LEADERSHIP IN SPORT AND BUSINESS MAY NOT BE THE SAME

In January I read a

Facebook post of a quote that

Mark Watts posted. Which I will include in this blog post which said,"CFO asks CEO what happens if we invest in developing our people, and then they leave us?" CEO replies,"What happens if we don't, and they stay?"











* Before I continue I do understand many reading this may or may not agree. If you would like to add to this in any way please comment in the comment section below. This will be a long post, sorry, but I didn't want to trim this and risk having the points I am trying to make missed.  

DIFFERENT OPINIONS

In Marks thread of this post there were a couple different opinions, and I think that each agreed with each other. On the main point just in a little different ways. I wrote in the thread at the time that I really wanted to write about this, because it's dealing with leadership on two different spectrum's. The leadership in athletics, and the other being leadership in business. Many feel that it is the same, and that the same principles will apply. I come from a school of thought that I don't feel that they are the same.   There's just some areas and principles that I don't think applies in the ways that many books written by coaches expect they will.   Coaches who ... And I'm speaking sport coaches.   Who speak about leadership, and some of the principles that they speak and write about won't apply or work in business. In business like sport there's many dynamics. A large corporation most definitely is going to be much different than a small business. You can't compare the leadership of a company with less than 10,20 or 30 people, to the leadership of a company with 100, 500, 1000. It's just not the same.  

SOME EXAMPLES

Some examples that I like to kind of throw out there. Just to induce thought in a way that people may not have thought about before. Is if you have a business, and/or you run a business. If you had the ability, or you had the ability, and capital to be able to hire three people deep in every position you have. Let's just say for example we have three sales reps for each sales position.  

THREE DEEP

You are able to hire three people deep in sales. Not three people all working sales. I'm talking you've got a starter, then a back up, then a back up for that back up (save for now you are actively recruiting other back ups for the future). Now picture the starter is at their work station prospecting, making calls, doing everything that they have to do for sales. Keep in mind their backup wants their position... BAD... This is because the backup is making a fraction of what the starter is making, isn't known as the best on the team (yet), and wants the title of "starter". Every time the starter gets up to go to the bathroom. The second team is going to take up where the starter was. Every time that starter goes to take a shit. He's going to be worried about what the second team person is doing, if they are not giving 100%, and giving all their ability to the position.   Now what's going to happen if that starter goes on vacation? Then the backup steps up for two weeks, and just knocks it out of the park. Triples the sales of what the starter would typically have, Then he comes back is he still going to have his job? Keep in mind that that second position, when they're sitting there at the terminal there's someone sitting right there behind them as well, breathing down their neck because they want the back up spot as well.   Not only that the person who's working the position, and doing the work. Doing all the specific skills necessary, are spending much of their time doing the work. Then when they go home and decompress, because it's just part of having the job and doing the work, and being a starter. If you're going to give your all. You're going to have to go home. You're going to have to decompress the same way any athlete would.   That second team guy he doesn't need to decompress because he doesn't have the same level of stress that the starter has. The second level guy is working his ass off building their skill set, probably harder than the starter, because he wants that position more. He's working as hard as he possibly can to get it. They are working outside the office, networking harder, reading and do all they can to "start". They can't wait for the day to show they have the talent and skill to win the position and they are not going to spend time just "waiting for the chance". They know they need to work for it, be seen and earn the spot. That doesn't happen in business because in business you don't have 1-2 back ups for every job. That happens in sport all the time and at all levels. Unless the roster's so small you don't have backups. In most cases that's not the case. There's always a backup.   In business you don't have that opportunity. You have that one person and that's it. It's like having a football team of no backups at all. The only backups you're going to have if somebody goes down, or somebody gets hurt. Is you have to move somebody from a defensive position, to the offensive position to fill that gap. Which means when they go back to that defensive position they're going to be tired from the work they did from the offensive position. That's what happens in business. When somebody goes on vacation, everybody has to hurdle around to pull their weight.   Let's speak about the leadership of that. That's going to have a different dynamic than the leadership of somebody who has bust their ass to keep their starting job, or just to stay on the team. Compared to the leadership of somebody who knows their job is pretty much going to be there. As long as the company stays in business, and if they go on vacation everyone else is going to hurdle around. It's totally different. As a business owner ask yourself would your productivity increase if you had three people deep. Three people deep I'm talking they're right there in the office drooling for that job putting the pressure on the first team guy to get the job done . Would the productivity increase, or would it decrease?   Now how hard is it going to be to motivate those guys? It's a little bit different leadership. It's a little different motivation than what you're going to deal with, if you're dealing with a team of athletes.  

