thought about that question a lot since I left Maine (not to mention a lot while I was still in Maine), and I’ve realized you certainly can. Your culture isn’t about winning, although winning certainly makes establishing your culture a lot easier. But if your culture is about results your culture is pretty shallow to begin with. Buy-in is certainly helped when you win, because everybody enjoys winning. But if winning is the substance of your culture, it won’t last long.

My last home game at Maine was against Vermont on February 27th, 2018. After the game was over I was walking through the empty arena and I noticed a green card by the visitors bench. it was the play card from the Vermont staff which they had left behind. Under the “Our Opponent” headline, the first thing listed was our record, which was 3-12 in the league and 6-24 overall. Then the next line said “Play with great effort, very upbeat, positive way about them, best scramble team in the league.”

“Play with great effort, very upbeat, positive way about them…” Man, I loved seeing that. How often do you see that about a team that is 6-24?

I knew I was leaving Maine after that season. I had turned down a two-year contract extension when I realized that the financial model and the way our players were treated with regards to injuries (in many cases, having to pay for their own care) was not going to work. I spent that year enjoying the hell out of coaching my kids, even though we had suffered so many personnel losses that we could barely compete. But seeing that after my last game made me realize I had succeeded. I had succeeded in building the right culture and doing it the right way, even though we didn’t have success on the court.

Our players gave me everything they had. They bought in to what we were trying to do, but more importantly they understood it. They understood that the scoreboard didn’t reflect who they were. So much of that was out of their control. Who they were was their behavior every day - how they treated people, how they competed, how they cared for one another. And it reflected in the way they played, as Vermont’s scouting report would attest. They understood that that was who they were, and no scoreboard was ever going to tell them they were a loser.

One of the great lessons I learned about my time at RIC as a head coach was that the best way to win big like we did was not to worry about winning. If winning becomes central to who you are, you’ll start finding short cuts to get the results. You’ll take the easy way out, the short-term approach that says “let’s just win tomorrow,” and the crazy thing is you’ll find winning becomes more elusive. If you focus on the kids, the approach, the way you compete, and the habits that go into the right process, you will find success. You’ll find a team that gives you everything they have, a team that trusts you and learns to trust one another. You’ll find a team you’ll love going to battle with every day.

And every now and then you’ll get a text from a former player that makes you feel really good, that reminds you what was really important. You can lead the right way through losing as long as you can focus on your team and who they are - not who others think they are based on the scoreboard.

The Invisible Power of Trust

Really good stuff from Admired Leaders on Trust… “trust depends more on what team members think of each others skills than on just about anything else.” So true. Things like trust and chemistry have so much more to do with teammates abilities rather than how much they get along or how much they spend time together. Players learn to trust teammates who bring it every day and produce for the team.

Many of the most profound influences in life are not visible. Think gravity, magnetic fields, friction, and ultrasound. The invisible world often governs what happens in the material world. 

The same is true in teams. We can’t see trust between teammates but we can witness the startling effect it has on performance. 

The words differ but they stand for the same thing: camaraderie, cohesion, bonding, esprit de corps, fellowship, chemistry. These are the labels we place on teams who exhibit an unusual level of trust. Of the many qualities that distinguish high-performing teams, trust is the discriminating X-factor by a wide margin. 

Cohesive teams know each other well and like what they know. To a large part, trust on a team is acquired by understanding each other. “Miracle on Ice” hockey coach Herb Brooks knew this. That is why, in 1980, he assembled an Olympic team made up of players who had known each other since they were adolescents. Instead of selecting college all-stars, Brooks chose players who had played and competed together for years. It proved a historic and winning formula. 

But not all teams have a rich history with each other or have bonded over competition. In fact, in business or education settings, that is rarely the case. 

To offset this disadvantage, great team leaders invest a lot of time in encouraging teammates to learn more about each other in conversations designed exclusively for that purpose. Forums where team members disclose who they are and how they see the world help to deepen the understanding necessary for camaraderie. 

Great leaders also know a little magic behind trust in teams. If there is a secret to team chemistry, it might be this: trust depends more on what team members think of each other’s skills than on just about anything else. 

