The Performance Curve

If you are a fan of baseball you might be familiar with the maxim or rule of thumb that states for Major League players that an individual player's performance (hits, home runs, wins as a pitcher, etc.), tends to 'peak' at around age 29 or so (give to take a year or two), then most often declines until the end of their careers.

This phenomenon, most often raised when a team elects to offer hundreds of millions of dollars and 5+ year contracts to players on the wrong side of 30, has been pretty well observed, studied, and documented over the 100+ years of data about Major League player performance.

Since charts make everything better, take a look at the generalized performance by age chart from a 2010 study published on Baseball Prospectus:

The specifics of the Y-axis values don't really matter for the point I am after, (they represent standard deviations from 'peak' performance', but simply looking at the data we see for both the original study sample (veteran players with 10+ years of data), and 'less restricted' players, (more or less everyone else), that performance peaks in the late 20s and declines, predicatbly, from there. Keep this data in mind the next time your favorite team drops a 7-year, $125M contract on your best 31 year old slugger. Those kinds of contracts, for hitters or pitchers, almost never work out well for the team. And again, the reasons are completely obvious and predictable. Almost all players skills begin to decline by age 30. All players are in decline by 32.

What does this predictable and observable performance curve for baseball players mean for you as an HR/Talent pro?

I think at least three things can be taken from the baseball performance curve that apply more generally.

1. While baseball, and sports in general, allow more precise and discrete measures of performance that allow us to pinpoint when performance 'peaks', this phenomenon applies in many other scenarios as well. You, or your managers, know after how long in a given role that an employee's performance has likely hit its apex, and continued tenure in that role is likely to results in lessened performance. Put more simply, you can't keep people, especially good ones, in the same roles for too long. They get bored, they figure it all out. And after too long, they start to tune out. The time to move people to the next role isn't when they are on the decline, it is when they are just peaking.

2. In baseball gigantic contracts are often bestowed on players in their late 20s or early 30s, mostly on the basis of several years of prior high performance. While this on first glance seems to make sense, it almost always results in a bad deal for the team And again, the reason is not usually the fault of the player. It is just that 100 years of data show that almost all players are simply not as productive from ages 30-35 as they are from ages 25-30. The lesson here: We need to remember that most compensation should be about ongoing and future performance, and not predominantly as a reward for what has already happened. Past performance is not always, maybe not even all that often, a great predictor of future performance.

3. Baseball player performance is very predictable, as we see in the above data, and there really is no excuse for baseball team management to pretend that is not the case. Decades of data make it plain. I think soon, maybe even fairly soon, the kinds of data and predictive data that organizations will have about employee performance will be similarly robust and powerful. Just as baseball team execs find it very difficult to heed this data, it will be tough for HR and business leaders to 'listen' to their data as well. But the best-run organizations, the ones that make the best use of their resources will be the ones that do not fail to heed what the hard data about performance and people are telling them.

Ok that is it, I am out 

Trust your data.

And don't give 32 year old first basemen $100M contracts.

Selling your non-glamorous city: 5 observations from 2 days in Cleveland

I spent a couple of days last week in the lovely city of Cleveland, Ohio to attend the (really fun) DisruptHR Cleveland event, and then took some time doing a bit of a city tour with some really cool people, (see the pic on the right for the crew taken in the Cleveland Indials Social Suite, which was a fantastic place to catch a ball game from).

Robin, Frank, Tammy, Trish, and me (L-R)

One of the big themes that seemed to permeate everything about the visit to Cleveland was that just about everyone from Cleveland that I met was pretty heavily invested in convincing me (and everyone else), that Cleveland is, in fact, a really cool place to live, work, play, socialize, etc. Said differently, people from Cleveland are REALLY in to being from Cleveland. They love and are proud of their city, and try really hard to let you know how fantastic it is. Even though they seem to think that most of the rest of the world sees Cleveland as a kind of last century place and not one that holds much allure for non-natives.

But I think there are probably some ways that are more effective than others in 'selling' your less than glamorous city to potential employees or investors. And since Cleveland is not unique among Midwest, Great Lakes, rust belt kinds of places with having a bit of an image problem, (the place I live, Rochester, NY is right in that mix), it makes sense that lots of HR/Talent pros have to sell their cities all the time. So based on two days of listening and learning from the good people of Cleveland, here are my top 5 observations on the best/worst ways to sell your non-sexy location to someone that is inclined to believe the worst about your beloved hometown:

1. Don't constantly remind people that they already believe your city is horrible

Lots of the conversations I had (and a few of the DisruptHR presentations too), seemed to start with a statement like "I know you think Cleveland is old/backward/dirty/boring/horrible/whatever, but I am going to tell you why you are wrong..." And then they would get into the specific elements and attributes of the city that were positive to try and change my (perceived) opinions about Cleveland. But what if I didn't actually have a negative pre-conception of Cleveland? What if I didn't know much at all about the city? Don't make the first notion in my head a negative one with a "I am sure you heard that Cleveland is terrible" statement. Just lead with the strengths and drop the 'I need to change your mind" stuff.

