The Leadership "Law of Threes"

You don't have to look very far in the world of sports for examples of positive and negative leadership, management, teamwork, and results.

In this piece at The National Football Post, Michael Lombardi discusses the leadership of Tom Coughlin, head coach of the New York Giants football team.

"Yes, I know he has one of the best teams, but what has impressed me about the job Tom is doing is his ability to handle Plaxico Burress and not let it affect the team. He is using a very simple leadership strategy called the “Law of Threes”. On each team there are three types of players. The first are the ones that will do anything that is asked, willing to help the program. The second group are the undecided players, the players that are not sure what to do. And the third are the malcontents. These are the players that want to buck the system all the time, and try to breakdown the team. As a leader, there is a tendency to try and win over the players in group three, by trying to make them happy. But all that does is move the players from group two into group three, and cause you to start to lose the players in group one. What Coughlin has done is focus on group one. He pays no attention to group three and what has resulted is that Plaxico is on an island and no one wants to join him. The team is bigger than Plaxico."

*Thanks to ESPN.com's Bill Simmons for pointing out this article*

Good leadership is usually good behavioral psychology (so why isn't that an MBA class?).

Do these three groups exist in your company or team?
How are you (or the other leaders) handling the situation?

I have to admit, I've never heard of these three laws before. An internet search only brings up references to this article.
But it makes good sense... maybe the "Law of Threes" is worth a try?

A Team? Or a Collection of Stars?

Warning - This is a "Sports as Business Team" Metaphor zone!

Yesterday, the NY Giants played the Seattle Seahawks without their best offensive weapon, Plaxico Burress. They had suspended him for violating team policy.

They then went out and defeated the Seattle Seahawks 44-6, the Giants biggest victory since 1972.

With Burress out, Eli Manning completed passes to eight different receivers.

This is just one case in a continuous series for the Giants. 

• Two years ago, their top running back Tiki Barber retired. Everyone wondered how the Giants would recover, but they replaced him with three running backs and never missed him. 
• At mid-season, All-pro tight end Jeremy Shockey was injured and the team got better, eventually winning the Super Bowl.
• This year, future Hall-of-Fame end Michael Strahan retired and the Giants only All-Pro, Osi Umineyora was injured. The Giants have continued to be 4-0 so far.
• Now, Burress goes out. And the beat goes on...

What does all this mean from a management perspective?

I don't know for sure, but I'd like to propose a few lessons.

1. No Excuses - Whatever you might say about Giants Coach Tom Coughlin (and plenty of people have had plenty to say), he's a 'no excuse' guy. You play with what you have. This attitude is a lot more constructive than 'woe is me'.
2. No One is Bigger than the Team - Coughlin and the Giants are very explicit about this. No one is bigger than the team. How often have you thought, "We can't make it without him/her"? You're probably wrong.
3. Others will Rise to the Occasion - One risk of having stars is that everyone else becomes observers. Then, when they're needed, they're conditioned to just stand around watching.

It's an interesting thing to watch. Each time a star goes down, the Giants get better. 

The talent doesn't get better, but the chemistry does...

How about you? Have you got a team? Or a collection of stars?

Could your team be better with less stars?