The Free-Agent Machine

The teams in the National Basketball Association, (NBA), operate under the constraint of a 'salary cap'. Essentially, each team has the same maximum dollar amount that they are permitted to spend on player salaries (with a few exceptions/caveats).  The idea behind the salary cap is two-fold: it gives the team owners some predictability and control over the largest piece of their cost structure (player salaries), while also (at least theoretically), contributing towards increased competitive balance across the league since no team can simply load up on all the best, highest-paid players.

But recent NBA history, with teams like the Lakers, Celtics, and a few years ago, the Bulls all enjoying extended periods of high performance while operating under the same salary cap constraints suggests that management, coaching, talent evaluation, and support staffs (all not subject to a salary cap by the way), all have a significant impact on overall success.  Said differently, each team can only acquire about $55 million of 'talent', but the resources, support, development, and motivation of that talent may matter just as much to winning games and championships.

The NBA, in addition to the team salary cap, also has an official start to 'free agent' season, the date from which players that have completed their contracts are free to change teams. This period started on July 1.   On televised analysis and commentary of where the most highly sought after free agents would sign (LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, etc), much of the discussion centers around salary cap considerations, as each team only has so much available budget to spend (which varies based on the amount the team already has committed to other players). ESPN on its SportsCenter shows has NBA experts manipulate giant touchscreen displays with the ability to 'slide' free agents to potential destination teams, while calculating the salary cap implications dynamically.  It is a pretty cool technology, especially when you see middle-aged former NBA coaches and executives occasionally struggle to master its nuances.

But what the free-agent machine can't do of course, is evaluate any of the scores of other things that go a long way to determining team success.  A player's 'fit' into the system of play, the relationship they may have with the coach, how the 'left-over' players will adjust to the new big name signee, and whether or not a player's past success on his former team will be transferable to the new team. And perhaps most importantly whether or not the relationship the player developed with his former teammates was a much larger contributor to his individual success than anyone realized - let's see how Amare Stoudemire fares without Steve Nash to work with.

I think some of the same considerations have to be taken into account in the 'real' world of organizations where most of us operate. When a 'free-agent' joins the team, often for a better opportunity manifested in more pay, more prestigious title, or a chance to play on a winning team, the simple fact that they scored the big contract, landed the big title, etc. are no guarantee that the 'fit' will be right and that past demonstrated success will continue in the future in the new environment. 

When free-agents jump to a new team, everything changes for them, the route they take to the office, the people they talk with every day, the basic systems and processes to find information, and hundreds of other things that you or they probably never thought about. The organization may look at bringing in new talent from the perspective of budget, filling in key skills, or enhancing the organization's reputation, but in the short-term the new team member does not care about any of that.  

They have to first get through the mundane details that matter - where can I get coffee in the morning, who do I speak to when I am confused, and just why do I have to request permission to do some of the things that at my old place I did all by myself for the last 5 years?  

It is easy to move players around on a cool touchscreen LCD display to make sure the numbers add up.

It is not easy to make sure everything else adds up. 

The Wisdom of Jeff Van Gundy - Part III

He is at it again!

The great Jeff Van Gundy, former NBA head coach for the New York Knicks and the Houston Rockets and current TV analyst, who has been the subject of not one, but two posts here on the blog, gave us more sage wisdom to chew on during the telecast of Game 3 of the NBA Finals between the Boston Celtics and the Los Angeles Lakers this past Tuesday night.

During a timeout the camera cut to a shot of the Lakers team huddle, and we saw the team's star and best player Kobe Bryant emphatically and forcefully giving instructions to several of his teammates. Bryant had the rapt attention of the other players, and while the audio did not pick up what he was actually saying, it was clear from facial expressions and body language that he was delivering a tough message. Perhaps a message that the other players were uncomfortable hearing.

Observing this activity in the huddle, JVG shared with us this gem: 

You don't want your best player to be your best liked player.

