Danny Ainge: Managing People is “Mostly Chaos”
Management of people has been compared to herding cats, being a captain of a ship, operating a machine, or leading in the midst of chaos (more on that later). Truthfully, management has been discussed, debated, and dissected on every level. Good management is lauded and poor management has been disgraced and even parodied in various forms of media. Throughout this journal entry, we will take a closer look at good and bad leadership by studying common management frames of thought and their respective strengths and weaknesses. Managers play a huge part in every profession and organization. A leader can be a teacher, an engineer, a senior vice president, or a leader of a sports team.
I am a huge basketball fan and my favorite NBA team is the Utah Jazz. Their coach of the past 8 seasons recently stepped down, citing that the team needed a new voice. It has been reported that the team is too soft defensively, the team’s superstars do not get along, the team lacks discipline, especially in the final moments of games where the score is close. And now, the front office is tasked with finding a new voice in the locker room by way of hiring a new head coach. The NBA is objectively the best basketball league in the world so, naturally, there are numerous candidates for the job. But who is the right man or woman for the job? Is there a correct or perfect style that matches the team?
Not all coaches are the same. Sometimes, coaches are described as being “analytical or cerebral” while others are great at reacting on the fly. Sometimes, coaches are described as “system coaches”, meaning that they have a unique style or approach to the game that they do not deviate from. A “system coach” might say, "We're going to shoot the ball within the first seven seconds of the shot clock no matter what" or "no one can hold the ball for more than one second before choosing to shoot, dribble, or pass" or "we're going to run only one detailed, principled offensive structure rather than put players in isolation situations”. There are so many ways to play (and coach) the game of basketball.
Dr. Michael Carey’s book, "Heraclitean Fire: Journeying on the Path of Leadership”, teaches about five frames of management. The five frames are 1) The Rational Frame, 2) The Human Frame, 3) The Systems Frame, 4) The Political Frame, and 5) The Cultural Frame (p. 47-87). I propose that all organizations, even basketball teams, have people who align with the basic tenets of those frames. So, how are the Utah Jazz going to solve this managerial problem and choose a coaching replacement? I’m going to present five fictional candidates being reviewed by their hiring committee. The hiring committee will ask each candidate how they would resolve the tension between their two superstars. Each coach will represent and embody one of the five frames. Coach 1 will represent the first frame, The Rational Frame. Coach 2 will represent the second frame, The Human Frame. Coach 3 will represent the third frame, The Systems Frame. Coach 4 will represent the fourth frame, the Political Frame. Coach 5 will represent the fifth frame, the Cultural Frame. Each coach will present their perception of the team’s superstar problem and then offer their solutions through the lens of their unique frame. Then we’ll show why each approach might lead to organizational dysfunction.
Coach 1
Being a big believer in organizational structure, Coach 1 is extremely confident that he and his system will deliver order and peace between the two players. In his interview, Coach 1 stated that he sees the relationship between these two players as one that lacks structure. He thinks that he can hire specialists to his staff to maximize the players’ potential. The players will surely respond well to the division of labor and the emphasis on their strengths and then their relationship will naturally improve alongside the increased quality and frequency of their positive gains.
While this approach has its merit, it might also lead to dysfunction. Coach 1 is so confident in fixing the problem with his ready-made system that he might be failing to see the bigger picture. It’s like trying to fit a very square peg into a very round hole. Try as you might, it just will not fit. If these problems persist, Coach 1 would likely just reorganize his structure—hire different “specialists” to better teach his principles. In this context, a reorg would be similar to someone trying to tighten a bolt with a hammer, recognizing that it wasn’t working, and then assuming that the hammer was the problem all along only to commence attacking the bolt again but with a different brand of hammer.
Coach 2
When asked about the team’s struggling star duo, Coach 2 is quick to point out that the coaching staff and players are supposed to be in a symbiotic relationship. From his point of view, the coach believes that the organization, the team, is what delivers the individual players what they need and visa versa. The players and the coaches need to be on the same page. Team and individual goals need to be integrated. For example, if a player has a personal goal of making it to the all-star game that season, the coaches should be doing what they can to maximize that player’s individual statistics and other accolades. As long as the team and the players are on the same page, all parties will achieve fulfillment. The duo will enjoy team and individual success and all will be well.
