All arguments aside as to who is the greatest Los Angeles Laker, a much lesser known story is about the abbreviated coaching career of one of those players in the debate, Magic Johnson. Quick! How many games did Magic coach for the Lakers?... 16. What was his record?... 5-11. How did his coaching career end?... He quit.

And what does Magic Johnson quitting as Laker coach have any business in a blog about communicating, leadership, and change?... It all has to do with the reason why he quit. The story goes that Magic got frustrated (obviously so badly that he quit) because his players couldn't play the game as well as he did. He apparently never got around the problem of judging others by the standards to which he was able to perform. Why couldn't Nick Van Exel (Magic's successor at the guard position) make the same "no look" pass that Magic could make so effortlessly. Come on Nick! What's wrong with you!?  

Last week, I spent some time with a client from one of the professions that couldn't seem to understand why the younger colleagues she was tasked to mentor and motivate "weren't getting it." After all, she told them story after story of how successful she was in her early years, and that all they had to do was work as hard as she did and they, too, would be successful. They just need to do it like I did it, she told me. But they keep quitting... what’s wrong with these people!?

How do you react when people approach things differently that you would have?

In listening to most people, there seems to be compelling reasons why changing themselves and/or the places they work is not something they want to do. The reasons must be very good ones, because I don’t see a lot of people and organizations make sustained change. Something pretty powerful is at play here.

Though it’s normally stated in a more defensive, frustrated way, allow me to make the case for you for “no change”:

Life is hard enough, it’s easier to not try new things.

You’ve been successful up to now, this is what’s gotten you to here.

It’s safer than trying something that you might fail at.

You don’t want to look stupid.

You’re too busy.

You don’t want to hurt their feelings.

You’ve always done it that way

People will like you more.

Others are in a much better position of power to change and, since they’re not, why should you?

It won’t work; Look at all the diets and other resolutions people have given up.

You’re hardwired this way.

You’re an old dog and can’t learn new tricks.

I’m no mind reader, but you’ve thought about these reasons at some time, right? I know I have.

I believe not changing is a choice just like making the frankly much harder choice to change. I can tell you confidently that the successful, healthy, productive people entertain, then reject this kind of thinking. However, let’s be accurate in our setting my scale: the popular choice has been to not change.

All in, choices about change have consequence. If you find the twelve reasons above to be compelling, please know that the choice to not change matters a whole lot and don’t take it lightly.  What you are willing to live with in your work and in your life, and with the people around you?

So don’t change.

Or do.

Yesterday, I was helping two senior executives struggle through a discussion about some badly behaving team members. As they were considering the options of how to deal with it, one of them admitted that she wasn't sure she had the energy to go through a protracted set of tough conversations about the behavior of the team members AND figure out to do about the future of their business, AND do everything else that had to be done in a softening economy. Wouldn't it just be easier to pull the trigger on the "bad citizen" and get on with executing the big strategy issues?

The colleague's response was one of the more inspiring things I'd heard in a long while: If we don't figure out how to communicate about and deal with this problem, how can we hope we will have the right sort of conversations about the future and our strategy? AND, if we can get the negative behavior thing solved, it will lighten the burden that's weighing us down on the rest of it. They agreed to take the tougher path.

I am proud of my clients today. I can talk till I'm blue in my professional face about changing the conversation and bringing new ideas up against old problems. It is incredibly powerful to listen to it really happen.

As the little General was heard to say long ago: "I am a dealer in hope." Because of how they treated each other, at that client today there is more hope. AND that's a good thing.

When's the last time you bought a book or a magazine about how to do something that you DIDN’T want to get better at?

People best take advice (meaning they are far more likely to genuinely listen, ask productive questions, think of new actions) when they ask for it. Not when it is forced.

Here's a couple ways even the supposedly best-intentioned among us make the problem worse by "just trying to help."

1. Telling without asking; aka "If you want to know what I think you should do, I think you should...” You guessed it. The target of the advice never said they wanted to know.

2. Ask questions about the past that don't help the present. There's the story of a certain family outing on a boat where one of the siblings starts to feel seasick. As she finally makes it to the rail to somehow privately pass her nausea, her other sibling loudly asks "Why didn't you take the Dramamine before we left?"

If you really want to be helpful to someone, whether at work or at home, ask them about the future and offer your support. Invite them to define what that support looks and sounds like. Then it's up to you to work on yourself to contribute to that. Let them go do their part.

More to come on this one.

These days, budgets aren't exactly overflowing for lavish team bonding experiences. As one who is occasionally chartered to make these events practical and not just another "boondoggle," let me offer one of the most important and telling exercises that you can put a team through. You don't need to go offsite to do it (ca-ching!). You don't even need to use ropes to hold each other or ladders for "trust falls."

At your next staff meeting, pick someone who seems to be a pretty decent listener to be Scorekeeper for a game called Statements & Questions. As the meeting goes on, the Scorekeeper tracks in two separate columns of a piece of paper (no flip chart; saving budget!) every time someone asks a genuine question and every time someone says something to offer only an opinion.

Three ways to score BONUS points:

1. Make a statement, then genuinely seek other opinions about what you said with a question at the end.

2. Disagree with something you just heard by saying "I don't agree with that, can you tell me a little more about why you think that?

3. Ask a question that builds on what was just said.

Points DEDUCTED for:

1. Starting to talk before the other person who's speaking has stopped to breathe.

2. Complaining about someone who's not in the room without ending the complaint with a step toward speaking with them directly.

3. Unwelcome Technology Sighting; especially checking of PDA poorly concealed in crotch vicinity of attendee.

Hash marks and Bonus points are SCORED AS A TEAM, totaled and reported at end of meeting. Then someone find a way to ask: What did we learn for next time? What does it feel like on a team that creates more statements than question? Do you get more or less done when people in the room extend respect vs. seeming to care only about themselves

Face it, whether it's "tough times" or not, the health and productivity of a team is grounded in the way the members treat each other.

Please do well on this. These days, this is a game you really can't afford to play poorly for too long. Serious costs will be paid. (Maybe they already are).