How many bad decisions can you get away with - motorcycle crash edition

How many bad decisions can you get away with and hold on to your job?

My working theory right now is that there is an inverse relationship between how many bad, foolish, or reckless kinds of decisions one can make and one's relative position on an organization's hierarchy and pay structure, with a 'success' corollary and an 'ease of replacement' factor baked into the equation.

What am I talking about?

Just the latest episode in the ongoing 'Powerful, successful, rich men behaving badly at work' saga, this one from the world of sports, (shock), the news of University of Arkansas Head Football Coach Bobby Petrino's recent motorcycle accident, and the subsequent string of deception, fabrication, and simple bad judgment that has subsequently been brought to light.

In case you missed the story this week, the gist is as follows: (with my snarky comments in bold)

• Last Sunday, Petrino is taken to the hospital following a mototcycle accident. He suffers four broken ribs and a cracked neck vertebra. Ouch
• Petrino fails to mention to his boss at Arkansas, Athletics Director Jeff Long one key detail about the accident, that he wasn't alone on that motorcycle. He had in fact lied to Long about this nugget, and the athletic department put out a press release on Monday morning repeating that lie on Arkansas letterhead. Not good.
• Petrino's passenger was a woman. So what?
• She was not his wife. Uh-oh.
• The woman, Jessica Dorrell, is an employee of the Arkansas athletic department. What is the number for the HR hotline?
• Petrino hired Dorrell, who had previously worked in the athletic department's fundraising arm, to the football staff last week. Get my lawyer on the phone.

Now, as you would expect, the AD Long has launched a 'review' of the situation and the circumstances surrounding the accident, the deception by Petrino immediately following the accident, and (let's hope), the details surrounding the hiring of Dorrell by Petrino, who it would seem were conducting some kind of relationship while maybe not illegal, was almost certainly inappropriate. 

Complicating matters for Long is the recent success of Petrino and the Arkansas football team, with a 21-5 won-loss record in the last two seasons, and the team's best finish in the football rankings in ages.

Petrino, now with no other realistic options, has basically thrown himself at the mercy of his employer, and has apologized for his actions, issuing a statement that read in part - "I will fully cooperate with the university throughout this process and my hope is to repair my relationships with my family, my athletic director, the Razorback Nation and remain the head coach of the Razorbacks".

It will be up to Arkansas, and AD Long to decide what to do with their highest profile employee, (and highest-paid state of Arkansas worker), and to determine if success on the job weighs more heavily than a series of bad decisions off the job.

I have no idea how this will turn out, but the realist in me thinks that twenty-one wins in two seasons in the most competitive college football conference in the nation has a way of glossing over even the most obvious flaws in judgement and character.

What do you think - should Petrino be shown the exit?

Have a Great Weekend!

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.

If it isn't urgent, skip the dramatics

We've all heard them at one time or another in our careers, the overly dramatic 'inspirational' speeches, often peppered with military metaphors, from executives and leaders that are meant to get the troops (dang, I just did it myself), charged up and ratchet up the energy and enthusiasm in the office. While we all know, at least most of us know, that these kinds of speeches, whether delivered live or in an email, are generally not taken all that seriously by said troops, there doesn't seem to be any sign of them going away.

One reason I think that these kinds of fake, shallow, and sort of silly communications continue is the fact that rarely if ever will the boss get any feedback informing him or her just how much the rank and file are secretly laughing to themselves while listening or reading to these kinds of messages. Certainly, job security and a general desire not to make waves requires and makes prudent the decision by most folks to simply keep the giggles to themselves and nod in agreement as the brave leader exhorts the team to greater heights.

So while it might be difficult for anyone to actually speak up, occasionally you'll find an amusing rant about how these dramatics are actually interpreted by the team, check out a recent post from a terrifically funny, (and almost always NSFW), blog called Pound the Budweiser that helps spell out what the average employee thinks in response to typical and common leadership histrionics:

I'm an office drone. I live and work in a hive of cubicles. We have no deck. We have staff meetings. So when the new boss scheduled an All Hands on Deck Meeting for last week, I metaphorically circled it on my Outlook calendar.

The morning of the All Hands on Deck Meeting it was postponed for three weeks. Our first ever All Hands on Deck Meeting will now take place in March.

