Robert Evangelista didn't set out to write a business book when he volunteered to serve as the head coach of the Detroit Rockies, an inner-city youth hockey team. But that's exactly what happened. "While I was coaching, I couldn't help but notice that my kids on the team were similar to many employees at work. They asked 'why?' They challenged direction if they didn't understand it." But whereas Robert was "getting through" to his hockey team, he wasn't with his work teams at General Motors. Which led him to question "How could I become a coach at work?"

Robert addressed this question by analyzing the coaching techniques of famous professional and collegiate coaches who have consistently achieved success despite tremendous adversity - coaches like Vince Lombardi, Scotty Bowman, Pat Riley, and John Wooden. What he found is that many of the lessons he had learned as head coach of the Rockies were validated by the coaching styles of these well-known legends.

Robert then began approaching his job as a manufacturing manager in the same way a coach would a sports team. By converting to a team-oriented management style, Robert was able to transform his automotive operation into a model of plant efficiency. This same path of self-discovery is exemplified in each chapter of The Business of Winning....

Chapter 4
 
Develop Your Playing Style Based Upon Your Players
Ability is what you’re capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it. —
Lou Holtz, head NCAA football coach

The Coach's Lesson

I always had a vision in my mind of the kind of team I wanted our Rockies to become. (It really was a vision of the kind of team I wanted to coach.) I had high ambitions that they could fly across the ice, flowing through complex plays as effortlessly as our opponents seemed to do. Unfortunately, my recollection of the early years was anything but the realization of that vision.

I can remember drawing out complicated plays on the chalkboard and noticing the blank stares looking back at me. My players had a hard time following all the arrows I was drawing, which showed the simultaneous movement of players and the puck. On the ice, it was even worse. They couldn’t make the crisp passes that were required, nor could they execute the quick, precisely timed movements. Unfortunately, the flashy, skilled players that I wanted to coach were not what I had to coach.

I couldn’t escape the fact that my players would never be the finesse “playmakers” that I had dreamed them to be. Instead, they were fast, aggressive, and reactionary. They would charge ahead at full speed through plays that required them to take their time and move precisely. Near the other team’s net, they had a bad habit of shooting the puck from anywhere without first looking for teammates. Many of my attempts to create detailed attack or breakout plays failed since they were not precision players. I could not transform them into something that they weren’t. As a result, the entire first year was filled with broken plays poorly executed by frustrated players. I realized, too late for that doomed first season, that I had contributed to their failure as much as they had. By trying to fit the “proverbial” square pegs into round holes, I had led them astray.

After that first year, I gradually began to develop the playing style that best fit them. I had to capitalize on our strongest attributes. The Rockies were skaters who loved to move forward at full throttle. They played aggressively, both physically and mentally. It was “in your face, smash-mouth hockey.” Focusing on our speed and aggression, I centered our new plays on intense fore-checking and dump-and-chase plays that would force turnovers. It would be perfect for us, I decided. This style of play involves a team carrying the puck towards the opposition’s end and first, shooting it into their defensive zone so that the puck ends up behind their net, and then secondly, chasing after it, hoping to beat the opponents to the puck. What usually results is a race to the puck, normally ending with collision as the two players converge. It is a full-frontal attack that often catches opponents by surprise or in vulnerable positions. If it is executed properly, you will gain control of the puck deep in your opponent’s end with a chance to score. It is a style of play that fits a fast team that plays well physically.

As expected, the Rockies loved these plays. They couldn’t wait to chase an opponent to the puck and punish him against the boards when they got there. By catching teams off-guard in their own end of the ice, we quickly began to increase our scoring chances around the net. When the puck became ours, we would fire it towards the net immediately, ready to pounce on any rebounds. The players thrived on this type of play, since it involved their two favorite aspects of the game. I loved it because it was based on the team’s two strongest qualities.

Capitalize on Players’ Natural Tendencies

The fact that all teams are different poses unique challenges for coaches. Players are different, both physically and mentally. Strategies are different. Coaching styles differ. Even tangibles, such as team chemistry and home field surface, come into play. All of these ultimately contribute to the need for a distinct playing style. Every coach must accept this.