While the Coach 2 would surely bring meaningful, valuable qualities, he might also bring a dose of dysfunction. Stating that the team’s and the players’ needs must be integrated makes sense. But there are 15 different players on a team. It’s nigh impossible to have everyone perfectly synced up. Especially when it comes to individual accolades. Both of the team’s star players would love to be named the MVP of the league. Whoever wins MVP is sure to receive more endorsement deals and get bonuses in their contract. But there can only be one MVP. The team literally cannot be pushing for one of these players to get MVP while also preaching a perfectly symbiotic relationship among players and staff.
Coach 3
In Coach 3’s interview, he was asked about his systemic approach to the game. He openly denounced a one-size-fits-all approach to basketball and team-building. Instead, Coach 3 is a firm believer in fluidity and flexibility. Coach 3 kept preaching the concept of an open, living team. One with increased communication, different schemes depending on mood, opponent, weaknesses and strengths. The first thing Coach 3 would do is open the lines of communication between the players. He needs to understand their needs and issues before coming up with a potential fix. If the staff’s first approach to fixing the relationship between the two stars did not work, they would recalibrate and try again—tinkering and improving until they got it right.
There is certainly a lot of merit in Coach 3’s tactful approach to team-building. He understands that he does not have a perfect answer or one perfect approach and that collaboration with the team is crucial to determine the team’s needs. I actually like that he is willing to be fluid and adaptable and I appreciate the humility. Parker Palmer spoke about humility in his book, “The Courage to Teach”. In it he said, “We experience humility not because we have fought and lost but because humility is the only lens through which great things can be seen—and once we have seen them, humility is the only posture possible” (Parker, 2017, p. 110). Humility and adaptability are critical but, if gone unchecked, could become a hinderance and increase dysfunction. By constantly changing the approach or scheme, a sense of manipulation might develop. Whether this manipulation is real or perceived, the damage could be irreparable. Paulo Freire wrote about manipulation in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He said, “Manipulation, like the conquest whose objectives it serves, attempts to anesthetize the people so they will not think” (Freire, 2017, p. 122). Since Coach 3’s stated goal is to collaborate and find a solution, the perception of manipulation and anesthetization is not ideal.
Coach 4
This coach sought out the job because he knew about the issues between the two star players. He loves that there is tension and hopes that they are at each other’s throats. Coach 4 believes that a team is only as talented as its resources: its players. He believes that a team is broken into different people, different interest groups, and different priorities. He believes that power grabs and conflicts of interest are not only normal but healthy because they inspire those involved to summit new peaks and push to greater horizons. Coach 4 would embrace the power struggle between the stars and simply see who comes out on top and thinks that the team would be better off for it.
Coach 4 believes in a dog-eat-dog world. This is dangerous. I propose that Freire would agree with this sentiment since he gave warning to such oppressor-oppressed relationships. He said, “It is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them” (Freire, 2017, p. 114). If left unfettered, this game of politics and selective progression would result in division and dysfunction and would therefore inhibit any true teamwork, collaboration, or unity.
Coach 5
In her interview, Coach 5 boasted about developing a culture of trust and winning. When asked about the relationship between the team’s stars, she surmised that the cause of the relationship was a lack of a positive team culture. When asked what she would do to improve the team culture, she stated that she and her staff would observe the players’ habits and behaviors and then institute mandatory team meals, activities, drills, etc. to improve synergy among the group. This would result in the team developing the same habits, share the same goals, and share the same tenets.
There is danger in the mental model where culture is king. Essentially, a coach who comes in and claims there needs to be a culture change is stating that they have a better way of living. It is very easy to develop a perception or an air of superiority. Freire compared cultural conquests to literal invasions. He said, “Invasion may be practiced by a metropolitan society upon a dependent society, or it may be implicit in the domination of one class over another within the same society. Cultural conquest leads to the cultural inauthenticity of those who are invaded; they begin to respond to the values, the standards, and the goals of the invaders” (Freire, 2017, p. 126). If unsuccessful, the “invaded” society rejects the new leaders. When “successful”, the “invaded” society becomes dominated and is in danger of becoming gentrified or even extinct when it wholly adopts the invading values, thus losing its originality.