Think about that one. When the best player is also the leader of the team, that often means having to get in the other player's faces, to make sure that the effort and passion is there, and also to simply instruct and coach.  When the best player takes on those responsibilities, and stops worrying about being 'liked' all the time, chances are overall team performance will improve. 

Being the 'best' carries with it another level of commitment not only to personal excellence, but to doing the kinds of things that can impact the performance of the other players on the team.  In basketball that may mean sharp criticism, aggressive play in team practices (Michael Jordan was notorious for this), and putting in extra time in the weight room or doing additional running or sprints.

In the workplace the same kind of rules can apply. When the 'best' or most respected employee consistently sends the right message, displays a high level of integrity, actively supports and coaches the newer members of the team, and essentially models the kind of behaviors that indicate the expected 'way we do things', then the other members of the team, and the overall organization can improve, and can win.

It doesn't really work in the converse, a sports team can almost never be led by the last guy on the bench.  He or she may understand the key leadership skills, but without that respect or standing that comes with actually excelling on the court or field then it is less likely the team will choose to follow.

In basketball, there are dozens of 'best' players, but there are only a precious few great players.

Inside organizations that same ratio probably applies.  Every group has their best performer, but only a few make an impact on the team and the organization in the broader sense. 

And you don't necessarily get there by being liked all the time.

The Story of Garrett Jones

The Minnesota Twins have a well-deserved reputation as an organization that knows how to judge talent, to select, train, and consistently produce a steady stream of high quality players.  This organizational capability to find and develop so-called 'home-grown' talent is critical for a team like the Twins, who historically have had significantly lower salary budgets than many of their rivals like the Yankees and Red Sox.

Some of the top players that have been brought through the Twins system past American league Most Valuable Players Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau, as well as pitching great Johan Santana (now currently playing for the Mets).  By consistently making smart draft choices, having a consistent philosophical approach that is embedded throughout all levels of the organization, and by actually providing real opportunity for these home-grown players at the major league level, the Twins are contenders for the division and league title most years.  They are in a way a kind of baseball version of the NBA's Utah Jazz, my friend the HR Capitalist's favorite team.

With that background, I want to share a bit of the story of Garrett Jones, an outfielder now playing in the major league for the Pittsburgh Pirates, ( a team I took a shot at recently). Fans of the Pirates certainly, know some of Jones' story.  A player with 10-plus seasons toiling at various levels of baseball's minor league system, never really getting much of a chance to see if he had what it took to succeed in the big leagues.  In fact, Jones was in the minor leagues for so long, a little known baseball rule called the 6-year free agent rule, granted him his release from the club that owned his contract late in 2008 and allowed him to sign with the Pirates organization.

The club that 'owned' Jones for the 6-plus years?

The Twins.

One of the primary reasons Jones never got much of a chance with the Twins (about 30 games in 2007), was the presence of the star Morneau, who played the same position as Jones, as was one of the games best players. To be fair, Jones' minor league career did have some down points as well, so the Twins could also be forgiven for having some doubts about his upside.

Jones began the 2009 season once again in the minor leagues, but about halfway through the season, he was called up to the Pirates and proceeded to have an outstanding second half.  Jones hit 21 home runs and batted nearly .300.  For a perennial losing team like the Pirates, this performance was likely the highlight of the (sorry) season.  This year in the new season's first three games, Jones has already hit three home runs. 

The point of all this to me is that even organizations that pride themselves as great evaluators and developers of talent sometimes get one wrong.  Jones was plying his trade for the organization for many years, in fact for so long league rules allowed him to break away, and the Twins for whatever reason did not or could not give Jones the chance to prove himself at the highest level, helping both the team's fortunes, as well as improving Jones' career prospects. Professional sports, and the individual performance of the players themselves, are so closely monitored, scrutinized, and evaluated, that these kind of talent 'misses' are relatively rare.  Performance in sports is so measurable and public, that players possessing major league talent usually do end up in the major leagues.  Maybe Jones simply needed a change of scenery to really display his true ability, but in the end, at almost 30 years old, he is much the same player the Twins did not give much of a chance to.

