The Team Leadership Report

By now, you know the story about Christian Laettner picking on Bobby Hurley after the freshman point guard arrived at Duke. It has been told numerous times from various angles over the years, refreshed recently on ESPN’s “30 for 30” documentary, I Hate Christian Laettner. Laettner teased Hurley for numerous reasons. More than anything, Laettner resented Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski’s decision to anoint Hurley as a leader without being initiated into the program. Laettner viewed the move as an injustice and after he was forced to put up with Danny Ferry the previous year. Over the past quarter-century, Laettner has realized that Coach K didn’t compromise his ideals when it came to Hurley. Krzyzewski was evolving into the greatest coach in the past 40 years. Laettner came away with even more respect for Krzyzewski because he was willing to change with the times. “I saw an interview that he did the other day where he said that he, himself, is still learning and still adjusting and

I have a friend who often uses the phrase: “Why don’t employees do what they are supposed to do?” to market his services. I have often told him that he should add “Why don’t bosses explain what they really want?” to the mix. When it comes to getting things done with people, ambiguity breeds mediocrity. Employees and managers alike become frustrated when expectations are not met. The problem often arises because of a breakdown in communication. The more ambiguous goals and expectations are, the greater the chance for an average or worse outcome. However, effective communication is a two-way street. In some cases, employees do not clearly understand goals and expectations and don’t take the time to clarify the situation with their boss. In other instances, employees are consciously or subconsciously comfortable with the ambiguity. They avoid clarity and are content to do what they think is necessary because when ambiguity exits, accountability is reduced or eliminated. On the

Here a few leadership styles that can occur in an organization: Single Leadership: One leader figure (coach and/or captain) and many followers results in control and predictability.  Also creates average results and a high risk of monotony and burnout. Followership:  Everyone is a follower including the person labeled as the leader. That person is simply following procedures/guidelines. This results in a lack of initiatives, no or few new ideas, limited forward movement and lack of buy-in/shared ownership.  Also creates low energy, apathy, burnout, and average results. Multiple Leadership: Many leaders attempting to lead all the time (coaches and/or captains) results in a power struggle, perpetual chaos, work never gets done efficiently. Also creates poor performance, conflict, and bad results. Shared leadership: See last week's post.  Leading and following simultaneously in a true shared responsibility model, leveraging the depth of experience, expertise, and opposit

In his best-selling book Linchpin, Seth Godin shares the example of the fast and complex Japanese transit system. It operates on schedule and on budget, not by top-down directive, but by a large pool of empowered employees making the best decisions as the challenges present themselves. “Letting people in the organization use their judgment turns out to be faster and cheaper—but only if you hire the right people and reward them for having the right attitude.” It’s not rocket science--it is basically a way to include ALL your players and personnel in the leadership development and implementation processes.  Why limit it to just a few hand-picked players, who will undoubtedly be looked upon as favorites?  Why leave it to chance? If you wait until players are upperclassmen, they will graduate before they can learn their leadership craft through both successes and mistakes, and unfortunately, your program will miss out on the full impact they could have. We need to start to expose, t