I don’t use a lot of sports analogies for the simple reason that I rue the number of times I’ve told someone I’m a coach and they ask, “What sport?” But there is something strange going on in the world of basketball.

Last spring, when I watched my alma mater, the University of Illinois Fighting Illini, play in the NCAA tournament, one could not help but notice how international the roster had become. And when you look at the NBA, arguably two of the best players in the world are Nikola Jokić and Luka Dončić. Both came through European basketball systems.

Why is this happening? When I was a kid, there was one obvious avenue for playing basketball competitively, and that was high school. Today, high school is only part of the picture. The best players are often on AAU (Amateur Athletic Union) travel teams. You may well have a kiddo playing on something similar in basketball, softball, soccer, or volleyball. One of my friends has a daughter on a travel team where the home games are two hours away. This is what serious youth sports have become.

One explanation I keep hearing for the rise of European players is the difference between performance and development. The American AAU system can involve playing game after game, tournament after tournament. European programs tend to devote much more time to practice, fundamentals, skill development, and learning how to play the game. Our system gives young players lots of opportunities to perform. Their system gives them lots of opportunities to develop.

Over time, development matters.

But I’m not really writing about basketball. I’m writing about people, and if there is one hope I have for the people around me, it is that they develop into the most complete person they can become. This was Paul’s hope for the church as well. In Ephesians 4, Eugene Peterson paraphrases the goal as growing up until we are “moving easily and rhythmically together.”

So how do people grow up? I think one significant answer is developmental conversations.

We Have Built a Culture Around Performance

Most of our conversations are about performance. I’ll tell you what to do, you do it, and hopefully we win. It is simple, direct, and often efficient. Sometimes it is exactly what is needed.

Michael Bungay Stanier wrote a book called The Advice Trap. He describes three common forms of what he calls the Advice Monster. Tell-It says, “I know the answer, and I need to tell you.” Save-It says, “I need to rescue this person and make things better.” Control-It says, “I need to take charge so this turns out correctly.”

Most of us lean toward one of these more than the others. Mine is probably Tell-It, with a healthy dose of Save-It mixed in. I have a strong need for you to know I’m smart. I’m a recovering know-it-all.

The problem is that this impulse can look very helpful. Someone brings me a problem, and I can see what they should do. Why wouldn’t I just tell them? We don’t like watching people struggle. We want them to be good immediately, and we get frustrated when they don’t see what seems obvious to us. So we explain the answer, give the direction, and expect them to perform.

Then we get frustrated when they don’t do it, or don’t do it well. Sometimes they seem hesitant. Sometimes they do half of what we suggested. Sometimes they come back a week later with a remarkably similar problem. We told them what to do, but apparently we did not develop much.

Development Requires Reps in Thinking

A leader once told me that everywhere they went, the organization produced. They could whip a team into shape and start producing whatever numbers it took to be considered a win. They knew how to organize, push, clarify, and get things moving.

And then they would leave, and the organization would quickly return to its original state.

That is pretty common in my experience. It was certainly true about some of the early organizations I led. I could get people moving, but the movement depended too much on me. As long as I was there pushing, deciding, solving, and directing, things worked. When I stopped, so did much of the progress.

At some point, I began considering alternative outcomes. Rather than simply getting done what I hoped would get done, I started hoping for ownership, resourcefulness, resilience, and maturity. Those are harder to measure than performance, but they last longer. And they come from people digging in and doing some of their own work.

That requires reps in thinking.

A basketball player does not become a high-IQ player because the coach tells him exactly what to do on every possession. Eventually he has to learn to see the defense, recognize what is changing, understand his options, and make a decision. The coach can call a play, but the player still has to learn to see the floor.

The same thing is true with people. If I solve every problem for you, you may become better at bringing problems to me. If I help you think through problems, you may become better at solving them.

Development Takes an Investment

We say we want people to take ownership, but ownership requires room. We say we want resourceful people, but resourcefulness requires problems they have to wrestle with themselves. We say we want resilient people, but resilience does not develop when someone rescues us from every difficult situation.

Development requires an investment that performance does not always require. We have to trust people. We have to encourage them. We have to let them struggle and sometimes fail. We have to give them credit when things go well and help them learn when things don’t. We have to expand their thinking and give them useful tools.

Most importantly, we have to resist doing all of their thinking for them.

That does not mean we never give advice. Sometimes I know something you need to know. Sometimes the situation calls for clear instruction. Sometimes the fire is burning and somebody needs to say, “Do this now.”

But that should not be confused with development. Telling someone what to do may solve the situation in front of them. Development gives them something they can carry into the next situation.

Decide What You’re Trying to Produce

In Good to Great, Jim Collins warns against what he calls the “genius with a thousand helpers” model. The organization revolves around one brilliant leader who has the answers while everyone else helps execute them. That model can produce impressive results for a while, but the strength of the organization resides primarily in one person.

Collins describes something stronger: humble leaders with fierce professional will who get the right people in the right seats and build an organization capable of succeeding beyond them. The goal is not to create a thousand helpers. It is to develop capable people who can think, decide, own, adapt, and lead.

That changes the question I ask when someone comes to me with a problem. The question is no longer simply, “What should they do?” A better question is, “What am I trying to develop in them?”

Sometimes the answer really is performance. Sometimes the play simply needs to be called. But most of the time I want something more durable than that. I want the person to learn how to see the floor, think through the options, make a decision, and own the result.

Performance may win the possession.

Development builds the player.