I am not a sailor but when the captain tells the bosun to pipe "All Hands on Deck" I think it confers a sense of urgency to the proceedings. Something like, there's a pirate ship on the horizon, lets put up more sail and get the heck out of here or, we've got a German U-boat on the scope so we're going to need your best effort or, there's topless Playboy bunnies off the port bow, who has my binoculars?

Can an All Hands on Deck Meeting be postponed for three weeks and still be called an All Hands on Deck Meeting?

Classic. And a good reminder of how even the small things, like the name given to a staff meeting, can actually have an impact with how you are perceived as a leader.

I am not trying to say that leaders can't or shouldn't try to rally the team and inspire the staff, but I think it a good idea to keep in mind that there while there probably is in most organizations a time for dramatics and urgency that time is probably not as often as you think. Second, when you really do feel like there does need to be some urgency, don't wait three weeks to let the team know what you felt was so important. And third, and you may or may not care, there is a chance that your 'troops' are really only following out of fear and contemplating launching their own anonymous blogs to goof on your leadership style.

What do you think? Do leaders sound the air raid signal too much?

Traffic, housing choices, and commitment

A couple of weeks ago I posted about an interactive map/tool for the San Francisco area that was developed (at least in part), to help people understand the decisions and tradeoffs related to their choices and opportunities for work and housing. Simply put, the tool helps you assess the costs and commuting times and options associated with Living in Location 'A' and working in Location 'B'. Some of these dynamics and tradeoffs are changing of course, but still for many jobs, the requirement for employees to be physically present in an office or other work location is a fact of life, and will remain so probably forever.

Decisions about where to work and where to live are never easy matters, but for some fortunate folks like C-suite executives or National Basketball Association head coaches, (yes, another sports reference), the decisions are a bit easier, as their comparatively more lucrative compensation packages provide more options and flexibility in terms of housing choices. Let's face it, there are not too many neighborhoods that an average CEO or NBA coach would feel were out of reach.

That is what I was thinking about this morning when I read a piece from the online Orange County (Ca.) Register about new Los Angeles Lakers Head Coach Mike Brown, and his decision to buy a home in a neighborhood called Anaheim Hills.  Only having been an occasional visitor to Southern California, that headline did not really resonate with me, but digging in to the piece reveals a bit more about the potential consequences and ramifications of Brown's decision:

According to Google Maps, (Brown's new home) that’ll be 45 minutes to practice without traffic (but an hour and 20 minutes with traffic) and 43 minutes to Staples without traffic (but an hour and 40 minutes with traffic.)

Brown is sacrificing proximity to his Lakers work to be close to Santa Ana’s Mater Dei High (emphasis mine). That’s where son Elijah will play basketball and son Cameron will play football

Everyone, even the occasional visitor to the LA area like myself, knows or at least is subconsciously aware of LA traffic, and the way in which it effects work and family life in that area. For new Lakers Head Coach Brown, who has a contract paying him (according to reports), $18.25M over four years, to elect to live in an area that will almost certainly present pretty significant challenges and stress simply getting to work has raised at least a few questions amongst supporters and media that cover the team.

Could it be that Brown, recently fired as the head coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers despite being named the league's Coach of the Year the prior season, is well aware of the total lack of job security that comes with being an NBA coach, and thusly elected to choose housing that was more in line with his non-work or family life? NBA coaches are notoriously known as incessant workaholics, and the league is rife with tales of coaches sleeping in their offices, missing important family events, and generally devoting themselves to the sport and their teams. I am not saying that is the right or intelligent approach, but it just has been that way for a long time.

Perhaps Brown represents a shift from that old-fashioned and unhealthy kind of approach to life as an NBA head coach, and by choosing to live closer to the center of his family life he is signaling that he sees that balance or fit between the two as being just as important as success on the court. If so, that is to be commended I think.

But I do wonder if the Lakers organization sees it the same way, and if they are looking at their new $18M coach who potenitally will be frequently stuck on the freeway, navigating LA's notorious traffic jams to try and get to the game or to practice, when it seems at least from the outside looking in that he had lots of other options.

What do you think? Should the Lakers or any organization care or get involved on the personal choices their leaders make about these kinds of things?