2. If you have something cool that NO ONE else has, then talk about that. Talk about that a lot.

Every decent sized city has some amount of the following things: sports teams, art museums, zoos, theaters, fancy restaurants, concert venues, parks, and probably a dozen more things common to cities. While these are all interesting and important, they (typically) don't do much to convince any but the most passionate that your city is somehow superior to some other city. But when you have something really cool, something that no other city can replicate, then you lead with that. In Cleveland one such example is the (very cool) Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The ONLY one of these is in Cleveland. I would spend probably 80% of my time talking about these kinds of unique elements if I was trying to sell someone on my city. "We have a nice library" is not really a differentiator.

3. Don't fixate on a local problem that visitors are likely not familiar with

In only about 48 hours in Cleveland I learned that the lack of downtown parking seems to be a REALLY BIG issue. Everyone seemed to mention it at some point, and two DisruptHR presenters talked about it as well. Parking seems to be a big problem, but the only reason I know anything about it is because the natives kept on bringing it up. I would not have known or realized this was an issue on my own. But since the locals seem really worrried about this, now I have in my head that parking is a problem in Cleveland. A better strategy is to not constantly remind visitors or potential transplants of what is a local problem until really necessary. Unless the local problem has something to do with random shootings, carjackings, that kind of thing. Those are the local problems I feel entitled to a little warning about.

4. People at different life stages want different things

This is kind of obvious, but still worth mentioning. Where you are in your life and career, significantly impacts the kind of places you are drawn too, and the types of features of a city that seem most attractive. The most successful cities are the ones that offer the kind of variety in housing, entertainment, employment, social, and recreational options that appeal to a wide range of people - from hipsters to young professionals to blue collar workers and to experienced professionals. Once the options that appeal to a group (in general), start to wane and they leave for other options, then a part of the city kind of falls away with it. The most vibrant cities, and sections of cities, have a diverse mix of not just people, but uses as well. If your downtown is all office buildings with limited residences and shops, then it will be a ghost town after 6PM.  I am not sure this is really a Cleveland problem or not, but I think it is important to mention regardless.

5. Everyone comes from somewhere, and most people have an irrationally elevated opinion of how great their own 'somewhere' actually is.

I am not sure I have ever been to a city where the local residents are as proud of their city as Clevelanders are about theirs. Everyone I met was really in to being from or living in Cleveland. In some ways, I felt like the visitors were being 'sold' all the time. While being proud of where you live is a great, great thing, I think you also have to be careful (and be a little rational too). Lots of cities are really cool places to live. Lots of cities have most of the same kinds of things you do too. People are nice and friendly all over the place, not just where you live. My point is, sell your city, and what makes it great, but remember that the person you are selling to probably feels the exact same way about their own city too. Keep it in check and be honest - folks will appreciate that more than being fooled. Just ease off on all the parking talk.

I had a fantastic time in Cleveland. And I can't think of better ambassadors for that fine city than our gracious hosts and guides Frank Zupan and Tammy Colson.

I do think, in fact, it is true - Cleveland rocks.

Have a great week! 

Hank Aaron and the right way to succeed

Last weekend I made my (usually) annual trip to the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in lovely Cooperstown, NY. If you are a baseball fan, or just an American History fan, you owe it to yourself to make the trip sometime. It is a small village, and not the easiest to reach by air, (Syracuse would be the closest thing to a 'real' airport, and that is about 90 miles away), but you won't spend a better summer weekend anywhere else.

One of the newer museum exhibits, dedicated in 2009, is titled Hank Aaron: Chasing the Dream, which chronicles the career and life of baseball legend, and former career home run champion Hank Aaron. 

Here's Hank's official bio from the Hall of Fame site:

Exhibiting an understated style that became his trademark, Hank Aaron became the all-time home-run champion via one of the most consistent offensive careers in baseball history, with 3,771 hits. In addition to his 755 home runs, he also set Major League records for total bases, extra-base hits and RBIs. Aaron was the 1957 National League MVP, won three Gold Gloves for his play in right field and was named to a record 25 All-Star squads.

Even the official bio is understated. It is almost impossible to grasp the amazing baseball achievements of Hank Aaron, particularly in the modern age where accomplishments less than a quarter of Aaron's are rewarded with hundred million dollar contracts, endless product endorsement deals, and off the field time spent chasing models and actresses.

