Please welcome our new VP of Marketing. Yes, that's really him

So let's pretend you are a dedicated marketing pro at a low-key but solid wholesale grocery distribution company in Tennessee and you have seen notice or heard through the company grapevine that the VP of Marketing position is open. VP slots at small and medium size companies don't just open up every day, and as you learn more about the opening, you become more intrigued. Casual Friday in the Marketing department?

You've got over 10 years experience marketing in this industry, almost five at the current company, and you have been given progressively more responsibility, high profile projects, and control over a small team and budget. You like the company, love living in the area, and have cemented solid relationships in the local business community as well as been an active participant in a few industry associations, even serving as a conference speaker on a couple of occasions.  You have even let your Gen-Y staffers run with the whole 'social media' thing to support the company marketing efforts. It isn't for you personally, but you realize that times are changing, and empowering the right people to help navigate through these changes just seems to make sense.

All told, you have some really solid qualifications for the VP role, and if the company had one of those progressive HR constructs known as a 'succession plan', your name would almost certainly been in the 'Ready now' box for the VP of Marketing role. So as you sit down at your desk to have one last look at your resume before firing off an email to the CEO to forward your name for consideration for the VP position, you see a company-wide announcement drop in to your inbox.

It reads : Please welcome our new VP of Marketing - Bruce Pearl. 

You think - What? Bruce Pearl? The former University of Tennessee Men's Basketball Coach that was fired for lying to NCAA investigators during an investigation into the program's recruiting practices? A guy who has been a basketball coach for the last 25 years or so, and whose only knowledge and experience in the grocery business is that perhaps occasionally he shops in one?

That's our new VP of Marketing?

The bit about the Marketing Manager I just made up, but back in the 'real' world the aforementioned Bruce Pearl was indeed just hired by the wholesale grocery distribution firm H.T. Hackney as their new VP of Marketing.

Now I don't profess to know anything about H.T. Hackney, or the climate of the Knoxville area wholesale grocery distribution business, but taken simply at face value, the hiring of Pearl into a VP of Marketing role fresh off recent scandal, and perhaps more importantly, an entire professional career that had pretty much nothing to do with the grocery business or corporate marketing seems quite baffling. Sure, the company gets a short-term publicity pop, everyone in the area knows who Pearl is, and most probably never heard of H.T. Hackney before, but longer term, can or will a hire like Pearl cause more damage than good?

I wonder if there really is a H.T. Hackney Marketing manager that won't get his or her shot because of this move. Or maybe there is a slate of great marketing pros that are looking for their next career move that would have made a super hire for the position.

I guess time will tell, but I do think these kinds of stunt hires, particularly ones we see that are sport-related, don't seem to work out all that well.  

In Hackney's defense, this article from ESPN announcing the Pearl hire refers to a news release where Hackney officials refer to Pearl's 'marketing and economic background as a student at Boston College', as some justification and support for the hire.

In these tough economic times it's good to know that a solid education still carries weight in the job market. Even if, as in Pearl's degree, it was earned in 1982.

Have a great and long holiday weekend!

Putting Performance in Context - Not Every Three-Yard Pass Means the Same

For fans of American football, with the start of the new season just two weeks away, a rush of frenzied activity is underway by millions to rate, select, and position their 'fantasy' teams for the upcoming year.

American football, and the evaluation of its players, has traditionally been much less focused on statistical measurements and quantitative analysis of performance than say other sports like baseball and basketball. There are many reasons for this historical de-emphasis on statistics. For one, there are many, many roles on a football team that don't register simple, easy to grasp numbers like touchdowns scored or yards gained. Second, the nature of the game itself, eleven players to a side, highly structured and orchestrated roles and actions on most every play, make considering 'team' success more straightforward and easily understood than individual performance. And lastly, for many of the most important positions like Quarterback, past attempts to develop statistical-based measures or performance have been considered lacking, as many experienced football analysts claim that simply doing calculations on yards gained, passing completions, and even passing touchdowns registered can only offer partial insight into what defines and demonstrates superior performance for that critical position.

The primary metric that has been commonly used to assess and compare quarterbacks has been the Quarterback rating, a measure that takes into account the raw data surrounding the player's actions (passing yards, touchdowns, pass completion rates, etc.), applies some weighting factors to to the data, and produces a combined score or rating for the player, usually falling between about 85 and 100. But the main problem with the Quarterback rating (apart from no one really understanding how it is calculated), is that it is a statistical measurement only, i.e. it applies no situational context to performance. A three-yard pass completion in the early stages of the game gets weighted exactly the same as a three-yard pass completion at the end of the game, perhaps by converting the play, the quarterback's team was able to secure possession of the ball at a critical stage, and cement an important victory.

