Explore an Uncommon
Approach to Leadership!
Lower Your Voice to Get Heard
Really good stuff from Admired Leaders. Worth thinking about for a lot of coaches and leaders.
Common wisdom tells leaders that if they want everyone’s attention or to make their advocacy land with force, they must increase their speaking volume. Multiple people in a room or a meeting turn their attention to the loudest voice and often stop talking themselves when one voice dominates.
The intensity of the language the leader employs, as well as the emphasis they place on specific words and phrases, gathers attention like a magnet. Experience informs leaders that getting heard in a crowded room is never an easy task and they must resort to more extreme amplification of their points.
Really good stuff from Admired Leaders. Worth thinking about for a lot of coaches and leaders.
Common wisdom tells leaders that if they want everyone’s attention or to make their advocacy land with force, they must increase their speaking volume. Multiple people in a room or a meeting turn their attention to the loudest voice and often stop talking themselves when one voice dominates.
The intensity of the language the leader employs, as well as the emphasis they place on specific words and phrases, gathers attention like a magnet. Experience informs leaders that getting heard in a crowded room is never an easy task and they must resort to more extreme amplification of their points.
But some leaders have learned a different secret. Under the right circumstances, actually lowering volume gains more mindshare from others. Leaders who normally don’t employ high volume often find that when they lower their voices and speak very slowly, others lean in and hang on every word.
Leaders who decrease their volume force others to dial down their own vocals in order to hear what is being said. Lower volume then demands more attention, not less. Suddenly, everyone’s focus is on what the leader is saying, exactly as planned.
Unfortunately, this tactic doesn’t work for leaders who turn to higher volume most of the time. They unintentionally train colleagues to listen only when their volume rockets, which it usually does. The lesson is clear: How leaders get others to tune into what they are saying speaks volumes about who others think they are.
Proactivity
"Criticize yourself out loud, which shows people you’re open to being challenged."
https://characterlab.org/playbooks/proactivity/
"Criticize yourself out loud, which shows people you’re open to being challenged."
FAU/SDSU
With a six second differential, down by 1, I didn't think SDSU had to foul. But I did think they should have pressured the ball and trapped. I don't think you can just let the other team run their offense comfortably and hope they miss, you get the rebound, and get an opportunity on offense with just 6-10 seconds left. At the very least I would try and make them uncomfortable and get them out of rhythm.
If you think about it, if FAU gets an offensive rebound the game is just about over. An average team gets an offensive rebound on 20-25% of their misses. You are staring at 80% right there. Not to mention their offensive efficiency and the odds that they score on any given possession. Your chances of getting the ball back down by just a point are below 50% for sure. Likely close to 30%. And given that, you have to go the length of the floor in ten seconds or less and get a good look, even if you do get the ball back. It's not a high percentage situation. I'd have to trap, make them uncomfortable, and try and get a steal.
With a six second differential, down by 1, I didn't think SDSU had to foul. But I did think they should have pressured the ball and trapped. I don't think you can just let the other team run their offense comfortably and hope they miss, you get the rebound, and get an opportunity on offense with just 6-10 seconds left. At the very least I would try and make them uncomfortable and get them out of rhythm.
If you think about it, if FAU gets an offensive rebound the game is just about over. An average team gets an offensive rebound on 20-25% of their misses. You are staring at 80% right there. Not to mention their offensive efficiency and the odds that they score on any given possession. Your chances of getting the ball back down by just a point are below 50% for sure. Likely close to 30%. And given that, you have to go the length of the floor in ten seconds or less and get a good look, even if you do get the ball back. It's not a high percentage situation. I'd have to trap, make them uncomfortable, and try and get a steal.
It obviously worked out great for SDSU. The best thing they did was not call a time out. They had a time out left, but Brian Dutcher let his team play. I'd love to see the odds on offensive efficiency, late in games, off of a dead ball versus playing it live. I'm convinced the offense is much better off playing it out rather than coming out of a time out.
Think about it - if you were FAU, you would rather have just had a shot clock violation than what just happened. Just let the clock run out and set your defense in the full court against SDSU's attack. I know you aren't going to do that - you have to try and score - but you'd feel a lot better on defense if there was a whistle and you had a chance to get set. I always feel better that way. So why does the offense almost always call time out?
Give Brian Dutcher a lot of credit. He let his team play, he didn't give FAU a chance to get set, and one of his kids made a play. Prepare you team in practice for those situations and let them go.
The Easy Way To Do It
(From Admired Leaders)
Bill Gates prefers to choose a lazy person to do a hard job because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it. There’s wisdom in that idea, even though Gates says it to make a point about efficiency in thinking and not about rewarding lazy people.
The hardest way is rarely the best way, and too many people like to make things harder than they need to be.
The truth is there is nothing lazy about taking a more obvious or simple path to solving a complex problem or task. For those engaged in solving a problem, that means eliminating steps. Two actions are always superior to three actions in a solution.
Preferring more straightforward solutions is not a mindset reserved only for lazy people. All good leaders prefer uncomplicated answers, solutions, and decisions.
Making things easier when it comes to problem-solving begins by looking for the lowest hanging fruit. Instead of embracing the complexities of the problem, search for what is obvious and workable. Removing any unnecessary items, features, options, and actions while discarding any superfluous information is the recipe for simple.
Pairing a problem down to its essential elements is somewhat of an art form. Accomplishing it sometimes means removing a colleague who likes to add complexity and overthink matters from the process.
Making things simple is the hard work. Anyone can create a solution more complex than the problem requires.
Simple and easy solutions are elegant. Turning a complicated problem into a workable and elegant solution takes creativity. It also requires a preference for a straightforward answer. The best solutions are always simple.
