How much is a cohesive team that is well aligned, working in sync, and operating in support of a common goal worth to you? Is it worth, say…$26 million?
For Stan Van Gundy, the coach of the Detroit Pistons basketball team (as of 12/23/2014), it certainly is.
Josh Smith was a big free agent addition to the team not too long ago, and the addition was intended to bolster the team performance while they built a new nucleus for future growth. The plan didn’t work out as intended—as of 12/23/2014, the Pistons are 5-23.
The Pistons let Smith go, and with it, are required to pay Smith $26 million. That’s right, $26 million to NOT PLAY for the Pistons. Can you imagine doing that in your business? Various reports state that Smith, who has a track record for being a consistent scorer, and decent defender and assist man, was not fitting into Van Gundy’s culture or system, and was creating more negativity than he was good. Sound familiar? Ever had a decent or high producer who sucked the life out of your organization and caused more negative waves than the revenue production was worth?
We see it fairly regularly in the clients we serve. It is actually a common symptom when prospective clients reach out to us (they actually say things like, “We can’t retain good performers,” or “I have a few good performers, but can’t build a high performing team,” or “My team seems to work hard, but doesn’t deliver on their goals or commitments”). All of these things can be symptomatic of a culture that lacks cohesion and leadership committed to building a winning team.
Here is how Van Gundy explained his move and the timing of letting Smith go:
"The reason nothing was done in the summer…you've got to know your team and players before you start shipping people around," Van Gundy said after a two-hour practice Monday. "At that point, I didn't know. And I didn't anticipate this. We went into the season expecting to be much better. It hasn't worked out that way. To stay on the same course would be bad leadership."
"We are shifting priorities to aggressively develop our younger players while also expanding the roles of other players in the current rotation to improve performance and build for our future. As we expand certain roles, others will be reduced," Van Gundy said. "In fairness to Josh, being a highly versatile 10-year veteran in this league, we feel it's best to give him his freedom to move forward. We have full respect for Josh as a player and a person."
"It's a positive based on where we are now," Van Gundy said. "If we were .500 I would look at things differently. I wasn't looking to get rid of Josh Smith. I wanted to change some things with the group we have now with the young team we have."
What I love about Van Gundy’s position:
• He accepted responsibility, saying it would be bad leadership to stay on the same course, and that HE didn’t anticipate the results they currently have—his fault, his issue, and he is now doing something about it.
• He was thoughtful in his approach—not making hasty decisions— ‘got to know your team and players’—he demonstrates a need to make data driven decisions, not ones based solely on gut.
• Shifting priorities and the plan to align to their future goals. This is about having a vision, creating a plan to reach that vision, and then doing whatever it takes to get there. Even when the moves cause significant short-term pain. It would be easy to rationalize keeping Smith—can’t write off the $26 million; he is still generally a productive player…not Van Gundy. Eat the sunk cost and move on.
Be decisive. Be positive. The team will respect the decision and rally. ‘It’s a positive based on where we are now’—in our businesses, our teams need the same from us. Don’t waiver (this doesn’t mean leaders can’t make mistakes). Execute. Communicate. Move forward.
Now is a great time for you to take stock of your organization. Do you have a cohesive team, all aligned to your common vision and goals, or do you have your own Josh Smith, holding back the positive evolution of your organization? (And, if you do, what are you going to do about it?)
