6 Traits of Effective Organizations

6 traits of effective organizations – from Brad Martin, former University of Memphis president and retired chairman and CEO of Saks.  This was passed along to us by our Athletic Director Karlton Creech.

Some really good stuff in here – “obsessive concentration” on the customer.  As coaches, who are our customers?  I also really like the idea of “prudent risk-taking that results in both failure and success.”  Reminds me of the idea of applauding spectacular failures that is a part of the training for the Chinese National diving team.  Finally, “empowerment among all colleagues.”  As coaches, are we empowering everyone around us to help our “customers?”

6 Traits of Effective Organizations – Brad Martin

1) Clearly defined values that guide all actions

2) Obsessive concentration on the customer

3) Intense and persistent focus on learning and growth

4) Prudent risk-taking that results in both failure and success

5) Empowerment among all colleagues to make their own judgments in the application of available resources to best serve the customer

6) Understanding that life and work intersect daily

Slow Down

Every year for 10 years now as a head coach I’ve made sure to tell myself we were going to move slow with regards to practice.  One of the toughest challenges as a coach is to be patient – you know what it is supposed to look like, you know what it looked like at the end of last year when you had your last practice, and you are naturally concerned that you won’t be ready when you start playing games.  You want to put everything in quickly, even if it’s sloppy, so that you can start working on all of your stuff as a team.

This year in my first year as a new coach at Maine I made sure that we were going to move slowly.  Coaching an entirely new group with a new staff is a completely different deal.  So I was certain we were going to go nice and slow so everyone could get it.  And once again, for the 10th year in a row, after a couple of practices we were talking about the need to slow down.  We were moving too fast and guys were struggling to pick things up and compete at a high level of intensity.

It’s your responsibility as a coach to make sure your players get it.  If your players cannot handle what you are throwing at them as a coach, it’s not on them, it’s on you.  The easy way out is to blame the players and say they aren’t focused or mentally ready.  And that certainly might be part of it.  But it’s the leaders responsibility to make sure everyone in the group clearly understands what they are supposed to to, and to prepare them to do it at the level they need to.  So when your players are struggling with something it’s OK to ask them to do better, but you also need to ask yourself what you can do better.  And one of the best things you can do is slow things down and give them more time to understand what you are trying to get across.

Ask yourself this question – when your team goes to play your first game, and you put kids out on the floor who don’t know the plays, how do you react?  Is that on you or is it on them?  I’ve always felt as a head coach that if I get to a game and I ask my team to execute, and they aren’t able to do it because they don’t know the plays, that’s on me.  I can talk all I want about how they aren’t focused or mentally ready, but ultimately it’s my job to make sure they are prepared to execute in a game.  If they aren’t ready to do that, it’s my fault.

One of the best things you can do to make your team better is to slow down and keep things simple.  I know you want to make sure you have everything in and there are a million game situations you want to be prepared for.  But if your kids are thinking too much they aren’t going to be able to compete at a high level, and your team won’t improve at the rate they should be.  Slow down, keep it simple, and resist the urge to do too much too fast.  Your team will be better for it.

Team Basketball and NBA Titles

Some interesting stuff in this article from Neil Paine on fivethirtyeight.com, with a bit of an ode to the Red Holzmann Knicks and team basketball.  (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/in-a-star-dominated-sport-theres-still-a-place-for-unselfish-basketball/).

He makes the point that the 2014 Spurs were similar in approach, sharing the basketball on their way to an NBA title.  We certainly spent enough time in the basketball world celebrating the Spurs for “playing the right way” on their way to a title – and I enjoyed watching the Spurs play as much as anyone this year.

But what’s interesting to note is that the style of play used by the Knicks of the early ’70s or the Spurs of 2014 generally doesn’t result in a championship.

“My research shows that most NBA champs are more like Michael and the Jordanaires than Frazier, Bradley, Earl Monroe, Dave DeBusschere and Willis Reed. Historically, teams with an uneven distribution of the offensive workload — particularly with regard to the difference between their top two scoring options and the rest of the starting five — tend to win championships at a much higher rate than teams that spread their shots around more equally.”

If you click on the link under “My research” in that column (http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6013) you’ll find the following:

“So, in the playoffs, teams that win it all tend to have a small (but significant) tendency to allocate more possessions to their top two options — and fewer to their #3 & #4 options — than teams who lose. In other words, the model of a superstar “Alpha Dog” plus another quasi-star and 3 role players seems to be the dominant usage pattern that differentiates NBA champs from teams that fall short.”

