| | The Great Debate: What makes a great Coach?
We are down to the final days of the second round of the NBA (National Basketball Association) Playoffs. The Los Angeles Lakers are leading their series with the Utah Jazz 3 games to 2. The Lakers are led by controversial coach Phil Jackson.
Phil Jackson has won several NBA Championships (9) in his career. No coach has ever won more championships than he has. Yet, whenever people discuss Phil Jackson there is always a debate over how good of a coach he really is. The doubters always claim that he could not have won the first 6 championships without Michael Jordan, arguably the best basketball player ever; or the next three without Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal. I would have to admit; I think it is a discussion worth having.
However, not today.
You see there is a follow up argument that I think is more telling. Many supporters of Phil Jackson think he is a great coach. They argue that he could make any team better. Others say that without top players, he would not be as effective. They claim he needs top players in order to win.
Those of you that know me might be able to guess my opinion. Not only do I agree with the latter statement, I risk my reputation on it, and I have some evidence to back it up. I agree that Phil Jackson is a great coach. However, I do not believe that he could take a team with mediocre or poor talent to greater heights.
He is a great coach of great players. When he is coaching players with less talent, he is less of a good coach.
Why do you suppose that is?
Before I tell you why that is, I want you to consider how this relates to the Transition2Wealth philosophy.
Phil Jackson is a great coach of great players because he is inspired and energized by coaching top players. For Phil Jackson, he is meant to serve top players. When he is coaching mediocre talent he gets frustrated, tired, and loses his energy and enthusiasm for coaching. That is why he "retired" from coaching coincidentally right after Michael Jordan retired. When he was presented the opportunity to coach Kobe and Shaq, suddenly the fire was back.
You've heard it before from me It's not skill. Phil Jackson's coaching skills do not diminish when he is faced with the task of coaching mediocre talent, but his potential for success is greatly affected.
Now lets look at the other side of the equation, and another great coach. Bill Parcells is another Hall of Fame coach and his success is also dependent on the type of player/team he is dealt. Unlike Phil Jackson, Bill Parcells is energized and enthusiastic when he takes over a seemingly poor performing, yet talented team.
Every team Parcells has coached went from mediocrity to the playoffs within just a couple of years. Even the Cowboys, a team he left before they flourished, flourished with the talent he produced. One might argue that Bill loves to turn players into superstars, yet has little patience for them once they get there.
You see, it's not what we do that makes us happy it's what we do, coupled with who we serve, in alignment with our core values. Your potential, and the potential of your employees is more affected by the people they serve, than it will be by what they do. That is the key to engagement.
So how can you bring that into your organization? Decide right now Who it is you serve that energizes you and inspires you, and serve them in alignment to your core values from now on. Then when you speak to your employees, make sure that they are inspired and energized by the same clientele that you are targeting.
If they are in it for any other reason, it is likely that their potential will diminish with every passing day.
It's just too bad that Bill Parcells and Phil Jackson don't coach the same sport. They would make a great team.
Post your comments here
|
|
| |
