Tebow: How many leaders are too many?

There are two reasons I had to finally weigh in on the (admittedly over-analyzed), Peyton Manning - Tim Tebow NFL saga that has played out over the last two weeks. One, I need to make sure I have submitted enough sports-related dispatches for next year's installment of The 8 Man Rotation E-book, and two, since Tebow has been traded to my beloved New York Jets, I simply felt obligated to comment. So, apologies in advance if you are already tired of the story - come back tomorrow for something more interesting.Don't look behind you Mark.

Most of the HR-related analysis on the deal has tended to focus on what the Broncos' decisions suggest about Talent Management  - that acquiring superior talent is more important that keeping popular but less-talented around, and that a keen understanding of what capabilities and competencies are required for success should drive talent decisions. Those are both good points, but as a Jets fan, I want to focus on their decision to bring in Tebow and what it might say about their (shakier) talent strategy and the potential implications to the success of the team.

In professional football it is generally agreed that the quarterback position is the most important on the field, and the quarterback is seen as the team leader. For young quarterbacks, developing leadership skills and earning the respect of teammates might be equally as important as improving the practical skills of the game. For the New York Jets current starting quarterback and three-year veteran Mark Sanchez, cementing his status as the team leader has been a kind of rocky ride. His first two seasons saw kind of unexpected success, with back-to-back deep playoff runs, but this success was tempered by a disappointing 2011 season marked by a failure to make the NFL playoffs and numerous reports of dissension amongst the team. Sanchez play on the field was inconsistent, (not uncommon for young quarterbacks), and the presence of strong personalities on the coaching staff and in the locker room have also made it hard for Sanchez to truly become the team leader, generally seen as a necessary step on the march towards competing for championships.

But the Jets' ownership has enough faith in Sanchez' ability and potential, to just a few weeks ago reward him with a contract extension, and a guarantee of at least two more years as the starting quarterback. At the time the contract was seen as a commitment by the team to Sanchez not  only as the quarterback, but also as the de facto team leader. It was a bit of a risk certainly, as any contract is, but it was also a signal to the players and fans that the ownership and coaching staff was 100% behind the player who is effectively the most important player on the team.

Fast forward just a short time and via a series of events that started with the Indianapolis Colts decision to release NFL legend Manning, and now the phenomenon known as Tebowmania has relocated to the New York Jets. Tim Tebow enjoyed an incredible, unusual run of games last year for the Broncos that seemed equal parts incredibly poor play, inspired and winning comeback performances, and solid character and leadership capability, unusual for such a young player in the NFL. In fact, when talking about Tebow, observers almost always talk 'character' and 'leadership' as much as they discuss the practical aspects of actually playing quarterback in the NFL.

Before the Sanchez contract extension, there were serious questions around the team's faith in him and their commitment to his continued development. Then, with the acquisition of Tebow, these same questions are naturally re-emerging. The larger questions I think, are about what it signals about leadership in the organization and the importance of commitment to key team members and an understanding about the role of leadership inside the organization. Tebow, for all the circus atmosphere that surrounds him, is seen as a high-character guy and a natural leader. Sanchez, as the incumbent quarterback, has not yet firmly grasped the role of team leader, and now with the acquisition of Tebow, his job has become that much harder. The minute things start to go poorly on the field, fans and the media will start calling for Tebow to assume Sanchez' spot. And if Tebow does come into the game, and performs well, (not a given, but possible), and then says and does all the right things afterward, (almost certain), then Sanchez' position becomes more untenable.

The Broncos have been lauded for doing all the right things in this situation. Signing Manning was the first right move, then moving out Tebow was the next correct move. To Manning and to the team, the signal was clear - Peyton's our guy. And with him on board, the presence of Tebow was only going to be a distraction. Their management recognized and abided by that old football axiom, 'If you have more than one starting quarterback, you don't have any.'

Mark Sanchez is certainly no Peyton Manning, does not have Manning's track record and does not get afforded the same respect. But just two weeks ago, Jets management had committed to Sanchez (and guaranteed him at least $20M). The contract said essentially, 'Mark is our quarterback and leader. We think we can win with him.' 

But with the signing of Tebow, who as a winning-type player naturally will want to compete with Sanchez for playing time as well as team leadership, the Jets have essentially told Sanchez that only two weeks later they are hedging their $20M bet.

Only one guy can play quarterback at a time. And only one guy can be the team leader. What's tough on the organization is when ownership can't figure out who that guy should be.

