As a kid, I learned that the “knee bone connected to the thigh bone” thanks to the School House Rock song “Them Not So Dry Bones.” The lyrics remind us how things “really fit” and “it’s a framework… holding you together.” This idea, that we are combinations of integrated parts supporting a larger whole applies to everything from building portfolios of assets to, the focus of this post, managing forests of trees and teams of people.

Trees as Soldiers

In the 2^nd edition of Aunt Fanny Learns Forestry: Managing Timberland as an Investment, Aunt Fanny’s nephew (and forester) advises:

“Think of your forest of trees as an army of soldiers… looking to produce on your behalf… put them to work on the right things… with the proper nutrition while protecting them from… fire and disease… Over time, your trees grow in size and quality and, most importantly, value…”

A forest manager has choices. If the forest owner prioritizes economics, then pursue the plan of activities that expects to deliver the most value and highest returns. The plan could account for other objectives, too, such as aesthetics or wildlife habitat, but the priority helps the manager make decisions; the forest will respond differently based on the chosen plan of treatments.

In the end, a forester decides which trees to harvest and which to leave in pursuit of this plan. Trees in a forest affect each other, competing for space, sunlight, water, and nutrients. In the financial scenario, the winning plan, regardless secondary objectives, is the one that generates the highest return.

The forest plan does not prioritize an individual tree. Rather, each tree is left to grow or designated for harvest based on its impact on the overall productivity of the forest. Younger trees grow faster and older trees slow down. Some local markets prefer softwoods and others prize hardwoods. Each forest is comprised of competing and cooperative parts, like teammates fighting to make the starting lineup, and the forest manager seeks the combination that best contributes to the goal over time.

Building Teams

In school and college, I played a lot of baseball and learned many lessons from my coaches and personal experiences about building and developing teams. One is the importance of identifying and clearly communicating a core set of beliefs and values against which to test ideas and make decisions. Another is the importance of clear support and explicit training to improve the chances for success for any newly hired or promoted member of the team.

That said, there are limits for what a good, even great, coach can accomplish with a given player. Limits exist on the teachability of skills. A lot can be taught, but the fact remains that each person arrives with a unique combination of skills, interests, talents, and traits. Fish can’t fly (though some glide) and (most) birds can’t swim.

When building a team, part of what we do is look for the right “lineup” given the players we have. We evaluate the potential for improvement at the individual level to build the team that, in total, performs at the highest level. Resources and attention are limited, and each manager must make choices.

I remember lessons from my parents: to write thank you notes, to “begin with the end in mind,” to clearly communicate and reinforce expectations. These are learnable skills to an extent, especially when important enough to the person. However, even under the tutelage of a great coach, one teaching clean technique and role modeling a set of values, some players lack the skill, capacity, or interest to grow and improve enough to make the team.

The economist Donald McCloskey wrote that “the ability to teach exceptional performance is itself an exceptional performance.” I remember to this day Coach White teaching me to shoot a basketball in the gym at Pinewood Elementary School. He helped me become a good shooter, but I was not Division I college shooter material. Rather, I needed to focus my energy on opportunities, such as baseball, that better matched my interests and potential to help a team win.

Conclusion

There always exists a connection between this dollar and the rest of the portfolio, this tree and the forest, this person and the team. Everything competes for time and attention; our choices affect others. Nothing is totally independent.