From Distance: Who’s the Boss?

Four point play…

1. This week, I started the rehearsal period for a new theater production. The first workday is commonly referred to as the “first day of school” because one is usually meeting a bunch of new people for the first time. People are dressed nicely. They are overly optimistic and excited. There is a pleasant buzz of expectation.

While much of the experience does mirror a school day, the process is far more analogous to the first day of training camp. That first day, a group of professionals meet each other to discuss their roles and the concept for the upcoming run. Some of the players have already worked together at that particular theater. Some are completely new to the company, but have previously worked with each other in different cities. A few are fresh out of school.

Most of the people involved have an idea of what will be asked from them in the coming production. Role assignments have been set in contracts negotiated by agents, and a varying level of preparation is required.

No matter how much someone is prepared or knows the players involved, each new production still requires a creation phase. Sure, the roles have specific lines, but theatrical modes of delivery are endless. Moreover, it is common for lines to be reassigned to different characters based on the production concept and aptitude.

Though the decision-making is ultimately left to the director’s discretion, a great deal of the creative process is rightfully in the hands of the players. Some directors prefer to see what the players offer and subsequently mold the actors into a final shape. Some directors come to rehearsal with the entire show built and mapped out step-by-step. In the latter case, a player is tasked to follow the direction exactly while interpreting the source material as well as possible.

Builder or sculptor. Neither is wrong on a macro level. Some incredibly wonderful shows have been made using both methods. Still, most actors function far more successfully in one system than they do in the other. The mapped out system can bring the best and worst out of a player depending on her strengths. Same is true for the improvisational molding technique. If one were to see a natural improvisational player locked into a Disney production, one might never see a player’s talent range. Then again, one might also not see a player’s weaknesses if that very system was specifically designed to maximize that player’s talent.

In general, some actors hate being told what to do, while some actors can’t play unless they are told exactly what to do. Moreover, a player who wants strong leadership from the top, will feel incredibly uncomfortable if a fellow actor is suggesting too many creative ideas. “You’re not the director”, they may complain, not realizing that the director gave everyone artistic license to create. Perhaps they do realize that, but don’t have the personality to challenge a colleague.

It complicates matters when there is a star in the cast. Does that person have more say? What if that star actor is fantastic onstage, but doesn’t really understand the entire show? Are we still supposed to follow that person’s dramatic advice?

Sports and work culture, in general, constantly discuss the importance of “knowing your role”. But how and by whom that role is defined is often the difference between a successful endeavor and a group of unhappy folks full of unnecessary drama.

2. The 2017-2018 new look Cleveland Cavaliers is a new entity. The entire production isn’t starting from scratch exactly, but the number of new faces has seriously confused role designations. Again, no matter how much a new role was previously discussed with a player who previously starred, it takes time to acclimate and adjust. A player’s role is not limited to what he offers on the floor. There are a host of responsibilities before game time. Those responsibilities can vary drastically from organization to organization. They vary with each new campaign.

The teams that truly have an organizational culture usually have less trouble incorporating new players into the fold. That likely has more to do with the initial decision to sign a certain type of person more than because the organization is so incredibly skilled at teaching a system in a short period of time.

Almost every team runs variations of the same actions. The plays are not hard to learn and memorize. What is difficult to learn is what motivates certain players. Are they numbers guys? Do they love contact? Tough love, or endless praise? Maybe most importantly, how would they rank in the “Deserted Island Test” ?

Basically, if you dropped a group of people on an island, which person would end up as the defacto leader? Without laws and bosses and normal civilization, which guy in your NBA organization would be the natural leader on that little patch of land.

If it ends up being your head coach, you are in business. The natural leader is also the hired leader. It may requires mentioning that yes, the coach is older and less likely to be able to physically dominate someone. That makes it even more necessary that the personality exhibits true leadership qualities.

If it’s your best player, you’re probably ok. Remember, the star isn’t getting leader status because he is a great baller. There is no basketball. Folks just want to live in peace and prosperity until they can get off the darn island. If your star also has that personality, it likely means that he is able to properly delegate and respect all those on the island.

What if it’s neither? Teams with coaches and stars with softer personalities often will see a random player or clique take the reins of a production without really meaning to. A leadership vacuum was created, and a charismatic person’s gravity leads the others to follow.

From there, the players need to decide. Do they take responsibility for the overall success of the season, or do they point out that it’s technically not their responsibility? Would they prefer not have to do the work that is technically the primary responsibility of another?

“I’m not the coach, GM, or director! I’m just a player!”

