There is a problem, let's fix it

Four interesting points from the book "Hard Facts," a book from the Harvard Business School Press:

~~~~~~~~~~

Talent or ability... depends on what happens to people and how they are coached, not just their innate skill or motivation.

A study by Lawrence Kahn examined the effect of baseball managers on team and player performance. Kahn measured player ability by the average of their performance over their entire carers, a reliable indicator of player talent.

He found that some managers inspired players to perform above their ability, and other managers stymied players, consistently driving players to perform below their ability.

Ability or talent did not explain all of a player's performance in a given year. How the player was managed or coached mattered, too.

~~~~~~~~~~

What is true for individuals is also true for organizations, groups, and teams. Exceptional performance depends heavily on experience and effort. No matter how gifted (or ordinary) team members are to start out, the more experience they have working together, the better their teams do.

Think of the U.S. women's national soccer team, which has won numerous championships, including two of the four women's World Cups and two of the three Olympic women's tournaments held to date.

The team certainly has had enormously talented players. Yet every team member will tell you that the most important factors in their success were the communication, mutual understanding, respect, and ability to work together tha tdeveloped in the dozen or so years that the stable core group played together.

Quantitative research on team effectiveness has demonstrated the power of such joint experience in every setting examined, including string quartets, surgical teams, student groups, top management teams, and airplane cockpit crews.

Experienced teams perform better because over time members come to trust each other more, communicate more effectively, and learn to blend each other's diverse skills, strengths, and weaknesses.

~~~~~~~~~~

The "talent mind-set" is dangerous because it treats talent as something fixed. This mind-set causes people to believe that it just isn't worth trying hard because they -- or the people they lead -- are naturally smart or not, and therer is little if anything anyone can do about it.

A seires of studies by Columbia University's Carol Dweck shows that when people believe their IQ is unchangeable, "they become too focused on being smart and looking smart rather than on challenging themselves, stretching and expanding their skills, becoming smarter."

Dweck concludes that:

When people believe they are born with natural and unchangeable smarts, it causes them to learn less over time. They don't bother learning new things and improving old skills.

~~~~~~~~~~

Given all the evidence on the importance of systems, why do so many companies place so much emphasis on getting and keeping great people [or players] and so little on building and sustaining great systems?

A big part of that is Western countries, like the United States, glorify rugged individualism so much that we make a cognitive error. We forget that history, organizational goals, rewards are potent causes of what people and organizations do. We give too much credit to individual heroes when organizations [or teams] do things right and too much blame on individual scapegoats when things go wrong.

[In successful organizations] managers consciously fought their natural tendency to focus on who deserved credit and blame, and instead worked on strengthening the system.

A supervisor explained:

"There are two theories. One says 'there is a problem, let's fix it.' The other says 'we've got a problem, someone is screwing up, let's go beat them up.' To make improvement, we could no longer embrace the second theory. We had to use the first."

Knowing the temperament of each individual player

Jimmy Johnson, the FOX football analyst who guided the Cowboys to two NFL championships in the '90s, had some thoughts about the Clinton Portis-Jim Zorn situation in Washington:

"What's difficult for a first-year head coach is not knowing the temperament of each individual player," Johnson said. "You try to treat everyone the same, and you really can't do that." Some players can be dressed down in front of the team without a problem, others need lengthy "counseling sessions" if they're spoken to sharply. Portis is one of the latter. "That's not the right button to push for everybody," Johnson said. "Different ones get a different reaction. There are a lot of different personalities that make up a 53-man roster. As years go by and you know players and they know you, a lot of these first-year problems are alleviated."

Three mistakes to avoid when hiring a staff

Good column in the November 24 issue of BusinessWeek by Jack Welch (pictured here) about what NOT to do when building a staff:

1. Automatically reward loyalists.

"No matter how long you've worked for the top job, once you get it, the impulse is to 'endorse' your own early endorsers. What a shortcut to mediocrity, if not disaster.

Not all loyalists are hacks, but if they don't possess enormous brainpower, prodigious energy, and the ability to motivate, loyalists will forever remain B players in A jobs.

That's a huge problem for a simple reason: B players tend to hire other B players or, worse, C players, setting off an organizational chain reaction of underperformance."

