Most sports pundits and talking heads are busy analyzing LeBron’s recent Decision (live on ESPN!) and debating whether he will succeed with his two high-profile partners. As a Cleveland resident (but not native), I felt awful for the fans of this city; and being an HR practitioner, I came away from the experience with a somewhat different take on the situation.

We all know about companies composed of talented people who have developed an expertise in their particular field. Most of them are diligent, professional and humble, but a few always seem to be loud, obnoxious, arrogant… and high-performing. Organizations tend to tolerate these types by rationalizing that their conduct can be overlooked on the strength of their results. But this only lasts so long. Eventually, reputation catches up with them (maybe they were rude to a key client, maybe they disobeyed the wrong order from an executive, or maybe they simply missed their numbers one year) and they get fired. While they may find gainful employment elsewhere (after all, they have undeniable talent), it tends to be fleeting. I’ve witnessed this firsthand a number of times in my career and I think the parallels to the Cavaliers’ situation are striking.

Imagine LeBron as a corporate all-star, rather than a basketball all-star. LeBron came to Gilbert Enterprises as a highly touted, but unproven, high-potential candidate. He promptly signed a generous deal, augmented by a variety of perks that set him apart from his teammates and peers at other companies (teams). “Sure, he is a little high maintenance,” Dan Gilbert (CEO) reasoned, “but he sure brings in lots of new business (packs the arena).” As time wore on – and his star performer seemed to reach a ceiling of sorts with his failure to close the largest deals, year after year (NBA Finals) – Dan began to question whether LeBron was relying too much on talent alone, and grew concerned that he was letting LeBron’s selfishness influence some of the key strategic and personnel decisions. Hadn’t LeBron even successfully lobbied to have his manager replaced?!

Something clearly was not working, but Dan was hesitant; after all, LeBron did consistently produce above-average annual results, even if Gilbert Enterprises wound up trailing a few of its stronger competitors (Celtics, Magic, etc.) when the fiscal year ended.

Unsure of how to fix things, Dan made the tactical error that overindulgent parents have made for generations: he spoiled LeBron rotten, in the hopes that he would buy his respect and loyalty. But, like most children, LeBron took Dan’s largesse as a sign of tacit approval and encouragement. Things finally came to a head one day, when young LeBron openly courted other employers right down the street from his workplace (IMG Building in downtown Cleveland). Dan was furious but felt threatened by the prospect of losing his top producer to a competitor. He remained silent, never believing (or wanting to believe) that LeBron would turn his back on the very organization that fostered his growth and had invested so much in him.

And then it happened: without even the courtesy of a personal visit, or two weeks notice, LeBron unceremoniously notified Gilbert of his decision to “switch teams”, so to speak. This was devastating not only to Gilbert Enterprises, but to their entire network of vendors, customers, and suppliers. Dan rued the day he signed that first contract with his budding protégé, and wondered out loud “where did it all go wrong…?”

We keep hearing that the NBA is a business (true) and that contracts are not personal (false) and players deserve the benefit of the doubt. In this case, we could find fault with both parties in the negotiation. But rather than harping on the mistakes that were made, what lessons can we derive that are applicable to businesses in any industry? Here are a few that occurred to me:

1. Team First: Individual talent will only take you so far. No matter how impressive your star performer(s) is/are, they are still bound by the laws of the universe: they cannot duplicate themselves, nor can they create extra hours in the day. We all rely on others to a much greater extent than we like to acknowledge, and we need to create cohesive teams that genuinely support one another. You can make up for talent gaps with strong teams, but you can’t make up for weak teams with strong performers (at least not over the long-term).

2. Equal Treatment: When there is favoritism shown to a member of an organization, it breeds resentment and anger on the part of peers and sometimes even managers. Yes, you can pay top performers more money than the clerical staff, but it should still be on a defined scale that remains continuous.

3. Diversify: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Investors take this as a given, but employers often grow complacent and fail to plan for succession or contingencies (if their top talent were to leave the company, move to a different city, meet an untimely death), becoming captive to a single employee that holds too much organizational knowledge and/or power.

4. Personality Is Fixed: There are different schools of thought here, but suffice it to say that personality attributes are extremely difficult (and therefore unlikely) to change. This has consequences for how you select candidates. Remember, hire for attitude, not skill; as long as your employee has a sufficient level of intelligence and experience, you can train them on the technical side and extract performance improvements over time.

5. Protect Your Investments: Don’t allow strategy to be dictated by any one person, especially when it’s not their job. Organizations thrive on order and clarity; everyone is responsible for their own role, not others’, and should be held accountable for results.

6. Innovate: Don’t be afraid to try something new (if your current strategy isn’t working)! Just because you have constraints (whether it’s a departmental budget or a league-wide salary cap), you can still try different combinations on your teams or new tactics (move from product to solution selling, field-based R&D/run & gun offense, zone defense, etc.) to capitalize on the strengths of your employees. Keep experimenting and know when to pull the plug and start over. It sure beats the alternative…

Aaron Ziff is the Senior Partner, Business Development and Surveys for Edge Learning of Ohio / RespectfulWorkplace.com. He has a diverse background in human resources, having served as executive recruiter, HR generalist, measurement specialist, and business developer in his career. Aaron earned his bachelor’s degree in psychology from Yeshiva University (New York City), along with a master’s degree in industrial & organizational psychology from the University of Akron.

No related posts.

Tags: respect, workplace culture