Some clever statisticians at ESPN are attempting to improves on the statistical evaluation of quarterbacks by introducing a new metric they all 'Total Quarterback Rating', or QBR. QBR will factor in many of the contextual indicators that play an important role in assessing player performance. Game situation, personnel on the field, formations used and more will all play a role in the metric. This will, hopefully, shine a more complete light on the evaluation of NFL quarterbacks. But it is much, much harder to create and calculate than simple math applied to the game box score.The Sanchize.

In football, and I suppose even in most organizations, the context in which performance is captured is often far more important, and more difficult to account for, than simply tracking the 'raw scores' or activities themselves. Was the quarterback under extreme duress when he passed for the touchdown? Was your sales manager under extreme duress when she successfully navigated through a complex contract negotiation to win that important account? Are you adequately considering the relative experience levels of your key player's support teams in your evaluations? How about the differences in competitive context across markets, lines of business, or geographies?

The first, and necessary step is chronicling performance - i.e. What happened?

The harder part, and even more important part, is understanding the conditions present when it happened, and what that means for the future.

Aside - J-E-T-S - JETS, JETS, JETS!!!!!

Colors and Getting Change Management Right

Feels like ages, since I had a good sports-themed take on the blog. With the NBA in a combined offseason/lockout, and the current Major League Baseball season for some reason seeming incredibly uninteresting to me at the moment, I have been hunting high and low for a good sports related topic on which to pontificate. After all, next year's edition of 'The 8 Man Rotation' e-book is not going to write itself.

And then over with weekend I found this gem from one of may favorite sites, the Uni Watch blog, 'Rooting for Laundry'; a piece about some of the recent transactions and changes from the world of sports. One of those changes was the report of uniform redesign of the iconic New Zealand National Men's Rugby Team jersey. The team, one of the most successful and legendary sides in international rugby is known as the 'All Blacks', named after their well-known and traditional black jerseys and uniforms. The All Blacks are generally one of the top teams in international play year in and year out, and if they could be compared to an American football side, some combination of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the New England Patriots might come close to approximating thier history and their success over the years.Tim Sackett's Monday AM staff meeting

So back to the Uni Watch piece - the All Blacks have just introduced a new set of team jerseys, and in addition to the expected information about new-age performance fabrics, and lighter and more moisture absorbing materials, the article also includes this quote from New Zealand team captain Richie McCaw:

“It’s pretty awesome to be involved in creating a new All Blacks jersey,” says McCaw. “People all over the world recognise the jersey, and of course Kiwis feel extremely strongly about it, so to make a change to it is a big deal. This new jersey is revolutionary – but it’s still very much an All Blacks jersey. It’s still something I’m very proud to wear.”

From a piece on the official New Zealand Men's Rubgy site, Allblacks.com, we learn that the new jersey was 'designed and tested in conjunction with several senior All Blacks including captain Richie McCaw'.

I know what you might be thinking - big deal, so a sports team changed its jersey, happens all the time, and usually it is for the sole reason to drive increased memorabilia sales. Perhaps. But in the details of this All Blacks jersey redesign we can take several lessons that I think can be more broadly applied to many other organizational change initiatives.

1. Memory and Tradition

Key in the jersey redesign efforts is a firm grasp and appreciation of the legacy and the history of the team. It can be pretty easy to advocate 'blowing everything up' and starting over in organizational change efforts, but also forgetting the values, people, and culture of what came before can be a mistake. The fans and players of the All Blacks are all well versed in the history and tradition of the side, so launching a major redesign effort from a completely blank page might have resulted in failure. Think of McCaw's comment about still being proud to wear the new jersey. At least part of that pride has to stem from the new jersey's honoring the long and revered tradition of the side.

2. Involvement

Team Captain McCaw and several other of the senior team members were pretty heavily involved in the design and testing process for the new jersey. For initiatives like this to have the best chance for success, the front-line individuals that stand to be most impacted by the change should be included in the process as early and often as is feasibly. While the new design might look good on the website, and may be more lucrative to sell in the team shop, if the players on the pitch are not able to continue to perform at their highest level while wearing the new jersey, then the change initiative would be a failure. Too often we like to proscribe change, and assume we know what the 'real' implementers need, but unless they are involved more intimately and fully in the process, we are mostly guessing.

3. Performance

While keeping cognizant of history and tradition, and securing organizational buy-in by involving the most impacted team members in the process are both important and valuable, the redesigned jersey itself has to meet the intended performance goals set out by the designers as well. Simply 'involving' staff in a change process does no good if the results are unsatisfactory. Some highlights from the piece on Allblacks.com:

(manufacturer) Adidas believes it’s the best rugby jersey in the world. It’s the lightest, ‘fastest’ and closest-fitting rugby jersey ever made

It’s 50 per cent lighter than the last jersey - but just as strong

Because it’s so light and aerodynamic it has less weight and drag, allowing players to go fractionally faster. At the elite level of the game, the slightest advantage can make a difference to the result

Now we won't know for sure until the team competes in these new jerseys if the expected performance improvements will pan out, but initial results from training and testing seem to bear out these expectations.