2. Hire people who need the work or lust for the prestige of being on your team.

"There's almost nothing more appealing than a job candidate who looks you in the eye and tells you how passionately he wants to be your partner.

'How perfect,' you think, 'a person who shares the vision.'

And well he might. But there's a real danger if there are other motives as well, like advancing a stalled career or resurrecting a damaged one. They're the advisers least likely to deliver contrary messages. Why bite the hand that feeds you?"

3. Focus all your attention on crisis hires.

"Most new leaders inherit a burning problem, and naturally the tendency is to fixate on finding the right person to put it out. That has to be done. But a new boss must also rapidly attend to the leadership positions that address his overarching and long-term priorities. Remember, every hire you make says: 'Here's how much I care.' The leader's personnel selection is the ultimate message."

It's about slowing down to go fast

A lot of my friends who aren't in coaching have talked about the number of meetings on their schedules each day. One of them said he has 8-10 meetings during a typical work day.

So this past summer, he said he picked up a copy of the book "Death by Meeting," in which the author makes a case not for fewer meetings, but for better ones.

While the typical coach won't have 10 meetings a day, we have our share of them, though most coaches are generally efficient with their meeting time.

In an interview last year, the author of the book, Patrick Lencioni, argued that "bad meetings are the most painful problem in business."

According to Lencioni (who lives in No. Cal):

"If they're boring, that's a good sign that they're problematic. If people dread going to them, that's a pretty good sign. People should look forward to going to meetings and they should not be bored when they're there.

Lencioni compares a good meeting to a good movie, saying: "A great movie hooks its audience early – within the first 10 minutes – and has enough drama to hold their attention. There should be real conflict taking place with something worth caring about at stake. And in the end, there should be some sort of resolution."

He also encourages those running meetings to engage in a candid discussion, one that can sometimes be uncomfortable:

"The truth is meetings aren't supposed to be easy and comfortable. They're supposed to be places where difficult decisions are made. If you take the drama and the conflict out, you're not going to be talking about the right things or getting to the heart of the issue. You're not going to engage people and get the best from them either."

The author describes four types of meetings: The daily check-in, the weekly tactical, the monthly strategic, and the quarterly offsite review. Here's how he defines each one:

1. The daily check-in: "A quick huddle to find out what everybody is doing. There's no agenda and no problem solving, just a basic social check-in so people know what their team members are doing."

2. The weekly tactical: "Where people talk about how the team is doing against near-term goals. This is the place they can discuss the problems they need to resolve to accomplish those goals. It's not about strategy or brainstorming – it's about solving problems that are holding the team back."

3. The monthly strategic or topical meeting: "You take one big topic that will have an impact on your future and spend two hours or more wrestling it to the ground. These meetings are fun because they're focused on solving a big problem. People brainstorm, push each other, and really draw on their unique perspectives and various levels of experience."

4. The quarterly off-site review: "This sort of meeting has often become a boondoggle – with exotic locations and too many social activities. These meetings are costly and rarely provide a lasting benefit. For me, the quarterly offsite lets people step back from the business, take a breath, and re-assess where they stand.

The topic can be anything – competitors, the market, what your best employees are doing – anything. The function is to help people regain perspective and view the business in a more holistic, long-term manner. It's about slowing down to go fast."

Chuck Daly used to say that coaches are "forced " to make more meetings than almost any leader:

-- Practices leading up to game
-- Shootaround
-- Walkthroughs
-- Film sessions
-- Pregame meeting
-- Timeouts (your own timeouts, opponent's timeouts, TV timeouts )
-- Halftime meeting, halftime film edit, halftime chalk talk
-- Post game meeting
-- Practice the day after the game
-- Meeting to watch the film from the game the night before
-- A brief pre-practice on-court meeting, followed by a full practice
-- And after every practice, the team comes together for a brief meeting

On second thought, coaches do have a lot of meetings.

Key differences between Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y

If you're a coach with players who were born in the 1980s or 1990s (i.e., "Gen Y" or "Millenials"), there's a good article in Forbes magazine called "Managing the Generations" that's interesting and could be helpful in understanding the mindset of younger players.

According to the article, while Boomers (people born between 1946-64) say they're fine with interacting with their boss twice a year, and Gen Xers (born 1965-80) are ok with talking with the boss a couple of times a week, those from Gen Y are more likely to want interaction with the boss "twice an hour."