Think of it, someone spends more than six years working for the organization, their performance, development, and potential on display in the most visible manner possible, and yet the organization (universally regarded as great talent evaluators) allows the player to leave, only to see him star for another team.

Maybe the Twins did not think Jones had the 'look' of a major leaguer or the talent ahead of him in the organization was clearly superior, whatever the reason his talents were not recognized.  But finally getting his chance with another team, he is turning in to a star.

I wonder if you look at the people in your organization right now, could you find similar untapped potential?

Are there people toiling away, solid performers, but not stars, maybe because they have not been given a big challenge, a lead role, or a big stage?

Will they eventually leave and hit the big time with one of your competitors?

Nah, you are a great talent evaluator, I am sure you have everyone pegged just right.

The Pittsburgh Pirates and Expectations

The Major League Baseball season is set to begin in a few days, and in what has been an almost annual exercise, the large market, high-payroll teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are predicted to be among the league leaders once again.

Teams from smaller cities having lower budgets for player salaries like the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates are once again expected to remain near the bottom portion of the standings, the organizations and supporters alike seemingly resigned to second-tier status.

And in a way it is kind of unfair, at least on the surface, since the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers can simply afford to pay substantially more to attract the most talented players, putting the less well financed and smaller clubs at a competitive disadvantage.  Many other sports leagues have installed team salary caps, to attempt to level the competitive balance by ensuring all teams have mostly the same budgets available to pay players. 

But even in a league that has a salary cap, like the NBA, certain teams do achieve a level of consistent success via better leadership, strategy, and execution. The lessons that can be learned from these clubs is that with efficient management of their restricted assets, sustained excellence is still possible.

In baseball, where the economic system is much closer to the 'real world' that organizations compete in every day, it does seem like some clubs have come to accept their status, looking at the Yankees, (or for a UK soccer equivalent, Manchester United) as already having won the championship before the season has even begun.

If you are on the Pirates, (who have endured 17 consecutive losing seasons), working in management, operations, or even as a player, it has to be easy to 'choose' to compete for fourth place.  To ratiionalize that achieving mediocrity (in the form of a .500 record) is success. Basically to have given up on the thought of winning the title before the games even start. Because for those kind of teams, once young players demonstrate some potential, they typically leave (or are traded) for one of the larger teams that can afford to pay them more.

So the question I think is this - how realistic should their expectations be?

If your organization is the equivalent of the Pirates, plugging away, no real threat to the established leaders in your industry, the kind of place employees come to either get some experience at the beginning of their careers, or to ride out the last few years before they retire, should the organization simply accept that, try to stay afloat, and keep the lights on? When is fourth place ok?

And on an individual level, if you are working in a 'Pirate' organization, when do you decide, 'I'd rather be a Yankee' and jump ship?

What wastes more time at work than March Madness?

Today is the start of March Madness, otherwise known as the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship tournament.

And in the grand tradition of lazy editorial calendars everywhere, we see a slew of articles about the 'cost' to organizations in terms of lost productivity from employees filling out brackets, watching the live stream on the internet, and taking long lunches to watch the games.

Sure, some time will be 'wasted' by employees talking, watching, and Horrors! - betting on the games, but no more than is wasted every day by scores of other things. 

So in that spirit, my friend and fellow blogger Trish McFarlane and I have come up with our 'Top Ten List' of things that waste more time and suck more productivity at work than a few days of March Madness can ever match.

So here we go:

The Top Ten things that waste more time at work than March Madness:

10. Paper Jam!

9. 'I'm not sure, just do a search for it on the company intranet'

8. Great news! We are doing an off site team building day at a Ropes Course!

7. Time to upgrade the ERP system - ask me for that report again in 9 months

6. I can't print.  Can you print? I can't print. Is the network down?

Jump on over to the HR Ringleader blog to see items five though one.

Good luck with your brackets!

Now get back to work.