Aaron's baseball standards for home runs, (surpassed only by a guy who certainly used performance enhancing drugs, and spent his spare time being a jerk to anyone that came into contact with him), runs batted in, and total bases place him at the absolute pinnacle of success in what was America's most popular sport. And his success, particularly when considering the barrage of racist harassment, hate mail, and even death threats that Aaron had to endure in 1973 and 1974 as he pursued and eventually surpassed baseball icon Babe Ruth's then home run record, has to be thought of as on par with Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, and maybe one or two more, as the greatest in the history of the game.

But oddly, we don't really talk about Aaron all that much. We still talk about Ruth and a few other heroes of the early age of baseball who are still recalled almost reverently. Jackie Robinson, the major league's first African-American player is remembered, rightly, as a courageous leader and legend whose importance to not only baseball but race relations in the USA can't possibly be diminished. And the recent set of players, some of whom have broken Aaron's and other records, well so many of them left and will leave the game tainted by the notion that steroid and other performance enhancing drug use contributed to their success as much as natural talent and hard work. Those stories have dominated baseball coverage for the last five years or so, and this focus will likely only intensify as many of these so called steroid-era players become eligible for Hall of Fame consideration themselves.

But above and despite all this, Aaron remains, like he was in his days as a player, classy, reserved, composed, and a champion. But not just a champion and a model for success in sports, a model for how to succeed in life, and, more interestingly, how to carry oneself once success has been achieved.

Aaron provides a lesson for all of us. That we can still play and win the right way. We can be both humble, respectful, and proud at the same time. That our achievements don't have to come at the expense of others, in fact, they often arise in spite of others.

That in the end, baseball, like all games, is really just a game, and all games come to an end.

But class, that lives forever.

Derek Jeter and Winning Teams

Last week Sports Illustrated named New York Yankee captain Derek Jeter as its 'Sportsman of the Year', an annual designation given to the person or team that best exemplifies success, integrity, and class.

For those not familiar with Jeter, he has been the Yankee shortstop for 14 seasons, and has helped the team win 5 World Series championships during that time, including the 2009 season that was recently concluded.

Jeter, while individually an outstanding player, is more revered for his reputation as a 'winning' player, one whose contributions to team success are actually greater than what can be found be simply reviewing his statistical performance.  In the Sports Illustrated piece, Jeter shared what be felt were the five barriers to team success, and while they were described in a sports context, I think there are many lessons for business and personal success that can be drawn.

1. Individuals who don't care about winning

In sports, there is success, and there is winning championships. Some players (and teams) are satisifed with having 'good' years. Decent results, perhaps winning a few more games that they lose, but not really competing seriously for championships.

2. Self-promoters

Players that care more about themselves than the team, and make it a point to constantly draw attention to themselves can be a detriment to team success.  Can we say 'personal branding' anyone? I am starting to think the incredible increase in focus on employee's personal brands could start to inhibit team performance and success. If your team of five folks has four that are obsessing over their personal brands, I think you are going to have a hard time winning.

3. Looking only at statistics

Baseball is a complex game, and while seemingly every activity is recorded, tracked, and analyzed statistically, there are still many nuances of the game, critical to winning, that are not measured quantitatively.  In organizations the primary measurement of employees is an annual performance review score. But in many organizations these reviews are done poorly, don't necessarily reflect all the contributions people make to team success, and can actually be biased and misleading. Perhaps more effort should be exerted in companies to uncover these 'hidden' contributions, one way is by using Social Network Analysis.

4. Injury talk

To Jeter, no one cares if you are injured.  "You either play, or you don't play. No one wants to know what's bothering you. Sometimes it's a built-in excuse for failure." In the organization there are always going to be constraints and limitations. Competitors will have bigger budgets, regulators will impose ridiculous rules, your technology will be inferior, or people will get sick or go on vacation at the worst possible time.  You know what? No one cares.  Either you can get the job done, or you can't.

5. Negativity

When Jeter had gone though an 32 at bats (about 8 games) without a hit early in his career, he refused to admit that he was in a batting slump. Focusing on the negative in situations becomes a habit, and it gets too easy to constantly approach situations with why you can't do something instead of how you will get it done.  I was on a major system implementation once, on a team of about 30 people that was beset with this kind of negativity.  Finally we declared a new policy, no more 'problems' could be logged on the official 'issues list' without first solving one of the open issues. We started to focus more on solving problems in a positive manner instead of just battling each other to uncover more problems, and perpetuate the negativity.

I am a New York Mets fan, so it is not easy to write a post about a Yankeee, but Jeter has been such a winner that it is impossible not to respect what he has accomplished.

I'll close with an example of a 'winning play' that would never appear in the box score from the 2001 playoffs.