March Madness and the problem of peaking too soon

Taking a bit of a risk running back-to-back sports posts this week, but I need to make sure that Tim Sackett doesn't surpass me in next year's 8 Man Rotation E-book, but after watching some more (not all that much, admittedly), of the NCAA Men's College Basketball tournament, ('March Madness'), I wanted to weigh in with a short observation and perhaps note some parallels to work, specifically what can happen when projects drag out too long.Bill Russell - 1956

Here's the observation - March Madness is the only major sports-related championship tournament (or playoff or process) that actually gets less interesting and compelling as it progresses. At the start of the 68 team tourney, fans and casual observers around the country are excited and energized, eagerly filling out tournament brackets where we pick winners of games played by teams we have never seen play, and often never even heard of. These bracket challenges, even when just for bragging rights amongst friends and co-workers, give us more of a stake and rooting interest in the action. The tournament's first full round is usually highlighted by a few startling upsets, adding to the overall sense of excitement and hype. And since many of these early games are played on weekdays during 'normal' working hours in most of the USA, (something that almost never happens in major US sports any longer), for many fans taking an extended lunch, or sneaking some looks at the online live stream from the office add to the fun. Lots of games, some underdogs, (not that many) winning, and for at least the first day or two, a chance to maybe even win some cash if your bracket seems to be holding up well.

But once the tournament progresses and the teams are whittled down from 64 to 32 to 16, the excitement generally trails off. Most 'Cinderella'-type early upset winners lose in their next game, (not always but pretty often), our bracket selections begin to start unravelling as it is revealed that picking winners in college games is not in our core competencies, and the several day break in the middle of the tournament tends to take the air out of the entire spectacle.  And as the rounds progress knocking the field down to 8 and then the Final Four, traditional powers of the sport usually re-emerge, and fans are subjected to what seems like hours of platitudes from network announcers about the remarkable leadership skills displayed by middle-aged million-dollar head coaches.  By the very end, many fans are left to ask questions like, 'This thing isn't over yet?', and 'Do we really need another Rick Pitino book?'

March Madness is great, spectacular even for about two days and then it slowly loses steam, energy, and becomes far less compelling as it meanders to its finish. Sure, the actual championship game sometimes provides a bit of a spark, but often becomes immediately forgettable once the last strains of 'One Shining Moment' fade away. And if you don't get the reference, that is ok, 97% of the rest of the public is right there with you. Only the most ardent fans could tell you who won the championship just one year ago, and I challenge anyone reading this post to name the title winners from 2010 or 2009 without looking it up.

So that's my observation about March Madness. Starts great, loses momentum, drags on too long, then lifts a bit at the end, and finally most of us are really glad its over.

Seems to have quite a few elements in common with many of the projects that work on all the time. Lots of fanfare at the beginning, maybe a lavish kick-off meeting and some rousing speeches, then quickly morphing into a kind of long slog with many fewer people remaining engaged, then hopefully, a success at the end, (a shipment, a 'go-live', a completed contract), almost immediately folllowed by an Outlook invitation for a 'lessons learned' or 'post-mortem' meeting.

People love March Madness. And most of us love new projects and the excitement of that bit of the unknown inherent in both.

The trick is to make that excitement sustainable past the opening night. 

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.

More on the Talent-Strategy-Culture triangle

A few weeks ago I posted about the ongoing discussions on the relative importance of three distinct, but interrelated aspects of organizations (Talent/Strategy/Culture) that combine to define, set the direction, and ultimately determine the success or failure of the enterprise. In that piece, I proposed it might be that Talent, or perhaps worded differently, people capability, might actually trump both Culture and Strategy as being the primary determinant or most accurate predictor of ongoing success.Throw it to Jordan on the block

The theory, (it probably actually doesn't deserve to labelled a 'theory', perhaps 'notion' is a better term), is that without the raw talent, the right people with the right skills in place, that even the best company cultures can't progress from being 'fun' or 'happy' into truly successful, and also that the sharpest most on-point business strategies can't be executed.  Why I think I like this idea so much is due all the time I spend watching sports, specifically the NBA, where perhaps more so than many other team sports, sheer talent more often than not plays a disproportionate role in driving wins and championships.

In the NBA, teams that win titles almost always have one (or more), of the league's most talented players, the kinds of players that can essentially take over in close games, can rally the team by setting an example for effort and dedication, and help to make the other players around them better, by virtue of their sheer ability. Essentially to win in the NBA, you need superior talent. It doesn't mean you will win of course, (see Heat, Miami - 2011 NBA Finals), but without it, the best team spirit, (culture), and coaching, (strategy), will only take you as far as the talent can carry you.

While culture is critical, and strategy is essential, having the talent makes it all work, makes the culture rise to more than a 'oh look how cure, there's a foosball table in the break room', and elevates the strategy from just words on a PowerPoint or a tagline on a website.  

So how do you go about landing that essential, superstar talent you need? Dang, that's a problem.

Well, having a fantastic company culture helps. Great talent wants to be in a place that they feel will challenge them, where they sense a greater purpose, and can learn from and engage with great colleagues. And it really helps to actually be a successful company already, or to have a story, (a strategy even), that resonates and can be envisioned, and that great talent can see themselves as a part of. Yep, it is kind of hard to attract and retain great talent without a great culture and a winning strategy.