Off Topic - Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before

If you are a user of the Google Chrome browser, then you are certainly famiiar with the way Chrome displays your Top 8 'most visited' websites when you click to open a new browser tab. For me, these Top 8 most visited sites, (see image on the right), never seem to change all that much if at all. And I am not sure if that is a good thing quite honestly. Whether it is a list of most frequently visited sites, a familiar and kind of static collection of blogs in a RSS reader, or the tendency many of us have in social media to follow and connect with thousands of people but actually converse with about 20, it is really easy to fall into an information rut, seeing the same kinds of content from the same sources, or as the author Eli Pariser has described it, a filter bubble.

A filter bubble can occur when we either proactively choose to limit the number and diversity of our information sources, or, as is a key feature of the social network Facebook, a system and algorithm determines what content and information it thinks we should see, based on our past preferences and behaviors. But by explicit choice, or more passive acceptance of smart filters, the end result can be, paradoxically, in a networked, connected world of almost unlimited information, that our consumption and exposure to content becomes pretty narrow. We read things we already know, from sources we access every day, and that are shared with us by the same small group of people we know well, (and who, mostly, think like we do).

So here are the questions for today - what do you do to try and ensure you are seeing a wide enough range of viewpoints and sources of information? Do you try and seek out new and different, (perhaps divergent), writers and thinkers to supplement the same five blogs you read every day? How do you seek out people that might disagree with you?

And finally, who is out there doing amazing work that you think the rest of your community might not know about?

Have a Great Weekend!

Counting them down: The #FOT25 Talent Management Blogs

Over at Fistful of Talent, the latest installment of the Top 25 Talent Management Blog Power Rankings was released. Well, not totally released... 

Yesterday FOT published the names of blogs ranked 25 through 6, leaving the Top 5 Talent Management blogs to be revealed live on the HR Happy Hour Show tonight at 8PM ET.

Yes, we will count them down from 5 all that way up to Number 1 tonight, we will be joined by several of the Top 5 bloggers, some of the crew from FOT, and hopefully some HR pros and blog readers to talk about their favorites. We will also dish on the state of the HR blogosphere in general, as it indeed has changed quite a bit in the last few years.

It should be a fun show in the best Casey Kasem tradition.  Just don't ask me to read any long distance dedications...

To listen to the show tonight and find out your Top 5 Talent Management blogs, here is the scoop.

The show will stream live tonight starting at 8PM ET on the show page here. You can also use the listener line at 646-378-1086, (Press '1' if you want to join the conversation). Finally, you can also listen right from this post, using the widget player below:

Listen to internet radio with Steve Boese on Blog Talk Radio

It will be a fun show and I hope you can join us to count down the Top 5 FOT blogs and share your thoughts about the list and the HR blogosphere as well.

Many thanks to Fistful of Talent and particularly Holland Dombeck for all the great work putting this together.

Carrying Costs

It has been ages since we had a good Zen philosophy re-set here on the blog, but when I read this piece, Empty-Handed, Full-Hearted, on the Zen Habits blog I wanted to call it out and use it to make a point more relevant to the day-to-day issues we often see in technology projects, and really, all kinds of situations in the workplace.

First off, the Zen Habits piece makes a simple, yet exceedingly hard for most of us to pull off, case for carrying less, for embarking on a journey less encumbered by all the things we think we need to take along.  From the 'Empty-Handed' piece:

We often load ourselves up when we travel, because we want to be prepared for various situations. This burden of being prepared leaves us with our arms full, unable to receive whatever is there when we arrive.

This doesn’t just apply to taking a trip, but to living each day. Each day is a journey, and we load ourselves up with material possessions, with tasks and projects, with things to read and write, with meetings and calls and texts. Our hands are full, not ready for anything new.

And I'd contend, this same kind of thinking, the need to bring everything along with us on a new journey at work, whether it is a new systems or technology project, or just a new way or strategy to approach an existing problem, often short-circuits, or at least complicates and slows down what could and should be important, impactful, and possibly breakthrough initiatives.

We almost always start everything new by framing the endeavor in what we have traditionally done in the past. We see this often in technology projects of course, where any new system's effectiveness is usually measured, (at least initially), in the context of what the old system could do, and how the existing rules, processes, and strictures were enforced. But this kind of thinking, the 'pack everything we have ever done' before we walk into something new is not limited to technologies, it seeps into all kinds of circumstances.

And in the workplace context, I understand why this is the case. The 'way the current system works' approach certainly includes, (sometimes significant), elements that are indeed essential to the successful functioning of the organization, and the achievement of business objectives.  But certainly not everything the old system did or the existing processes require fall into that category.