How far away from the Arena is too far?

Lessons from Roadhouse

You remember ‘Roadhouse’ don’t you?  A classic film from 1989 that starred Patrick Swayze as Dalton, a barroom bouncer, (or more accurately a’cooler’) who takes on the daunting assignment of cleaning up a rough and tumble dive bar/club called the Double Deuce somewhere in rural Missouri, USA. When 'Not nice' time arrives

After doing some field observations of the bar, the employees, and the clientele (mainly consisting of leaning smugly against the bar and looking on as a series of brawls erupt), Dalton assumes his role as the cooler, and conducts his initial meeting with the team of bouncers. This is Dalton, the hotshot new team leader, recruited by the company owner himself, to lead a group of miscreants that for the most part is not all the happy to see him there.

At his first staff meeting (or what passes for a staff meeting at the Double Deuce), Dalton makes a measured and forceful speech about his managerial philosophy, his expectations of the team, and his feeling that all issues can be resolved by practicing and applying his time-tested principles and processes.  Kind of like Six Sigma for beating up drunken customers.

The highlight of the meeting and speech, is Dalton’s explanation of the three rules of nightclub security, which were exercised with varying degrees of success in the film (meaning, hardly at all), and also provide potential lessons for more general management and leadership of any kind of organizational team.  They also rank high on the unintentional comedy scale, because immediately after stating there are ‘three’ rules, Dalton really explains four different concepts, (I’ll label the extra item 1a).

Whatever, he is Dalton, counting is for losers.

Rule 1 - Don’t underestimate your enemy

The bouncers at the Double Deuce were used to simple fist fights with local drunks.  A hassle surely, but nothing too terribly hard to handle.  Once Dalton comes to town, somehow the caliber of thug goes way up.  The bad guys now seem to know some freaky martial arts (leveraging the pool cue as a weapon), and are way more of a challenge.

The problem was once Dalton started making an impact, the competitors and enemies of the DD now saw them as a threat more than an annoyance. Maybe your organization is a little plucky start up, under the radar but growing steadily.  Be careful of what might happen next, you may think you are beating your larger competitors but chances are they have not really noticed you yet, and have not yet begun their part of the fighting.  

Rule 1a - Expect the unexpected

How long did it take after your last staff meeting or planning session that you realized the decision you just made or the approach you just agreed to pursue has to be altered due to some unforeseen circumstance?  Fifteen minutes?  An hour?  Whatever the duration, the value of lengthy planning and strategizing often evaporates once the real world sets in.  Dalton rarely holds formal ‘planning’ meetings, most of the time is spent ‘doing’, and most of us should probably do the same.

Rule 2 - Take it outside

Unruly patrons, excessively drunk buffoons needed to be taken outside so as the disturbance and inevitable fight would not have too much detrimental effect on the bar, in terms of broken stuff and collateral damage.  The good customers would only see that the problem was handled, that Dalton and the staff were in charge, and they could continue to have a good time.  Problems in the workplace with staff or with customers often need to be handled the same way.  The team needs to know you will take care of issues when they arise, but don’t usually need to see and hear all the details of how you manage these situations.  A related lesson comes from the Godfather, when after the meeting with Solazzo, the Don takes Sonny aside and berates him privately, not in front of the lower level soldiers that Sonny still needs to command.

Rule 3 - Be nice. Until it isn’t time to be nice

Probably the simplest of Dalton’s rules, but the one that was the hardest for the bouncers to embrace. Be nice to the drunk that just threw a beer at me?  Not easy to do.  But Dalton was wise to know that in the long view, being nice as the initial reaction to conflict and adversity is a more sustainable and sane strategy.  Sure, at the Deuce the ‘time to not be nice’ came pretty fact, usually before the ‘take it outside’ rule could be exercised, but still it eventually helped Dalton and the team reach their (admittedly low) goals.  In the workplace I would also substitute the word ‘panic’ for nice in the rule and it would also apply.

There you have it, Dalton’s rules of management.  Hopefully in your practice of HR or management, or leadership, or coaching your 7 year old’s soccer team you won’t have to put these rules to the test by breaking bottles of Jack Daniels over people’s heads, or crushing them to death with a giant stuffed polar bear.