When teammates have conviction in the competencies of their colleagues, trust gains a foothold. Surrounded by teammates who are steadfast in their belief in their talents, team members can’t help but to believe in themselves, as well. This is how trust in teams erupts. 

While trust alone does not guarantee exceptional outcomes, it almost always elevates performance to the highest level possible for a team. That’s why so many leaders are on the hunt for the elusive and invisible force of team chemistry. Trust matters, even though we can’t see it. It wears a cloak but reveals itself in the threads of high performance.

Eric Spoelstra

Three things I really liked from a recent article in The Athletic about Eric Spoelstra and the Heat.

1) He loves confrontation. Confrontation is an essential part of elite leadership, and an area that is avoided consistently by weak leaders.

2) The debate, almost always, is about winning…. and he demands 3 things: Eye to eye, nothing personal, and a solution. I love that approach to confrontations. Not only is he embracing confrontation, he is setting parameters to make sure the confrontation is productive.

3)To be coached by Spoelstra is to feel. It’s going to matter to you, one way or another, and if it doesn’t you won’t fit in here. Love it.

“A lot of teams avoid confrontation; he runs toward it,” Olynyk said about Spoelstra. “He likes confrontation … loves it. He thinks it makes you stronger, makes you better.”

The debate, almost always, is about winning, and how to achieve that. It doesn’t matter if the disagreements are about strategy, effort or selfishness, Spoelstra demands three things: eye-to-eye communication, nothing is made personal and the debate involves a solution.

To be coached by Spoelstra is to feel. It might be anger, it might be elation and it might be frustration. But they feel. And as the playoffs near, and the standings say the Heat are not contenders, the players in Spoelstra’s locker room feel differently.

Steve Kerr on Resilience

How do you play when things aren’t going your way?

Character – Nick Saban

“What you think. What you do. What’s important to you.”

Thibs on Jalen Brunson

“I’ve never seen anyone work the way he does,” Thibodeau said of Brunson. “And he does it in front of everyone, he does it in our gym, does it all summer long, he does it at a game speed. He never has to adjust in a game because of the way he prepares himself.

Is Contemporary Leadership Advice Really Just B.S.?

(From Admired Leaders) Renowned Stanford Business Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer wrote a doozy of a book in 2015 entitled Leadership BS. It seems some titles create more noise years after publication, and that appears to be the case with Pfeffer’s book. It is getting some play once again in small and large organizations. 

Passionate Advocates

An interesting approach from Admired Leaders when you can't find a consensus.

Working toward consensus when making a major decision is a worthy goal. 

Consensus fosters goodwill for future decisions, as well as ensuring the buy-in so critical to executing or implementing the decision. But smart and strong-minded colleagues sometimes disagree. 

When consensus is not achievable, leaders must have an alternate path to make the decision without resorting to making the call unilaterally.

Reviewing the arguments on both sides of the decision and exploring the reasons one or more colleagues can’t live with it will assist the team and the leader in moving toward a choice. But the best leaders always listen for passion around a decision. They look to see who feels the need to champion the idea. 

Tuning into the frequency of passion helps leaders sort out where the whole team really stands on a decision. Because it is always easier to dispute or reject a decision, passionately in favor should always overrule passionately against. 

The key is to find a quorum. 

When consensus is negated, identifying two or more passionate advocates lights the pathway forward. With anything less than a core group of zealots in favor of the decision, good leaders should share the discomfort of those against the decision and keep the issue on the table until a different solution or choice presents itself. Without the passion of multiple advocates, decisions need to be delayed. 

As the writer E.M. Forster liked to say, “One person with passion is better than forty people merely interested.”

Passionate advocates tip the scales when consensus can’t be reached. Find them, or mark time until you do.

Culture or Talent

What's more important to you as a coach - your culture or your talent? I think a lot of coaches would answer that question by saying their culture, but that won't always be reflected in their actions. It's easy to say our culture is what's most important, but it's hard to pass up elite talent.

I don't know that there is a black and white answer to the question of culture or talent. You need a lot of both to win consistently. And there are plenty of players who are talented and great for your culture, so if you constantly face the question of culture or talent in recruiting, you probably aren't recruiting the right people.