It’s very interesting factual data to read, considering the overwhelming narrative last year how the Spurs “Played the right way” and that’s why they won a championship.  In no way am I condemning the way the Spurs played – as I said, I loved watching them as much as anyone.  But that way of playing in the NBA generally leaves you without any hardware.



One situation you face as a coach is how to deal with players who are unhappy about their playing time.  The truth is I want everyone who isn’t playing to be unhappy about their playing time.  That’s actually a good thing.  If you don’t want to play more, you probably aren’t much of a competitor.  The problem comes when they don’t handle it the right way.  But I’ve always said I want everyone on my team to want to play more.

The answer to the question is really more of a long-term one than a short-term one.  It’s really not about how you handle that conversation with the unhappy player – it’s about the standards you set, and how you communicate to your players how they can earn playing time.  By clearly explaining what you expect of them every day in practice and how that translates into playing time – and then following through with it when the games come around – you create a meritocracy.  Here is what is expected of you.  The guys who do it best every day in practice are going to play.  If you follow that up by giving the majority of the playing time to those guys, the message is pretty clear.  Playing time is earned every day in practice.

Now that not may be the approach you want to take.  Plenty of coaches will place talent and production above everything else, and play the best players.  I don’t think that in and of itself is an issue – although it’s not the approach we use.  A problem arises when you talk to guys about how hard they work in practice, how tough they are, the way they compete – and then play the best players anyway, regardless of what they do in practice.  When you do that, you are undermining your own approach and you lose the trust of your players.  If you are just going to play the most talented guys, you should make it clear that the guys who produce will play.

I’ve always said we probably had less conversations with players about playing time in 9 years at Rhode Island College than anywhere else in the country.  It’s not that guys were all happy with how much they played, of course they weren’t.  And we did have those conversations, it’s not like they never took place.  But for the most part our guys knew what was expected of them every day in practice and how they could earn playing time.  We were consistent with our approach and we rewarded the playing time accordingly.  It’s hard for a guy to complain about playing time when the evidence is in front of the entire team every day at practice.

We have always started with how hard we competed.  We demand that our guys bring it every day, because we’ve always felt how hard we competed is under our control.  We expect our guys to play with great toughness, and we expect everyone to defend.  I’ve always told my guys that they could have the offensive end and make all the plays they want and play with freedom and confidence.  But they were going to give me the defensive end.  So we created a culture where the way we competed, the toughness we played with, and the way we defended was going to be valued.  Compete, defend, play tough.

So if you want to talk about those things and demand them as a coach, you have to reward them.  The guys who competed every day, the guys who played with great toughness, and our best defenders had to get playing time.  Now, were these the only 3 things that determined playing time?  Of course not.  We always said that everything mattered.  But those were our core values, the things we emphasized the most.  If we were going to be true to what we said, those guys had to play.

It’s not always easy.  We had a lot of conversations as a staff at RIC about getting certain guys more playing time or putting them in the starting line-up, even if they weren’t as good as some of our other players.  And those conversations weren’t easy.  Often it’s hard to start certain guys who don’t have the same level of natural talent just because they compete with toughness every day.  We started a walk-on every year my last 6 years at RIC, and on our back-to-back Sweet 16 teams in 2010 and 2011 we started two.  Guys that brought it every day and epitomized the toughness we always talked about.  It wasn’t always easy to put those guys in the line-up, but ultimately we had to be confident in the values we felt were most important.  If we weren’t going to reward them with playing time, then they shouldn’t be that important to us.  The results were terrific, and even though I knew we were pretty tough, I was always amazed at how tough we really were as a team.

Figure out the values that are most important to you, and define them clearly for your team.  Show your players the behaviors that reflect that behavior – the plays they make that represent those core values.  Once it is clear to them, they will understand what they need to do to earn playing time.  When the do, reward them.  Your program will become a meritocracy, where everything is earned, and your kids understand who they have to be to get on the floor.

Great Competitors

Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than that of competition.

- Henry Clay

Who are the best competitors in sports?

The two guys I always think about are Michael Jordan and Tom Brady.  They are the two guys that I have watched the most that just seem to have a relentless approach every time they compete.  But they are also two of the most talented guys to play their position in their respective sports.  You can reasonably argue they are the best to ever play their sport.  So how much does talent  and ability have to do with competitiveness?  Or how much does the way you compete enhance what we consider to be your natural talent?