The playing style is the overall approach that a team will bring to each game plan. It is the manner in which they will execute their tasks. It will encompass specific actions that together will necessitate specific behavior and techniques. In basketball, a team with tremendous speed and rebounding may play a quick, transitional, “fast break” game. A hockey team lacking speed and finesse, but wealthy in size and aggression may develop a clutch-and-grab, physical style of play. Once a team has established a style of play that matches its players, then it will settle into good form.

A perfect example of a game plan that embraced a specific playing style was that of the San Diego Chargers of the early ’80s. They were a team that passed the ball, period. They played Coach Don Coryell’s “West Coast Offense,” which put air under the ball in every direction of the field. Older football fans could probably name the starting quarterback, wide receivers, and tight end on the Chargers team. They might be hard pressed, however, to name any running back that was on the team. That’s a reflection of the style of football that the Chargers played back then because it suited their players.

The obvious point to be made here is that any attempt to “force” a playing style onto a team that is inherently unable to adapt to it will fail. The reasons don’t matter. If the members of the team don’t have the capability to adapt, disaster will result.

A coach must assess players and attempt to develop the playing style that best fits the team. To do this, a coach needs to consider the players’ current abilities, both physical and mental, as well as their capacity to develop and learn in the future. Coaches also need to consider how the team has played in the past. This will be the frame of reference used to contrast with all that you will attempt to teach them in the future. Without the ­ability to handpick players, a coach will have to adapt any game plan to match up with those who will be expected to execute it.

Many coaches would prefer to throw out the old and bring in the new. This opposite approach involves acquiring specific types of players in order to define or create a new style of play. This approach, however, can rarely translate into quick success. If the coach is able to select players, then that selection will have to take into account the kind of team that the player will be joining. Original players will have to embrace the new style, as well as the new players. A core group that enlivens the new desired style must be grown large enough to be able to carry the accompanying new game plan. The amount of time for this kind of transformation of an existing group must be comprehended and respected. For this reason, it is normally quicker to match a game plan to an existing group’s style.

Lesson from a Legend: Scotty Bowman

For the 1967–68 hockey season, the NHL was to expand from its six teams to twelve teams. As the newly hired coach of the St. Louis Blues expansion team, Scotty Bowman was initially faced with the task of drafting his team’s players from a list of cast-offs that were left unprotected by the Original Six powerhouses. Along with General Manager Craig Patrick, Bowman began to plan for the draft. He knew that it would be impossible to field a team that could beat the Original Six teams regularly. These six veteran teams played a wide-open style of hockey that utilized their incredible strength, speed, and shooting firepower. The caliber of players available in the draft would have a tough time handling that type of game. Instead, Bowman believed that if the Blues could simply hold their own against the Original Six teams, they could easily win games against the new expansion teams. So the entire Blues’ drafting strategy was based on doing just that—building a team that could withstand the firepower from the older franchise teams.

Bowman had determined that the Blues would need to play a defensive style of hockey. Unable to play shot for shot against the Original Six, the Blues instead would build a stronghold that would minimize the scoring chances against them, while hoping to score enough goals for them to keep the games close. He would need players who were solid defensively with enough discipline and “hockey smarts” to play a disciplined defensive game.

Throughout that draft, they selected players who had experience and poise, including two future Hall of Famers who were quickly moving past their prime. The St. Louis Blues, as a result, iced a team that was able to win a majority of games against their peers, while managing to not be embarrassed by the Original Six teams. After winning two playoff series, the Blues played in the Stanley Cup finals in their first season, losing eventually to the Montreal Canadiens. Scotty Bowman was named Coach of the Year by The Hockey News in his inaugural season as an NHL coach.

The Coach as Manager:
Finding Your Work Group’s Natural Style

As in a sports team, style is important to any organization. Whether it is a company, department, or small work team, the same assessment must occur. A manager needs to define a playing style that will marry the employees’ capabilities with the demands of the objective. All employees are different, and they will gravitate to a work style that is natural to them. Some employees are thorough and pay great attention to detail. Others may rely on more reactionary skills. So you may see some groups that plod along methodically and precisely, while others dart through tasks according to what is a priority. Some work teams seem to naturally allow freethinking and creativity, while others seem bound by perceived rules that discourage entrepreneurship.