Okay fine. But let’s say there isn’t enough direction coming from the top, be it from the coach or best player. If you want to have a successful outcome, someone will likely need to take charge.Can the players subjugate their egos for the team by taking advice from a colleague?

There is a reason why teams have coaches and shows have directors. It’s really hard for people to stop thinking of their own desired role and to look at the overall show. A strong coach, regardless of creative process, gives a production a chance.

3. I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Cavaliers’ organization. I’m not there everyday behind closed doors. There is a possibility that Tyronn Lue is, in fact, a particularly charismatic and strong leader.

I just don’t see it.

What I see is a nice enough man who has had a wealth of experience dealing with NBA superstars. I see a guy who is good at ingratiating himself with incredibly talented people because he rightfully understood his limitations as a player and played his heart out despite those limitations. I see a man that might stand there with the same look on his face as a wild boar stomps over a dude.

By all accounts, he is a likable guy. Simply being a likable guy is not the way to lead the second best player of all-time and a funky group of future Hall-of-Famers and ex-All-Stars. It’s not enough to be a leader of anyone, really.

How about LeBron? Again, by most accounts, he is a fantastic leader. Let’s say that he is. Why then does he always feel the need to say that “I’m just a player” when it is clear that he is not. LeBron isn’t just an anything. Well, other than being just a human being.

Which, by the way, is why we are all allowed to speculate on these people’s leadership qualities. We might not know exactly what goes on in the locker room, but we do hear and see these people talk on a regular basis. We could very well end up on that deserted island with them. Our knowledge of basketball is irrelevant. Our humanity is very relevant.

Who would you trust? I would not trust Lue to maintain peace and prosperity on our island. I might trust LeBron, but I’d also be seriously worried that he’d make fun of Piggy.

I would trust Gregg Popovich. Pop is the best ever because he is a strong leader by nature. Yes, he is detail-oriented enough to make and enact a great gameplan, but he is also flexible enough to learn his players’ strengths and alter his strategy accordingly. He is both builder and sculptor. He respects his guys.

There is an institutional structure in place in San Antonio. Everyone knows who is boss. Players who are natural leaders themselves are able to take leadership roles precisely because Pop is so secure in his position. I’m not talking about his job security. I’m talking about his character. He is secure enough to give his players all the credit while holding them accountable for their mistakes. More importantly, he realizes he isn’t perfect either, and holds himself accountable for everyone’s mistakes. That is the duty of a leader.

Say what you want about Phil Jackson, but there was no doubt that his leadership abilities were paramount to his success. Most people, including very popular voices in the basketball world, simply don’t understand the Triangle enough to realize that every team in the NBA runs a large portion of it. When some media member says “The Triangle doesn’t work in today’s NBA”, they are outing themselves as being ignorant to the Xs and Os of the league. Today’s NBA, especially post Warriors’ success, is the natural evolution of the Triangle.

Regardless, the point of the Triangle and the Pop’s Motion offense is to provide a script for the players to act. Both coaches don’t wish for their players to sit at the table, reading the lines in a monotone voice without any recognition of what’s going around them.

A teams’ cultural script can be even more important, and serves the same purpose. Whether it is the Spurs Way or Jackson’s Zen, players immediately understand that there is something more expected of them. It gives them pride, even if it is initially daunting.

4. A player like Iman Shumpert would be ok if given incredibly detailed and exacting instruction. Shump shouldn’t be pumped up over his PG duties or urged to pick up his scoring. That is leadership for a different kind of person and player. Shump succeeds when he focuses and takes pride in the dirty work. David Blatt was able to get that out of him. For whatever reason, Mathew Dellavedova seems to bring it out of him as well. We saw more smart back-screens set by Shump in the Bucks game than we have seen all season. That action got him this sick dunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8o25X4cUY0

Shumpert will always make mental errors on both ends of the floor. The lack of leadership and the correct kind of accountability from both the coaching staff and LeBron makes it difficult for him to overcome those negative tendencies.

Lue coaches his players like he is a hype man. Some players need that “you are best ever!” speech. It gives them power. Still, it can’t be his only coaching move, especially to guys who have the tendency to play outside of their lane, e.g. Jeff Green and Derrick Rose.

Give a player or actor enough structure that she can sense a logical team approach. Be a strong enough leader that one can improv within that structure without fear of failure. Have the courage to call out a star’s performance so the co-stars know that they aren’t held to a different standard. Be the leader. If it isn’t in your personality, find another occupation. If every boss were a leader by nature, the world would enjoy work a lot more.