- Teams are selecting more quarterbacks in the first round now than they did years ago. We shouldn't be surprised at this fact, given that the passing game is much more important today. Teams are clearly investing in a position which has much more value and contributes more to winning today than 50 years ago. In the period from 1970-1989, teams selected 1.9 quarterbacks per year in the first round. That number rose to 2.8 quarterbacks per year in the period from 2000-2019.
- Despite the advanced scouting and analytics, and the tremendous investment in talent evaluation today, teams are not any better at identifying stars than they were in the past. 50% of the quarterbacks selected in the first round from 1970-1989 made at least one Pro Bowl. Did the NFL general managers improve their hit rate in more recent years? Not one iota. 50% of the quarterbacks picked in the first round from 2000-2019 made the Pro Bowl at least once. No improvement despite all that work to allegedly improve talent evaluation!
- How many champions did the teams identify in these years? From 1970-1989, 8 of the 38 quarterbacks selected in the first round were the starting quarterbacks on Super Bowl championship teams. That equates to 21% of the players selected. From 2000-2019, only 5 of the 56 quarterbacks chosen in the first round have won a Super Bowl (just 9%). Now, that number is lower, in part, because some of these players have many years left in their career. Others will surely win Super Bowls. It is also lower because a certain quarterback drafted in the 6th round, who played here in New England, won so many championships since 2000. Having said that, the fact is that many of the most elite quarterbacks in NFL history win multiple championships. Thus, a small set of quarterbacks end up champions. Consider that 5 players have won 36% of the Super Bowls ever played (Brady, Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman, and Mahomes). 12 players have won 60% of the Super Bowls ever played! Thus, the chances of selecting a future champion remain very low, despite all the investment in talent evaluation.
Professor Michael Roberto's Blog
Musings about Leadership, Decision Making, and Competitive Strategy
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
The NFL Draft: Are Teams Getting Better at Selecting Talent?
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
When We Hire, Should We Consider How Well-Connected Candidates Are?
Although employees do not necessarily make connections for the company’s benefit, we find that companies’ centrality in the employee network positively predicts company value. This effect is largely driven by mid-level employees. Furthermore, company centrality in the employee network predicts company innovation inputs (R&D spending), and controlling for these inputs, predicts the quantity, scientific impact, and economic value of companies’ patented innovation outcomes.
Thursday, April 04, 2024
Be a Loud Listener
I'm looking forward to hearing David Brooks speak at my daughter's graduation from Vanderbilt University next month. Brooks, a writer for the New York Times, has written a new book titled, " How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen. I'm reading the book now, and it has some terrific insights on how we can connect, empathize, and communicate with others more effectively. Brooks appeared recently on Matt Abraham's podcast from Stanford. Brooks introduces a very interesting concept. He describes the value of being a "loud listener" when communicating with others:
Friday, March 29, 2024
Three Voices Every Leader Needs
Fortune's Michal Lev-Ram and Alan Murray recently interviewed Otis Elevator CEO Judy Marks at Deloitte University. Marks offered some great insights to the assembled group of leaders from a variety of companies. In the interview, Marks offered a great comment about the types of voices that a leader needs to hear now and again. She specifically mentioned three voices:
Saturday, March 23, 2024
Eliminate the Bosses? Organizational Transformation or Corporate Fad?
Source: https://www.organimi.com/ |
The Wall Street Journal's Chip Cutter has written about the transformation underway at Bayer, led by its new CEO, Bill Anderson. The article is titled, "One CEO’s Radical Fix for Corporate Troubles: Purge the Bosses." The 160-year-old company has struggled mightily in recent years, particularly after a problematic acquisition of Monsanto. Anderson's transformation plan calls for the establishment of 5,000 to 6,000 self-directed teams, as well as the elimination of many middle management roles. He has taken aim at the pile of rules and regulations that govern employee conduct and decision making, hoping to streamline many processes.
Friday, March 22, 2024
Action vs. State Orientation: Who is More Vulnerable to the Sunk Cost Trap?
Source: The MSLs' Liaison Newsletter |
"Individuals with a strong action orientation are able to devote their cognitive resources to the task at hand, thus enabling them to expediently move from a present goal state to some desired future goal state. These individuals flexibly allocate their attention for the purpose of task execution and goal attainment. Persons who are more action oriented are characterized by enhanced performance efficiency and the ability to complete tasks after minor failures or setbacks."
On the other hand, Diefendorff and his colleagues describe a state orientation as follows:
Alternatively, individuals with more of a state orientation tend to have persistent, ruminative thoughts about alternative goals or affective states, which reduces the cognitive resources available for goal-striving. This reduction of available resources impairs state-oriented individuals' ability to initiate activities and to follow tasks through to completion, especially when the activities are difficult, nonroutine, or both.
How do these contrasting orientations affect our decision making? Are individuals with one of these orientations more vulnerable to certain cognitive biases when making critical choices? Marijke van Putten and his co-authors examined this question with specific focus on the sunk cost trap. In other words, they asked the question: Are individuals with a strong state orientation more susceptible to throwing good money after bad than individuals with a strong action orientation? They posited that state-oriented people would ruminate about past events and dwell on past failure. Consequently, they might try to recoup past losses and escalate commitment to failing courses of action. Action-oriented people would, according to their hypothesis, focus on the future. That forward focus would enable them to cut their losses and de-escalate commitment to an ineffective course of action.
The findings from an experiment confirmed their hypothesis. The sample size was rather small, and more work certainly needs to be done in this area. However, the initial exploratory results are quite intriguing to me. It speaks to a broader set of psychological research suggesting that people's well-being and decision-making abilities may suffer if we them to dwell or ruminate on their emotional state. Encouraging people to shift toward an action orientation may be beneficial.
Monday, March 04, 2024
What are Your REAL Values?
In this article, Maclellan cites Ann Skeet, senior director at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Skeet says, “When people bring things to your attention, it’s an opportunity to reset expectations and to clarify culture. But if the leadership says that we can continue even when people are surfacing things they feel are inconsistent with the organization’s espoused values, it suggests there is another set of values that are actually being applied.”
Skeet makes an important distinction here between an organization's espoused values and its values-in-use (a concept first articulated by Chris Argyris). The espoused values are those that we find on the placard posted on the wall, or articulated by senior leaders when addressing employees and other stakeholders. The values-in-use are the REAL values as identified by the ACTIONS of the leaders in the organization. When employees perceive a serious disconnect between the espoused values and the values-in-use, then disenchantment and disengagement rise. Some people stay silent in the face of serious problems. Others simply exit the organization. Leaders at all levels need to constantly ask themselves: Are we walking the talk? Are we living up to our espoused values? Or, are employees perceiving us as disingenuous? If so, why has that perception arisen?