How to build a team: tips from mentor Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin

How tech giants choose team members and distinguish "difficult" but high-performing employees from dangerous upstarts - in a chapter from the book "Trillion DOLLAR Coach"

Billy Campbell has been called "a closely guarded secret of Silicon Valley": a former football coach became the CEO of Intuit, and then a famous coach. He was a personal mentor to Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, Larry Page and other technology leaders. Campbell's protégés Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg have compiled Campbell's principles into one book that have helped GOOGLE, APPLE, Amazon and Twitter find the right solutions to conflict situations, support employees and develop in-demand products.

"Principles of Russian business gurus" - a selection of RBC Pro

RBC Trends publishes a chapter from the book Trillion Dollar Coach. Leadership Principles of Legendary Silicon Valley Coach Bill Campbell. The material was prepared in collaboration with the Bombora publishing house.

Choose the right players

“If you run a company, you surround yourself with very, very good people,” Bill once said. A not-so-original statement refers to the hackneyed business mantra that calls for always hiring people smarter than yourself: “Everyone who is responsible for a function on behalf of the CEO should be more knowledgeable in this area than the CEO. Sometimes these people will be doing Human Resources or it tasks, but you should aim to have them do company-wide tasks most of the time. They are smart people with great abilities, and you should strive to get the best idea they can come up with together.”

Bill looked for four qualities in people. The person must be smart, not necessarily academically, but more in terms of their ability to quickly get up to speed in any field and make connections. Bill called this the ability to draw "unobvious analogies." He must also work hard and have high integrity. Finally, a person must possess a property that is difficult to accurately describe: resilience. The ability to rise after a fall, to find enough passion and perseverance in yourself to try again.

Economics of education What are soft skills and how to develop them. Complete guide

He could put up with many other shortcomings if he believed that a person has these properties. When he interviewed candidates, he first of all evaluated them: he did not just ask what the person did, he was always interested in how exactly he did it. If a candidate said that he "led a project that led to an increase in profitability," specifying how he achieved this growth, you could understand a lot about how much he was involved in the project. Was it on the hook? Or did all the work? Did you form a team? Bill paid attention to pronouns: does the person say “I” (which can mean selfish attitude) or “we” (potential leader and team player)? Bill was immediately put off by his lack of desire to learn. Did the candidates have more answers than questions? This is a bad sign!

He looked for signs of commitment in people to a common goal, and not just personal success. The team comes first! Your task, as Sundar Pichai says, is to find “people who understand that their success depends on how well the team works, understand the need for compromise - people who will bring the company to the first place.” When Sundar and Bill managed to find such people, Sundar said: "We will groom them." But how do you know that you have found such a person? Notice the moments when he has to give up something and when he is encouraged by the success of someone else. Sundar says, “Sometimes decisions are made and people have to give up things. I index such signals above - when people refuse something. And also when someone is happy because someone else in the company is doing a good job. It doesn't apply directly to them. but they are encouraged. I am looking for this quality. Like when you see a player on the bench cheering on someone else on the team; how Stephen Curry jumps for joy when Kevin Durant scores an important ball. You can't fake those emotions."

In 2011, Eric stepped down as CEO of Google. In a subsequent reorganization, Jonathan's position as HEAD of product development was abolished. He considered several options, including the opportunity to lead the Enterprise business (now Google Cloud, a multi-billion dollar division), but rejected them all. He was hurt by the reorganization and viewed all other vacancies as a demotion. Bill was very disappointed; Jonathan put his hurt ego ahead of what was best for the Google team (and himself, by the way). He was making "a mistake born of emotion and ego" and Bill felt that Jonathan should consider getting his head out of his ass. Bill suggested that Jonathan take more time to think about his decision and continued to meet with him regularly. With Bill's help, Jonathan later returned to the Google workforce, taking on other roles. It was a clear and personal lesson: when change happens, the priority should be what is best for the team.

Bill valued courage: the willingness to take risks and the willingness to stand up for what's right for the team, even if it's ambiguous to himself. Early in his career at Google, before becoming CEO, Sundar Pichai, when he thought a decision was wrong, spoke openly about it to both us and Larry Page, then CEO. It takes courage, but, according to Sundar, it's worth it: "Bill always appreciated when I expressed my opinion on difficult issues, because he knew that I care about the company and its products - everything comes from it."