Which I think is the reason why all these Culture vs. Strategy vs. Talent type arguments persist, because no matter what position on the triangle you take you are right.

And also wrong.

Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Anticipated Regret and Chasing a Sure Thing

Finally, the 24/7 Jeremy Lin is dying down somewhat. A combination of LeBron, Dwayne and the rest of the Miami Heat laying a bit of a smackdown and sending a message to Lin and the Knicks, along with the mid-season All Star break, have combined to (mercifully), let the #Linsanity fall off the radar in the last few days. It is hard to know how the rest of the season will play out for Lin; the Miami game showed opposing teams are now well aware of his game, his tendencies, and have adapted their strategies to counter the elements that Lin has brought to the Knicks in the last few weeks. Lin is a smart and talented player though, and most observers think that while he is unlikely to continue scoring 20 or 25 points a night, he should continue to develop into a quality starting point guard, hopefully filling a glaring hole in the Knicks lineup.The next sure thing

But over 100 words in, this post isn't actually about Lin, at least not directly. As I spent some time this weekend reading many of the articles and posts about #Linsanity that I had bookmarked during the last two weeks, this piece from Wired, 'What Jeremy Lin Teaches Us About Talent' stuck out, not so much for the origniality of the take - that often we aren't very good at recognizing talent when it is right under our noses, but rather for one of the references in the piece, to a 2010 paper called 'The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League', by Cade Massey and Richard Thaler.

The Massey/Thaler paper examines over two decades of National Football League draft results, compares player draft position to demonstrated performance once the drafted players enter the league, and eventually makes several interesting conclusions about the success in evaluation of potential players by NFL talent evaluators. Chief among these conclusions is that despite ridiculous amounts of easily discoverable demonstrated performance results, (video of draft candidate's college games), detailed and specific pre-draft assessment testing, and years of experience at their jobs, that NFL talent professionals are only slightly better at choosing between any two players than simply flipping a coin - higher drafted players outperform lower drafted players only 52% of the time.

The paper goes on to recommend that based on analysis of the performance of players selected in the draft that 'trading down', e.g. swapping say a team's 1st round selection in the draft, for multiple lower round selections, perhaps for additional 2nd and 3rd round picks, is usually a better strategy than holding on to that high pick, particularly when, as the authors contend, the likelihood of superior outcomes produced by multiple lower round picks is quite high. Essentially, they argue, that NFL teams overvalue high draft picks, a condition only exacerbated by the fact that these high draft picks usually are well known players, and fan and media pressure for teams to select these known quantity 'sure thing' players is really high.

Why do teams often hold on to these high picks, and irrationally chase these sure things? The paper offers the concept of 'anticipated regret', or the idea that missing out on a player, that they had a chance to select, only to see him succeed with another team, is just too painful for teams to stomach, and they feel they have to exercise draft rights on such a player, even when the data suggest that, over time, they'd probably be better off passing, and trading down to accumulate more lower picks.

In the NFL and other sports, anticipated regret is all too real, since the actual performance of players not selected by a given team is all to available. Deciding not to select a highly touted player that turns out to be a star for another team, can often become an albatross, weighing a team down for years, (see Trail Blazers, Portland).

Back in the real world though, anticipated regret does not play into corporate talent evaluation and recruiting all that much. Candidates that we pass on usually head off to parts unknown, and if we do know what becomes of them, we rarely have insight into performance details at whatever endeavor they pursue. We know how the person we did select worked out of course, but that extra bit of information, how the person(s) we passed on turned out, well we can only guess at that.

Which is kind of too bad I think. Because I think we would all get better at evaluating talent if we could see the full picture, not just how the person we hired worked out, but how the ones we didn't hire ended up. Because if we keep missing, well then maybe we'd change our approach, maybe we'd be willing to trade down from time to time, instead of always chasing the sure thing.

The 8 Man Rotation - The 2011 Season

The long national nightmare is over.

Take comfort dear readers, the latest chapter in the saga known as 'The 8 Man Rotation' is back.Get your copy over here!

It's been a year since the first edition of the world's leading 'HR and Sports' E-book was issued, and the response, enthusiasm, and general excitement that accompanied that effort had led to the next installment, the second season if you will.

Once again the mighty Matt 'akaBruno' Stollak has curated and compiled the best sports-related blog posts from the past year from some of your favorite Human Resources bloggers, and put together a fantastic E-book called 'The 8 Man Rotation - The 2011 Season'.

The 8 Man Rotation – The 2011 Season

View more documents from steveboese

The roster for Season Two has been kept intact:

Kris Dunn - The HR Capitalist

Tim Sackett - The Tim Sackett Project

Lance Haun - Life Between the Brackets

Matt Stollak - True Faith HR

Steve Boese - Steve's HR Tech

Matt did another fantastic job putting together all the sports-themed posts from 2011, grouping them into logical categories, and laying out the entire project in a professional and attractive package. Over 100 pages of HR and Sports commentary, insights, and advice and all at a can't beat this price - Free!

And as a special bonus, introductions from fans of the 8 Man Rotation William Tincup and Trish McFarlane.

You can download your copy of 'The 8 Man Rotation - The 2011 Season' - here. The E-book is 100% guaranteed to satisfy 60% of the time - or your money back.

Many, many thanks to Matt for pulling it all together!