It holds true in business, as in sports, that a group of people will find it difficult to adapt to an operating style that does not come to them naturally. In the ’80s, many manufacturing organizations tried to make the transition from a disciplinary, autocratic management style to the more participative and cooperative team approach. Easier said than done. Many of the managers in leadership positions had “grown up” in the factories during the ’60s and ’70s. During those years, it was more typical for a manager to yell directions than to calmly ask for employees’ opinions.

To make the change to a more cooperative style, all levels of management had to learn to dictate less and communicate and involve more. ­During that evolution, high-level leaders found that some mid- to low-level managers were incapable of this change. Keep in mind that many supervisors and managers had long been rewarded for their heavy-handed, terse approach. And now they were being asked to behave in a fashion that was completely different. Was it wrong to try to force this change in styles? Not necessarily, especially if the needs of the business environment at that time left few alternatives. The mistake made by many higher level managers was underestimating how difficult it would be for some career managers to change, how long that change would take, or whether or not it was even possible.

This highlights the importance of first matching employees’ capabilities with a proposed work style. Before establishing a new style, however, consideration must be given to any opportunity to train, educate, and support employees who need to transition to a new approach. People are capable of change. Albeit difficult to initiate and manage, it is possible for an organization to “rehabilitate” employees to adapt to a new environment.

Just like a sports coach, the manager doesn’t always have the luxury of eliminating employees that don’t fit. In today’s litigious society and with low unemployment, it is becoming increasingly difficult to fire employees. Instead, companies are forced to deal with out-of-place workers by finding them different assignments. This is a little easier for a large company, since there are so many more positions that can be filled. Smaller companies don’t have such flexibility. The more realistic alternative, then, is to adapt an overall plan and style that matches the employees it impacts. 

PUTTING THE LESSON IN ACTION

There were many goals that challenged my work team, and they all had the urgency of a train’s whistle coming at us. Our objectives all had to be met, and they would need to happen simultaneously. This predicament, of course, is not new. It just seemed ugly at the time. It was obvious to me that we would need to be much quicker at what we did. We would need to operate in a manner that would expedite our actions, while maintaining thoroughness in our preparations.

In transforming my own team at work, I began to emphasize actions that I believed would help to create the best style for us. Just as I did for my hockey team, I had to stand back and assess my players’ characteristics. Our strengths were many. The level of talent in the group was ­terrific. They could handle tremendous amounts of work quickly. They were all ambitious and wanted personal reward and acclaim. They were all in the same relative age group with some terrific diversity, and many were friends outside of the workplace, too. When I looked at these people, I saw a lot in common. They had the spirit, the intelligence, and the brainpower to work together and develop some synergy. “Okay,” I thought, “if they have the makings of a team, then a team they’ll be.” That would define our style!

I kept bringing them together in groups to conduct all our business. I thought, “The more time they spend together as one team, the better chances are that they’ll grow into one.” We created a regular meeting schedule where we would often regroup to deal with any topic. I wanted them to act, think, and achieve as a team. Attempts by them to come to me one-on-one with group issues were met with instructions to “bring it to tomorrow’s meeting for the team to consider.” After a while, it became the norm that we would be meeting to review each other’s details.

They learned that the entire team would determine decisions and direction and that everyone had input on any matter. They saw that the team was the central force in what we were doing. They brainstormed together. They developed initiatives together. And, as a personal prerequisite for all my meetings, they laughed a lot together. Soon they began to sense the synergy that was being created as they were “firing on all eight cylinders.” Since it was a group of people who worked well together, the tighter they grew, the more they were looking out for each other. Because they all felt ownership in the team’s initiatives, no one was going to let a teammate fail.

Without even realizing it, we became more efficient. Our communications were greatly improved, we made fewer mistakes, and plans were critiqued well before execution. All this came about from creating a team atmosphere. With a new ability to execute our game plan quicker, we began to set aggressive goals that pushed us to limits that we thought we couldn’t reach. Our timelines became much shorter and the rate of our improvements more impressive. We were moving swiftly, establishing a new pace for our own actions. Our original plans were based on a style and approach that was already obsolete. We had taught ourselves a better way to work. So, in an attempt to establish our new style as a norm, we continued to feed it with ambitious goals. In effect, we changed our game plan’s objectives to match our new work habits.