Are the Utah Jazz actually going to nail this hiring process and hire a coach who successfully avoids the pitfalls mentioned above? Maybe. Maybe not. But in a recent interview, the President of Basketball Operations for the Utah Jazz, Danny Ainge, sat down with a prominent podcast host, David Locke. Ainge gave some insight to the interview process and what he is looking for in the new coach and voice of the Utah Jazz. Ainge was asked about the style of coach he would like to hire and was asked if you can have a coach that can be both detailed and creative, "I think you can. A lot of coaches will be very creative and then move towards simplification” (Locke, 11:41, 2022). When asked if he has a preference, "I think they're both important. It depends on the personnel that you have. But the longer you coach, the better the players you have, the more you move to simplification” (Locke, 12:50, 2022). Later in the interview, he was asked about a few legendary coaches specifically and why he thinks they have been so successful. He said, "It's your job to get a team to perform at their best. You don't coach 'em all the same. You take in each individual and try to maximize their [talent] into a team. Players are people. They're all different. Some need to be taught to be more free. Some need to be handcuffed a little bit and taught when to rein it in and conform. Being able to manage all of the personalities...it's complex. You have to be able to manage chaos. Everyone wants a beautifully-run machine but my NBA experience tells me that most of the great players and teams I've been around are mostly chaos” (Locke, 15:19, 2022).
When listening to this interview, I thought of Northouse (2010) and his thoughts on the situational approach to leadership. Northouse said that situational leadership is "based on the assumption that employees' skills and motivation vary over time, situational leadership suggests that leaders should change the degree to which they are directive or supportive to meet the changing needs of subordinates. In brief, the essence of situational leadership demands that leaders match their style to the competence and commitment of the subordinates. Effective leaders are those who can recognize what employees need and then adapt their own style to meet those needs" (p. 89 and 90).
Parker spoke to this, too, when he taught about teaching his students according to where they truly stand and who they truly are. He spoke directly about teaching according to their fears. He said, ”If I want to teach well in the face of my students' fears, I need to see clearly and steadily the fear that is in their hearts...The behaviors generated by fear--silence, withdrawal, cynicism--often mimic those that come with ignorance, so it is not always easy for me to keep believing, when I look at some of my students, that anxiety rather than banality is what I am looking at. I need to keep renewing my insight into my students' true condition in spite of misleading appearances. It is not easy, but it is rewarding. As I have come to understand my students' fears, I have been able to aim my teaching in a new direction. I no longer teach to their imputed ignorance, having rejected that assessment as both inaccurate and self-serving. Instead, I try to teach to their fearful hearts, and when I am able to do so, their minds often come along as well” (Parker, 2017, p. 46-47).
The Ainge interview in conjunction with the Northouse and Parker quotes really resonate. There is no one perfect way of doing things. You can think you have a perfect approach or formula but when you get down to it, managing and leading people is an effort of love, passion, adaptability and is "mostly chaos”.
References
Egan, Rick. Will Hardy, left, answers questions along with Danny Ainge, CEO of basketball operations, during a news conference announcing Hardy as the new Utah Jazz head coach at Vivint Arena. 14 June 2022.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2018). Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition (4th ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Locke, D. (Host). (2022, June 9). Locked on Jazz [Audio podcast episode]. In Locked on Jazz. Locked On Podcast Network. https://www.lockedonjazz.net/jazz/danny-ainge-speaks-on-utah-jazz-coaching-search-what-he-is-looking-for-and-how-much-players-are-involved/
Livsey, R., & Palmer, P. (1999). The courage to teach : A guide for reflection and renewal (1st ed.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Transformational Leadership. In Leadership: Theory and practice (pp. 89-90). essay, SAGE.