WANTING TO BE THERE EVERYDAY

The athletes for the most part ... And trust me I am one that I hate to make assumptions. I hate to make generalizations across the board, because it's never true. Too many times the story we tell ourselves in the head is completely wrong. Everything I'm saying could be completely wrong. I'm just putting it out there, because these are the random thoughts that pop in my head when I see things like this.   To circle back the second point. When you're dealing with athletes they all want to be there everyday. It's their passion, they love that. They are young. They want to be the best that they can be, at what they do. They may not be playing the position that they thought they were going to play when they are ten years old, but they're still in the game. They still love the game even when they progress onto the higher levels. At the higher levels they may be in it more for the money than they are the game, but I'm telling you they still have passion for the game. They are not doing it all 100% for the money. Ask anybody that's in the NFL, and they're going to tell you very few are there only for the money. I'm sure there are some, but for the majority they love the game. That's why they are doing what they do. They love the game, they love their job, they are not thinking about the next job they want to get (well, some do think of being a Pro), or going out on their own.   Now let's circle back into the business environment again. How many employees in a staff of 50 for any medium size company all love their fucking jobs every single day. Long pause. Keep thinking. Where you work can you honestly say that everyone loves their job, has strong passion for it and wants to be there every single day --- everyone. Exactly, many to most of them are there working because they need the money. They want to provide for their family. They may not love the job, at the same time they probably don't hate the job. They tolerate the job, or they like the job. If they hated the job they'd probably wouldn't be there. In the business sector it's more a matter of yeah.... it would be great if we could get every single employee to love their job, and have a position for the job that they do but the reality of it is that's just not going to be the case. You role is to remove as many roadblocks as you possibly can, so they can do the job as effectively as they possibly can. To put out quality work. You want to make sure to provide an environment where they like their job because of what it provides them and how it adds value to their life.  

In business it's kind of a matter of creating an environment where they don't hate their job because if this happens the entire company will have issues.

In sports it's an environment where they are all coming, and they love what they're doing. This changes the dynamic of the leadership, and it changes the dynamic of the motivation as well.

RESPONSIBILITY OF EXECUTED DELEGATION

When you're dealing with specific leaders. The coaches, the managers, CEOs. The coaches on the athletic side, and then on the other side you have your business owners, your CEOs, or your managers. All depending upon the size of the company. The smaller the company, whoever is running the company is wearing multiple hats. It's the same way in athletics. The smaller the team you don't have an offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, and line in coach, and quarter back coach, and so forth. There's going to be a couple coaches there that are going to serve multiple roles. Where in business it's the same way. You're going to have the people in the leadership position that are going to serve multiple roles. Except that lasts longer in business, than it does in athletics. By the time an athlete his high school for the most part, they are dealing with a coaching staff which is pretty broad. To break it off into other sub categories. Where in business you really don't even begin to head. Having sub-categories until you're a midsize business.   We are speaking about delegation, and responsibility, and the ability to do the work. In business if you have a manager of a department, and it's a small company. Before making this post I have spoken to many small business owners. Just to make sure my thought process is on par. Again I don't like to make a lot of assumptions, and that is that. There's multiple hats that have to be worn by that one person. You can sit and say you're the CEO. That really doesn't mean shit, because unless you have a CFO, and a COO you're really not a CEO. Because you're not the Chief Executive Officer of anything, because you have no executives. You're just the fucking owner. The title looks good. I've been guilty of using this before I did have somebody who would be what I would consider a Chief Operating Officer, and we're still not what I would consider a full mid-sized business.   Which means if the work doesn't get done. At the end of the day if there's a deadline the owner is the one responsible for making sure it gets done. There is no delegation. The owner can delegate projects to the managers. Then if the managers take those projects, and delegates them to their subordinate staff. Many times in business those managers don't even know how to do the work that they're delegating, because they think that work is below them and their main role is giving creating work and assigning the projects associated with it. They delegated it out. What happens when it doesn't get done, they don't give a shit because it's not their job. It gets pushed back up to the owner of the company, or the Chief Operating Officer. Who is the one who ends up working till 4, or 5 O'clock in the morning to be able to get it done.   Now this is a dynamic from the athletic side that is different. On the athletic side when the work is delegated. The work gets done by the offensive coordinator, or the defensive coordinator. If it doesn't it's going to fall back to the head coach. At that point in time the head coach probably isn't going to bring back those coordinators for another season. It's easier for them to be able to release those people to the market. Than it is for the business owner to release their stuff to the market. Better stated, in sport is the assistant coaches athletes suck and do not get the job done those coaches are held usually accountable and don't blame the athletes. If this leads to a horrible season that coach, more than likely, will be coaching somewhere else. In business if the managers employees suck the manager puts the blame on them and expects them to be fired and replaced, The normally do not see the issue is them - nor do they see that if the work wasn't done they should have stayed later to make sure it got done. The leadership and management of these, again is totally different, I could go on with 4, 5, 6. I could probably go on ... I had 10 different points that I wanted to write about. This is getting longer than what I wanted it to be. The only thing that I wanted to point out, and to kind of describe is they dynamics are completely different. If you're listening or reading about leadership look at the source, culture and dynamics. I suggest looking at many leaders from many different sectors and cultures, but putting more emphasis, and more focus in looking more into the dynamics and the skills that are associated with what part, or group you are in, and represent. Put the effort and focus there. As far as trying to see what works, and what doesn't work. You're not going to find the same team dynamics that you're going to find in sport. Even if you could I'm not sure that's what you would really want.