"Ys are learning. They want the boss to coach, to guide. Boomers look as it as judging. Xers are different still. They see these interactions with the boss as getting validation. Learning [is important to Gen Y]. The most important thing to do with Ys is give them tasks that are truly challenging. Give them enough rope to figure it out as they go."

[Thanks to Scott S. for forwarding this article from the Harvard Business Review about generational differences. Click here to download the PDF file.]

Rocks in the lake

Had lunch last week with a family friend whose company sends its executives to Boston once a year for two days of classes taught by three Harvard professors.

He talked about how impressive the profs were, not just because of their obvious incredible intelligence, but because of their energy, how they managed the classroom, and engaged the students, which reminded him of a master coach on the practice floor.

As we ate our lunch, he recounted a story one of the profs told the class:

Imagine, for a moment, a boat on one side of a lake ready to set sail to the other side. But it can't because near the surface of the lake are huge, sharp rocks that would surely rip open the bottom of the boat.

To overcome the problem, those in the boat simply add more water to the lake, covering up the rocks before setting sail to the other side.

However, when they get to their destination across the lake, they look back to see that the rocks have grown. They're now stuck on the other side and can't return. Again, they add water to the lake to cover up the rocks just enough to sail back.

Then along comes another boat. Seeing the rocks, the captain and his crew drain the water from the lake and dig out the rocks from the lake bed.

Once they'd removed the rocks, they re-fill the lake with water and sail across.

The lesson: Don't cover up problems -- uncover them. Expose them entirely. Then work on them. Dig them out. It's much harder to do so, but when you're done, the sailing is much smoother.

Getting players to take ownership

A story in the Plain Dealer describes how CLE coach Mike Brown "has spent years focusing and honing skills not just in basketball management but also in people management, and his success speaks in his record."

Coach Brown is careful about "passing off credit and absorbing as much criticism as possible," which has "remarkably endeared him to the players."

As Coach Brown, a USD alum, puts it: "From a young age, I had to figure out how to impose my will and get guys to understand without jumping on them or forcing it."

He started in the NBA as a video coordinator for the Nuggets when he was 22. Four years later, he moved to the Bullets as an assistant. Because he was just 26, "he started working on learning as much as he could about his players, not just from film and by reading, but by talking to them not about just about basketball but their lives in general. It was high-level bonding from someone who by job title is supposed to carry authority."

He also made it a point to understand what the players' were feeling. According to Gregg Popovich, for whom Brown coached in San Antonio:

"Michael's always had a great ability to show empathy with a player's situation. One guy may need to be jumped on because he's got a tough spirit, but maybe another guy is more sensitive and you need to handle him one-on-one in the film room. Mike has a great sense of how to handle personalities and knowing what would make that person to allow themselves to be taught."

The following is an excerpt from the article:

A significant facet of Brown's technique is to get players invested in decisions. Often, whether in a practice setting or even in the heat of a timeout in a close game, he will allow the players to make decisions on plays or strategy. To some, this would be considered risky logic and could lead to ruinous anarchy. But Brown sees it as a chance for his players to take ownership in decisions.

In the same vein, Brown almost never passes off blame when speaking publicly or challenges players through the media. When mistakes are made and the press comes looking for a villain, Brown usually steps into the firing line. When praise is in order, he often deflects it.

[Once], when a late-game adjustment solved some issues on offense, Brown said one of the players had suggested the change. When asked later, the player shook his head and said it was Brown who came up with the idea.

"I try to empower my players as much as possible - if you do, it is going to reflect in their effort level," Brown said. "The reality of it is, everybody on this level can play - it is about who plays harder and who plays better together. If you have two people who think they are working together and not a boss telling an employee, it is going to work better."

He is devout when it comes to preparation, which includes vast amounts of film. He has numerous meetings with players, always making sure to keep the lines of communication open in the hope of never surprising anyone with decisions, whether it is good or bad news.

"He sold me as a person even before I knew him as a coach," Cavs center Zydrunas Ilgauskas said. "You cannot fool players for a long time, maybe a few weeks, but not forever. We found out pretty quick that it didn't matter that he didn't play in the league because his basketball IQ was so high."