What can we learn about change management from a sports team jersey redesign?

Apparently quite a bit when it is done well.

P.S. -Hi to my friends at Sonar6, that I hope will keep me honest in the comments!

The NBA, where a 30% pay cut was the better option

So the National Basketball Association, henceforth referred to as the 'NBA', 'The League', or 'The Association', fresh off by most accounts was a very successful season, one that started with the LeBron James 'Decision' drama last summer, followed by a compelling regular season that saw several young players raise their play to superstar status, and capped off by a dramatic Championship series were the aforementioned James' Miami Heat team was defeated by a rag-tag, inspirational band of tattooed milliionaires from Dallas, has managed to follow up on its recent success and buzz by failing to forge a new labor agreement between the owners and players, resulting in a classic 1930's style Lockout1.

The lockout has effectively stopped almost all league business, imposed a ban on teams having any contact with their players, and has even resulted in the scrubbing of the NBA's and associated team websites from player photos, bios, and really most signs that people actually play the games2.

Since in a lockout situation the owners no longer have to pay the players, one might think the teams could settle in for a protracted impasse, since player salaries make up the majority of team expenses. But even though the lockout is but a few days old, some teams are already making decisions that seem primarily intended to reduce non-player labor costs. Case in point - the Los Angeles Lakers decision to decline to renew the contract of long-time Assistant General Manager Ronnie Lester3.  

From the ESPN Los Angeles piece on Lester's departure from the Lakers:

Barring a last-minute change of heart, Lester's 24-year run with the Lakers will end when his contract expires this month. By then, at least 20 other Lakers staffers, including almost all of the scouts who work under Lester in the basketball operations department, will have already packed their belongings and headed home. They've been told little by the team, except that employees whose contracts expire on or after June 30 would not have their contracts renewed, and their jobs may or may not open up again down the line.

So on the surface it seems like a sad, but kind of straightforward deal. The League is in what appears will be a lengthy labor dispute, the upcoming season is perhaps already in danger of being delayed, if not totally canceled, and teams like the Lakers are taking quick and aggressive steps to reign in labor costs that are still in their control.  Makes sense right, and really isn't all that noteworthy a story. 

That is until we catch one more little tidbit about the Lester employment situation with the Lakers, buried about 2/3 the way into the piece:

Lester wasn't fired or laid off. By all accounts, he's still greatly respected within the organization and around the league. Lakers general manager Mitch Kupchak considers him both a friend and one of the best assistant GMs in the league. He just didn't protect himself well enough last summer when the Lakers gave him the option of signing a one-year contract for the same pay as before, or a three-year deal at a 30 percent pay cut.

Now it gets more interesting. Apparently this time last year, the Lakers offered Lester a choice - re-up for one year at his current salary, or take a 30% hit but get the security of a three-year deal. Twelve months ago the lockout might have seemed a possible but unlikely outcome given the apparent irrationality of a collection of mostly billionaires (the owners) and millionaires (the players) being unable to agree on a fair division of a massive pot of revenues4. But even as far back as last summer even the most optimistic observers of the NBA scene were expecting a labor problem, and a likely lockout. 

As an executive on the inside, Lester had to know that the lockout was likely, and he must have also suspected that in the event of a lockout, front office personnel might be in a tenuous situation. But knowing that, and presented with a three-year, 30% pay cut option, he elected to re-up for the single year, maintain his salary level, and leave himself exposed to the contract non-renewal it appears he is facing this month.

Tough call, even when not staring an impending business crisis in the face. But it is a good question to ponder, even if a theoretical one.

If your employer offered you a three-year guarantee with a 30% pay cut, would you take the deal? 

Or would you roll the dice like Ronnie Lester did, maintain your salary for the time being, and take your chances?

Notes:

1. That sentence was over 100 words in length. Ridiculous. Get an editor.

2. It is really kind of jarring. Take a look at NBA.com if you don't believe me. The front page of the Knicks team site features a tribute to the team's dancers and the 'Knicks Now' section is mainly about some recent community outreach efforts by the club featuring team executives.

3. Lester's best season of his NBA playing career was 1981-1982, when he averaged 11 points per game for a pretty bad Chicago Bulls team. The second leading scorer on that team was Reggie Theus, possibly more well known to readers as the star of Saturday morning classic 'Hang Time'.

4. There is quite a difference in opinion how profitable (or not), the NBA is, and whether or not the players or owners are mainly responsible for the current labor crisis. Some good background can be found on the FiveThirtyEight blog at the New York Times site.

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?