Today, Sundar respects this quality in other people: “There are people who are really team players and care about the company. When they speak out, it means a lot to me because I know it comes from the heart.” Bill was attracted to "difficult" people - openly expressing their opinions, sometimes tough, not afraid to go against the current or the opinion of the team. They are “like irregularly shaped diamonds,” in the words of Alan Eustace. Evidence of respect for "difficult" people is Bill's friendship with Steve Jobs, as well as his long collaboration with other founders - Larry Page and Sergey Brin from Google, Scott Cook from Intuit. Not a single accommodating person among them! We don't think that Bill specifically looked for this trait of "ruffiness" in people, but he tolerated it and even accepted it. While others might find this type of person difficult, Bill found these people interesting and worthwhile, sometimes helping them smooth things over. The most effective coaches tolerate and even encourage a certain level of eccentricity and pricklyness among team members. The most outstanding professionals, from athletes to founders of companies and leaders, are often "difficult".

You want to have them on your team.

Sheryl Sanberg says the first time she met Bill, on her first week at Google back in 2001, he asked her what she was doing there. At the time, Cheryl was hired as a "Head of the Structural Unit," a position that did not exist prior to her arrival. In fact, the company did not have any structural divisions, so she had nothing to manage. She replied that she used to work in the Ministry of Finance. He interrupted her: "Okay, but what are you doing?" This time, she listed ideas that she thought she could pursue. Bill was not satisfied with the answer: "But what are you doing here?" Finally, Cheryl admitted the truth: she hadn't done anything yet. “I learned a very important lesson,” she says. “It's not about what you've done before. Not in what you think. And what you do every day.” This is possibly the most important trait Bill was looking for in his employees: people who come in, work hard and make a difference every day. .

When you evaluate people, it is important to consider how they will fit into the team and the company. In Silicon Valley, they are usually looking for "superheroes" - people with outstanding brains and wit, who can do everything and be the best at everything. At the leadership level, the focus on superpersonalities is further exacerbated. Philipp Schindler recalls: “Bill stressed that you should not try to complete the team with only strikers. You must pay special attention to the composition of the group and skillfully bring together different talents. All people have their limitations. It's important to understand everyone, identify what makes them different, and see how you can help them fit into the team." Bill valued intelligence, but he also understood the value of social skills such as empathy, which are not always valued in business, especially in technology.

He did not attach too much importance to experience. He looked at the skills and the mindset and could roughly imagine what you could grow into. This is the talent of a coach, the ability to see the potential of an employee, and not just his current activities. Maybe not entirely accurate. Carol Dweck, in her 2006 book Mind Flexible, notes that no one can know a person's true potential because "it is impossible to foresee what can be achieved through years of passion, hard work and study." But even without guarantees of absolute accuracy, you can rely on potential enough not to write people off for lack of experience. The general trend is to hire people based on their experience: I hire you for job X because I want someone with years of experience doing job X.

The Economics of Education Instructions for Use: How to Communicate Effectively with a Coach

The process of selecting the right people can also mean that you have to rethink the composition of the team more than once. When Jonathan led the product development team at Google, he included several top product managers. But within the organizational structure of the company, developers were not included in the team. This led to conflict situations when it came time to assign and distribute people and resources: product managers did not always agree with the developers. Jonathan's work meetings were often arguing over the decisions made, with some complaining about being absent from the development meeting.

Bill's advice to Jonathan was simple: add players to the team. In his opinion, Jonathan should have invited the lead developers to the workshop. Not just for one of them, but on an ongoing basis. Then it was necessary to force everyone to discuss further plans, listen to objections and ensure that everyone agreed with the decisions made. The purpose of the meetings was not so Jonathan could demonstrate that he was in control of the issues discussed and tell people what to do (Bill noted that Jonathan sometimes practiced this), but to “glue” the team. The only way to do this was to involve the people at the center of the conflict. Of course, there were points of contention, but due to the fact that there were more participants in the meetings, they were resolved more quickly, which helped to form stronger relationships in the group. Even at the beginning of his business career, Bill was distinguished by the ability to select the right players. Eric Johnson was Bill's colleague at Kodak. Eric says that at the time, Kodak was a very profitable company, so he wasn't too worried about getting rid of mediocre employees. Bill wasn't one to blow his heads either - he later learned to better deal with bad employees when he had to do it as the CEO of Intuit. However, at Kodak, he developed his talent for finding the "action people" in any department and getting those people to talk. This is not always easy in a big company, but Bill was looking for the same qualities as in applicants: intelligence, diligence, decency, perseverance. And then he would find a way to formally or informally bring these people together,

“People were looking forward to meeting Bill,” says Eric, “because when Campbell brought the group together, the atmosphere was always charged with results, everyone participated and contributed, and they really enjoyed this meeting. It was positive and fun to be part of the team.”