Larry Bird was a great competitor in my mind.  So was Joe Montana.  Two more of the all-time great talents.  But they probably don’t get as much credit for being competitors as they do for just being great players.  Their personalities were a little bit more reserved and stoic, at least publicly.  So how much credit for competing do we give to guys who have a more fiery personality?  Jordan and Brady are both guys that aren’t afraid to openly show emotion and get in their teammates faces.  Does that make them better competitors, or do we just give them credit for that because they show more emotion?

Tiger Woods is looked at as a great competitor.  He’s also the most talented golfer to ever play the game.  Is he a great competitor because he pounds his driver every now and then when he hits a bad shot?  Or because he curses himself at times on national TV?  He won the U.S. Open on a broken leg, a legendary performance that speaks to his competitiveness.  Or does it just speak to his talent?

Is Phil Mickelson a great competitor?  Phil Mickelson has much more of an open, loose, fun-loving personality.  He seems to keep things in better perspective than most and is more transparent with his thoughts.  But does he want to win any less than Tiger Woods?  Sometimes I think we evaluate competitiveness the wrong way.

Think about the best competitors you have coached.  For me, I immediately think of John Linehan.  The 5-7 guard we had at Providence who is currently the all-time steals leader  in NCAA history.  John was a relentless competitor and not the most talented kid in the world.  It was in his nature almost out of necessity.  To play in the Big East at 5-7, John had to compete at an incredible level all of the time.

Donnie McGrath was a great competitor.  He hated to lose,  and he was always in the gym trying to get better.  Similar to John, Donnie always felt like he had something to prove.  He was stereotyped as a middle class white kid who wasn’t quick enough or tough enough to play at the highest level.  Donnie’s competitiveness came out with how often he was alone in the gym finding  a way to get better.

I coached some incredible competitors at Rhode Island College.  Ethan Gaye was a walk-on guard who ended up starting on 2 straight NCAA Tournament teams for us.  Ethan wasn’t the most skilled player, a 2 guard who wasn’t a natural shooter or a great ball-handler.  Competing was how he made his living.  Tahrike Carter was another great competitor who ended up being an All-American.  But he was never the most naturally skilled or gifted player, he just brought an incredible will to win.  Cam Stewart was another great competitor.  Another walk-on who was a huge part of the first great teams we had at RIC, Cam was a silent assassin.  He didn’t come across as the tough, chip on his shoulder type kid, but he hated to lose.  And he was tough, and he had a chip on his shoulder.  It was just hard to see at first.  So many of our great players at RIC were great competitors, partly because at a D3 state school you naturally have something to prove.

When you think about it, we tend to put competitors into 2 categories – either the extremely talented all-time greats who show a little bit of fire, or the chip on the shoulder, something to prove guys who often have a perceived flaw to overcome.  These guys are relentless for a reason, almost because they have to be.  Undersized overachievers tend to be labeled as great competitors.

It’s worth thinking about what makes someone a great competitor, and how you go about finding it as a coach.  How much of it is based on personality and just natural?  How much of it is talent?  And how much can it be developed by your culture?

There is a difference between wanting to win and competing.  Everyone wants to win – it feels a lot better than losing.  But competing is about so much more – how do you react when you aren’t feeling great?  Do you respond when you get tired?  What do you do when no one is watching?  Great competitors don’t just turn it on when the game is tied and the clock is running down.  They are outside in the summer working on their own.  They are genuinely upset when they lose a drill in practice.  They are mentally tough enough to own a loss and bounce back from it.

I believe it’s important to recruit great competitors, because some of it is natural. A lot of it is instilled before players get to the college level.  You can also develop it without question by creating a competitive culture.  When guys are in a competitive environment every day their natural desire to compete will emerge – even if they don’t have a great capacity to do so.  You may not like what you see, but you’ll learn about how competitive a guy is in the right environment.

Talent also plays a key role.  I think talent makes players more competitive, more than being competitive enhances their talent.  It’s hard for someone who’s not as talented to do things at a faster pace, to continue with great energy throughout plays when they aren’t having success.  Playing with great energy comes easier when you are good at it.  It’s hard to be a great competitor, and greater natural ability makes it easier to compete.

Understanding where you think that competitive nature comes from is important to be able to get the most out of your players.  Your approach, your culture, the environment you create needs to tap into these elements to allow guys the comfort level to compete.  It’s a challenge as a coach to understand where each players competitive spirit comes from.  But getting it out of them translates to getting the most out of your team.