FDU Zach Edey Rules
Cool, simple breakdown of FDU's approach to guarding a 7'4" post player.
The Soldiers In The Trench
There was a man on horseback who saw a group of exhausted soldiers digging a trench. On the side is their section leader who was barking orders.
The passerby asked the leader why he isn’t helping his team. The leader just said that he is in charge and tells his people what to do.
The man decided to pitch in and help the soldiers dig until the trench was finished. After that, he approached the commander on foot and told him that the next time their rank prevents them from supporting his men, he should notify the top command – and that he will give a permanent solution to it.
The section leader then realized that the person he was talking to was none other than General Washington.
The Map On The Wall
A great mentality on how to start bringing a team together.
https://fromthegreennotebook.com/2019/08/23/the-map-on-the-wall/
8 Essential Qualities of Great Leadership
A good list from a few years back.
I think Managerial Competence too often gets overlooked. Most professions promote people to leadership positions based on how good they are at their job. But production in the workplace doesn't necessarily connect to leadership responsibilities. The best sales guy in the company isn't necessarily equipped to run the company. That mistake is made way too often because we want to be "loyal" to the people who have done a good job.
Producing for an organization and leading an organization are two very different things.
Fouling Up 3
From Seth Davis:
I’ve seen a bunch of studies done over the years, including Ken Pomeroy’s work in 2013. Unlike other studies done at that time, which argued that fouling up three was the preferred strategy, Ken’s findings were basically inconclusive. But last fall, Nicholas Canova of CBB Analytics published a study that was far more definitive. Canova’s conclusion: If a team fouls up three in the final seconds, it basically doubles its chances of avoiding overtime.
To collect his data, Canova studied more than 15,000 Division I men’s games over a four-year period. Here’s what he found:
- 0-4 seconds: The game went to overtime 16.9 percent of the time when allowing a 3-point attempt, but only 8.7 percent when fouling
- 4-8 seconds: Game went to OT 18.9 percent of the time when allowing a 3-point attempt versus 7.6 percent when fouling
- 8-12 seconds: OT in 18.3 percent of the games when allowing a 3-point attempt versus 9.4 percent when fouling
Bottom line: If you foul up three, you double your chances of avoiding overtime.
NCAA Coaches and Officials
Seth Davis on NCAA coaches behavior towards officials:
The behavior from college basketball coaches towards referees has been too awful for too long. NBA coaches don’t act this way. A huge part of the problem is that coaches have a lot of sway with league supervisors as to who gets assigned games, so refs understandably feel that their ability to garner plum assigments is dependent on currying favor the coaches. So all but a few are reluctant to take appropriate action when the coaches get out of hand.
My hope, then, is that when the NCAA men’s basketball rules committee gathers for its annual summer meeting, it issues a very clear point of emphasis that instructs referees to be a lot quicker when it comes to calling technical fouls on coaches. When coaches wanted the hook-and-hold move taken out of the game, the committee made it a flagrant foul, and now we hardly ever see it anymore. There’s a place for a dialogue between coaches and officials, and I understand that things can get a little heated. But this has gone on for too long, and it needs to stop.
Joe Montana
Wright Thompson On Joe Montana. I loved this passage:
It's the moment that matters. Not records. He was fine to let his trophies burn. He misses the moments. The moments are what he thinks about when he sits at home and watches Brady play in a Super Bowl. He's not jealous of the result or even the ring. He's jealous of the experience.
"To sit in rare air ..." Ronnie Lott says, searching for the words.
"... is like being on a spaceship."
Breathing rare air changes you. Every child who's sucked helium from a birthday balloon knows this and so does Joe Montana and everyone who ever played with him. It's the feeling so many kids hoped to feel when they slipped on the No. 16 jersey and let the mesh drape over their arms.
"He breathed rare air with me," Lott says, and the way he talks about air sure sounds like he's talking about love.
Attitude
Attitude is the ultimate buzzword. We use the word all of the time, but we don't really define what it means. It's a vague term we use to fit the narrative we want to create.
You hear about how important attitude is all the time. We say you can choose your own attitude. But we talk about attitude like it is simple. Decide you want to work hard and you will work hard today. Decide you want to have a great day and you'll have a great day. If it was that simple and that easy to choose your attitude, I don't think it would be that important to everyone.
It's easy to say "have a great attitude." But I don't think your attitude is just simply a choice you make that day. Somebody who gets upset about something they care about doesn't necessarily have a bad attitude. And someone who lets everything go and doesn't rock the boat at all might have a good disposition, but are they taking things seriously enough to be successful?
Your attitude, to me, ends up being defined by one general question: What is really important to you? The things that matter to you are what shape your attitude, a lot more than a decision you make to just be positive and happy that day.
For example, if your team is really important to you, it's hard to have a bad attitude about your playing time. If the most important thing is what happens to your team, you put that above what happens to you. That's not to say you don't want to play more or try and improve your chances to play - but not playing won't affect your attitude.
If you are really about working on your game and getting better, then criticism from a coach won't have a negative impact on you. You want to get better, and your coach is trying to make you better. No matter how they do it, if improving is important to you, your attitude towards criticism will reflect that.
If you are a team first guy, an official's call won't impact your approach to the next play. Criticism in a team film session will have positive impact on you. Practice at 7 AM on a Saturday will be an opportunity for you, not a pain in the ass.
You don't get up at 6 AM to go lift weights and just decide to have a great attitude that day. You show up with the right attitude because improvement matters to you, and your team matters to you. You don't decide to smile that day. People with a bad attitude don't have the right perspective. People with the right attitude have a clear idea of what is important to them, and they take a mature approach.
You don't choose your attitude. You choose what is important to you. Your attitude is a reflection of that.