Economics of education Management 2.0: how to organize and manage a mixed team

Choose the right players

The main qualities to look for are mind and heart: the ability to learn quickly, the desire to work hard, integrity, perseverance and a “team first” attitude.

Keep under control unruly geniuses

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges managers face is divas: talented but extremely difficult employees to interact with. We've certainly met quite a few of these people in our time in high tech, and Bill has always reminded us that managing these kinds of people is one of the most difficult aspects of a leadership position. He called them "uncontrollable geniuses" and pointed out: "You will encounter these strange men or women who can determine the fate of your business. Your task is to manage this person in such a way that his actions do not harm the company. They must be able to work with other people. If they can't, you need to let them go. They need to work in an environment where they collaborate with other people."

But how to do that? Over time, through many mistakes and failed attempts, with endless advice from Bill, we have mastered this particular art. Support them as long as they continue to perform well and try to keep arguments to a minimum. Instead, channel that energy into learning, try your best to overcome their abnormal behavior. As long as you can do it, the reward will be impressive: more genius, less insanity. “He has everything he needs,” Bill once wrote to Jonathan about one of the “difficult” members of his team. “Now that you have fully supported him, you should try to get him to act like a leader. He has every possibility. No more objections."

Based on our experience, unruly geniuses can be invaluable to the company and work productively. They can create outstanding products and assemble high-performing teams. They quickly see the point. They are simply better in many, many ways. And they can have both inflated egos and vulnerabilities that match their extraordinary talent and performance. They often put a lot of effort into achieving their own goals, sacrificing companionship. This inner “I come first” attitude sometimes seeps through (or breaks through) to the outside, which can repulse others and affect their work.

This is where the art of finding a balance is required: there is abnormal behavior, and there is behavior. How much are you willing to endure when it's too much? Where is this elusive boundary? Never put up with people who violate ethical standards: lie, behave dishonestly, harass colleagues or treat them badly. In a sense, these are the simplest cases, because the solution is obvious here. It is more difficult when a person does not violate these norms. How do you know when an employee's harm begins to outweigh their significant contribution? There is no correct answer here, but there are a few warning signs. You can work with them, instruct a person, but if no changes follow, they cannot be tolerated.

Does unguided genius disrupt team communication? Interrupts others, attacks them, criticizes? Are people afraid to speak out because of this?

Does leading such a genius take too much time? It can be hard to tell when the behavior of an out-of-control genius becomes too toxic for the team to endure, but if you spend hours and hours fixing the damage, it's a sure sign that things have gone too far. Most of this time is usually spent arguing with the person, which is rarely helpful. Bill was once advising a Google executive on an unruly genius and summarized the whole situation quite accurately: “I don’t know why I’m defending him,” Bill remarked, “except because his genius is one of the drivers of our outstanding success. How can we leave the good in it and get rid of the bad? You can't spend 18 hours a day with him!" The remark about 18 hours may have been an exaggeration, but not much: the individual required an inadequate amount of time to control the damage. He eventually left the company.

The Economics of Education Top 25 Time Management Books

Does the unruly genius have the right priorities? Eccentric behavior can be tolerated as long as it is (or can be) beneficial to the company. What can not be tolerated is the constant desire of such a genius to put his own interests above the interests of the team. This often affects precisely those areas that are directly related to the main work of the group. The genius will continue to excel at his job, be it sales, development, legal, etc. But when it comes to salary, press attention and career advancement, the abnormality will show itself.

Do unruly geniuses really seek attention and self-promotion? Bill wasn't thrilled with media attention and tended to distrust people who wanted it too much. There's nothing wrong with going public as long as it's in the best interest of the company, and it's really part of the CEO's job. But if you're a CEO and someone on your team is constantly looking for a media opportunity, that's a red flag.

Unruly geniuses may formally acknowledge the accomplishments of their teams, but always put themselves in the spotlight. This can have a devastating effect. Even if people say that everything is fine, over time they will begin to resent that one person constantly takes all the credit for himself, while other, more modest people remain in the shadows. Seeking attention is one of the hallmarks of narcissism, and a 2008 study found that, other things being equal, narcissists are much more likely to become group leaders. Therefore, too much thirst for attention, which is shown by the leader, is not at all a sign of an uncontrollable genius. But it can still create problems if the rest of the band starts to suspect that the media star is more interested in fame than in team success!

Keep under control unruly geniuses

Unruly geniuses—talented but difficult to interact with team members—can be tolerated and even protected as long as their behavior is ethical and does not harm others, and as long as their value to the company outweighs the problems they create for management, colleagues, and the team.