I submit that, mostly, we are terrible at understanding and being honest about what parts of the things we carry with us at the start of the new journey are truly essential. I think that more often than not, we kind of value all of our possessions the same, as critical to our mental and emotional well-being, and that leaving any of them behind most often feels like a loss, and not like the recovery of a bit of our freedom, and the opening up of new possibilities from the lessening of our burden.

Retain Your Talent by Alienating the Industry

In last week's installment of Silicon Valley tech company drama...

You might of caught some reports of Yahoo! and its suit against social networking behemoth Facebook, alleging that the world's most popular social site has largely been built on ten separate Yahoo! patents. Some color on the Yahoo! contention from the linked ars technica piece above:

Yahoo claims Facebook infringes patents related to online advertising, privacy, Web customization, social networking, and messaging.

Yahoo's complaint does not allege that Facebook directly copied Yahoo's products. Rather, Yahoo appears to have claimed broad categories of website functionality, which Facebook may have infringed by accident in the process of building its own website.

The lawsuit illustrates how patents are becoming a significant barrier to entry for new firms in the software industry. Given how many patents Yahoo has, and how broad they are, it's hard to see how Facebook could have avoided infringing them. And, of course, Yahoo is far from the only software incumbent with a large portfolio of broad patents.

But until recently, there was a tacit agreement among major software firms not to sue competitors for patent infringement. All firms recognized that a full-scale patent war would be ruinous for the industry. But that gentlemen's agreement began to break down in the heat of competition in the mobile market. And now the patent wars seem to be spreading beyond the mobile market to the software industry more generally.

Apologies for repeating so much of the ars technica piece, but I think the context is needed to better understand and form an opinion on a follow-on development stemming from the Yahoo! suit, that is, the potential detrimental impact it might have on the Yahoo! employees, not the leaders and execs, but the rank and file talent, that almost certainly have nothing to do with their company's decision to pursue these patent claims.

For shortly after the news broke about the Yahoo! suit, many observers, leaders, and media that cover the tech industry began expressing disappointment, rage, and even fake support that Yahoo! would pursue these claims.  And if outrage over Yahoo's decisions to file this suit, a rival tech CEO, David Sacks of the enterprise collaboration vendor Yammer, took aim at not only Yahoo! leadership, but really everyone working at Yahoo!.

First Sacks opined via a Tweet that Yahoo! could be stopped by blackballing it's staff, effectively creating a kind of rebellion or groundswell inside of Yahoo that, in theory, might make the company back off these claims against Facebook. 

Silicon Valley can stop Yahoo: simply declare that any employee still there in 60 days is blackballed forever. We don't hire patent trolls.

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) March 14, 2012

Later Sacks committed his company to this ostracizing of Yahoo! staff strategy: 

I'm declaring it: Yammer will never hire another former Yahoo employee who doesn't leave in the next 60 days. Who will join me? #stopyahoo

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) March 14, 2012

And finally, Sacks upped the ante by offering a $25,000 signing bonus to any Yahoo! employee who jumps ship from Yahoo! and joins Yammer in the next 60 days:

I'm pleased to announce a $25,000 signing bonus for any Yahoo employee who joins Yammer in the next 60 days. yammer.com/jobs

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) March 15, 2012

If you are an employee of Yahoo! what you think about the patent lawsuit almost doesn't matter - leadership of just about every company makes decisions that are potentially unpopular with the industry and possibly their own employees from time to time. That's just business in the real world. But it is a little unusual for a company's strategy and tactics to directly impact not only the employee's current job security, (bad decisions leading to bad results leading to cutbacks), but also their prospects for future outside employment in the industry. 

While it seems like Sacks' comments are mostly about drawing attention to the core issue, i.e., the validity and propriety of the patent suit, the addition of the blackball threats and then the bounty directed at the average Yahoo! employee makes the story at least a little more interesting. From the perspective of the employee, it is certainly one thing for management to make an unpopular decision, but it is another thing entirely if those decisions jeopardize your future.

The Yahoo!/Facebook/Yammer story is yet to play out, and my suspicion is the suit will go away, as Facebook doesn't need the distraction in the run-up to their IPO, and soon thereafter, (if not before), Sacks comments will be mostly forgotten as well. Sure, maybe Yammer will nab some talent from Yahoo! in the next two months, but if Sacks' idea for an industry-wide blackball of Yahoo! employees ever did take hold, then Yahoo! will have other problems to deal with besides negative public opinion about the lawsuit.

They'll have to answer to a group of pretty upset employees that have suddenly found not only their current jobs under pressure, but their future prospects compromised through association. And if that were to happen, well, that won't be good for anyone.

What do you think - have you ever refused to consider a candidate based simply on where they have worked in the past?