Lessons from Al Horford's success for corporate leaders: The right environment makes all the difference

Like most diehard Boston Celtics fans, I have been thinking a lot about the team over the past few weeks, as they earned their first NBA championship since 2008. While the national discourse has centered on the Celtics’ two best and two longest-serving players, Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown, my thoughts have frequently been drawn to their less heralded teammates: Jrue Holiday, Kristaps Porzingis, Derrick White, and especially Al Horford. I think the success of these players this season has something important to teach executives, managers, coaches, teachers, and anyone else responsible for enhancing the performance of others.

Let us rewind back five years, to the summer of 2019. Al Horford and the Celtics were coming off a somewhat disappointing season, but Horford had been as good as ever. The 32-year-old center had been named an All Star in 3 of his previous 5 seasons, earning himself a $104 million contract with the Philadelphia 76ers.

Horford’s time in Philadelphia did not go as planned, to say the least. His statistics declined across the board. The team was swept in the first round of the playoffs (by the Celtics, no less), and Horford received a large part of the blame, from fans and management alike. His reputation declined so quickly that the 76ers had to send out a valuable first-round pick just to get rid of him in a trade to the Oklahoma City Thunder.

Horford impressed people with his professionalism behind the scenes in Oklahoma, but he barely played in the games. The Thunder were rebuilding around young players, and they decided to shut Horford down completely midway through the season. He only played 28 games all year (out of 82).

Now entering his age-35 season, the consensus around the league was that Al Horford was done. "Washed." He might play out his contract rather than retire immediately, but he would do so as an end-of-the-bench player too old to continue to contribute.

But that is not what happened. Against all odds, when Horford returned to the Celtics in 2022, his performance returned to its 2019 level. He helped lead the Celtics to the NBA Finals. He continued his stellar play in 2023. In 2024, he moved to a bench role, but was once again an essential contributor to a Celtics team that won him his first championship, as a 38-year old.

In fact, similar stories can be told of multiple other Celtics players. Jrue Holiday was considered an underperforming playoff player as recently as last season, but this season he was the perfect piece. Kristaps Porzingis was accused of being a “malcontent” in New York and of “moping” in Dallas, but on this Boston team he feels like a cheat code, a happy-go-lucky, egoless player who makes their offense completely unstoppable when he gets going.

So, what happened?

Some of these changes have to do with changes in the people themselves. Horford worked on his shooting, Porzingis had an improved run of health. Mostly, though, these are the same people they were before. The major changes are environmental.

The truth is, a below-average performer in one context can often be a superstar in a different context, and vice versa. We tend to believe that a person’s performance reflects their skill level and their work ethic, and that top performers are “better” than average or below-average performers. But that is not necessarily true. The top performer may just be a better fit for the particular context, or better suited to the culture or environment. Change that environment, and performance can skyrocket (or plummet).

I have seen this phenomenon first-hand myself. I am experienced and self-aware enough at this stage of my career to understand when my performance is strong, and when it is weak. My last several years at McKinsey have given me the opportunity to work in many contexts and alongside many people. Sometimes, my performance has been exceptional—but sometimes it hasn’t! Sometimes, I have underperformed. I haven’t underperformed because I stopped trying, or because my skill level suddenly decreased, or even because the people I was working with were “bad” in some way. I remained myself, with the same skills and abilities and character. But as the situation changes, my performance changes, for better and for worse. The same can be said of virtually ever person in every profession.

We should keep this in mind as we consider the average and below average performers we all work with on a daily basis. Why is this person underperforming? It is something intrinsic to him or her? Or is there something in the environment or in the context that limits performance? Is this something I can change?

Sometimes the answer is no. The fit just isn’t great, and we need to find a different person who is a better fit to our culture. What sets one person up for success won’t necessarily set the next person up for the same success. Still, there a few things we can do to generally make our environments more conducive to success, which I will discuss in a follow up article on Wednesday.