 

FINALLY GETTING TO THE QUOTE

  To get to the specific of the quote, and why I think most people are going to agree. Is when you develop your people. Which should be the goal of what you're doing. When you develop your people, and if they end up leaving to go some place else. Then you've done your job. Not every ... And this is the reality of the world that we live in. Very few employees are going to stay with the same employer for very long. I do believe the stats for the average college graduate coming out of college today. Is that they're not going to stay with any single company for more than two, or three years. Until they get past three, or four companies. That puts you in a very interesting position. As far as the training, and how much development you can really put into that person. Knowing that they may not be there years form now. Of course, and this was part of the debate was in Marks thread. Of course you can't put all of your effort, and time in that knowing they may not be there a couple of years. Here's the situation with that. You are making an assumption that they might not be there in two years. If you're not going to be able to put the effort into the development of what is going to help make them better. Then you're creating a 75% employee, when you could have 100% employee. On the assumption that they're not going to be there. If you assume that they're not going to be there after a year, or two. What signals are you sending to that person? Regardless of your personality types, or leadership skills. What are you telling them non-verbally every time when you communicate with them. I will guarantee they're going to feel like you don't want them there within one or two years. That's the first takeaway from that.   The second takeaway from that quote is ... And I do agree with this. It's not the business owners full responsibility to completely train that individual for the job they were hired to do. They should be able to train them for the specifics, on how to do the job effectively in what you hired them to do. If their position is photography to throw one out. You want to bring in a photographer for whatever reason, and it's going to be a full time job. It's your job as the owner to be able to teach them the scale, and the specs of what the size of the images need to be. If they're going to place them on a website. What the culture of the company is. What the brand of the company is. What you're kind of looking for. To be able to give them direction on where it's going to go.   It's not your job to teach them how to be a better photographer. You hired them because you and the rest of your staff suck at taking pictures and you need them. You can't spend or be expected to spend ... Nor should the employee. Expect you to spend all your time trying to find resources for them to be able to become a better photographer. That's their "craft". If they want to advance in their own career in their own field, in their own position. Albeit with the company that they are with now, or if they're going to move on to another company later. What they do outside of work should be, and should encompass a development of the job skills. To make them better, and worth more in the market place and to the employer they work for now. The employee should not come into a job, or a college student should not come to a job, and think okay now am graduated. It's up to the employers to teach me everything I need to know about the craft that I want to spend the rest of my life doing. It's up to the employer to teach you how to do the job necessary that they need for their company. It's the employees responsibility to be able to learn that craft in a higher level. That makes that company better, because they are hiring you at that base level with a certain degree of expectation. That you'll be able to do the job that they expect you to be able to do.   They are also expecting you to become better at doing that job. Because you're going to take your own continued education, because this is the career path that you chose. That's why the employer hired that profession in the first place. Than somebody who had a background, or has a background in that profession. It's also why employers will many times look for a certain number of years in that profession. There's certain number of years doesn't tell them that they've been in it for three or four years. In that three or four years they shows the "experience" the persona has gained. and that the craft is something they want to build their future on. They are better because they've taken the time to continue their own education to become better for THEM and their future. The quality of work, and education doesn't stop when one graduates college. Your employer doesn't become your next professor. Your employer's responsibility is to be able to teach the employee how to do the job. They can't teach them how to become better at a craft they don't excel at. If they knew and excelled at that craft, They wouldn't need to hire the person in the first place.   NOTE: Fifteen years ago I was told by a very reputable and successful (in financial and family wealth) business man that "Leadership" is the last business skill one will be able to master... and that mastery will never happen. The point he was telling me is the dynamics are always changing, your culture is always changing, you are always changing the key is to develop skills to see the changes before they happen and adjust as needed. So far, it still stands as the best business advice I was ever given.