I'm always willing to sacrifice a talented player for the culture of my team, and I think that can be very powerful. During the season, I'm definitely a culture first guy. But when I'm recruiting, I don't see it the same way. That's not to say I'd go out and just recruit all knuckleheads and not consider their character or how they'd fit into my team. But I do think in recruiting you are trying to acquire talent, not culture.

I'm not sure you can really evaluate culture as well as you'd like in recruiting. Do you really know how a player is going to respond to the way you communicate and hold them accountable? You can get a feel for the character of the player and how coachable he is, but you really don't know how he'll respond to tough choices and things he doesn't like until you get him in that situation.

I think you need to be open to taking some talented kids that might not fit your culture. First of all, you might be wrong about them and they might fit in just fine. Secondly, not everyone on your team is going to be a leader for your culture. Some guys are just going to put up with everything and toe the line because they want to play. And that is fine. I've had plenty of important contributors on my teams who you would not consider great culture guys. If your culture is strong enough and your leadership is effective you can certainly absorb a few of those guys.

This doesn't mean you should be looking to recruit bad kids. But I do think you should have an open mind when acquiring talent for your team. Maybe a player doesn't seem like the typical kid you'd like to coach, but that isn't always a bad thing. I've learned a lot from players I've coached who've had a different approach, and they've added a lot of value to our culture.

When I'm coaching my team, culture always comes first. But when I'm recruiting, the first thing I'm looking at is talent. Character and fit will always matter, but natural talent is important. If your culture is right, you'll be surprised at how much you can get out of talented players who might be a little bit different or not necessarily be a perfect fit for you culture.

Relationship With Decisions

As a coach, what is your relationship with your decisions?

Good stuff from Admired Leaders:

Leaders develop a distinct relationship with the decisions they and others make. Decisions can be owned completely, partially, or not at all. Interestingly, the degree of ownership for a decision has little to do with the quality of the decision or whether the leader thinks it is a wise choice. 

Even believing a decision is the right or best choice does not equate to fully owning that decision. The commitment to fully embrace a decision is left entirely up to the leader. It can never be forced or compelled. It is always a leader’s option as to how much they support or oppose any decision. When leaders fully own a decision, they hold both themselves and others accountable to every aspect of it. 

While this sounds like a decision-by-decision choice, leaders relate to decisions in generally the same way. Those who are tepid with some decisions rarely make the full commitment to own any decision, even those they make themselves. 

In other words, leaders typically display a common pattern of ownership across decisions, regardless of context.

A leader’s relationship with decisions has a massive impact on how effective they and their team will be over time.  Teams always know exactly how committed their leader is to a decision. 

Whenever a leader wavers to any degree in their allegiance to a decision, team execution suffers. Because a leader’s relationship with a decision is reflected in the plans, metrics, tactics, and timelines involved with implementing it, team performance is hugely impacted by it. When leaders hold their full commitment in reserve, team members respond in kind. 

The best leaders know this and make it a point to strengthen their relationship and commitment to all decisions. They choose to own decisions completely or resist making or finalizing them. When faced with decisions from above, true leaders decide to commit, even when they disagree. 

In organizations, there is no such thing as faking ownership of a decision. Everyone can tell exactly where the leader stands regarding the decision. Team execution depends on it. 

What is your relationship with decisions?

Tampa Rays Approach

Tampa Bay Rays President of Baseball Operations Erik Meander talks about their approach. Are you willing to look at things differently, and judge how much weight should be put into certain areas regardless of how everyone else is looking at it?

Their goals, he said, “are similar to any other organization’s goals.” And that is to win as many games as possible. But he conceded that they might look differently than other teams at the things that happen on a field and how those things connect to winning.

Said Neander: “Does the industry put more weight on some of those than others? Less weight on some of those than others? And how confident are we willing to (be to) invest in those areas where we think they might not be as weighted? Are we going to be right? I don’t know.

“Everyone has those beliefs and opinions of where that is. But you know, it’s just something that we constantly try to stay at that — and just try to make sure that we’re appreciating what we think is in front of a player and not just what’s behind him.”