Red Sox: how much does chemistry help teams?

Does team chemistry lead to winning, or does winning lead to good chemistry?  I've heard that question debated frequently as my beloved Red Sox unexpectedly head to the World Series tonight.  I think the question is misleading though.  What puzzle are people trying to solve when posing this question?  They are observing unexpected success.  They see a team that is clearly more than the sum of its parts.  That's the riddle here.  Chemistry is a simplistic answer, though, for why the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts.  

Team synergy results from a combination of factors, not simply from the fact that players get along with one another (who can forget the 25 players, 25 cabs era of 20 years ago with the Clemens Red Sox?!?).  Synergy derives from good team design.  That means selecting complementary parts, not simply assembling all-stars based on statistical models (sorry, Theo).  It also means thinking about who your team leaders will be, and how they will lead through both words and actions.  Finally, it means not overreacting to a small sample of poor performance.  The Sox didn't let one bad year cause them to forget the longer term pattern of strong performance for players such as Lester and Buchholz.  

Synergy also involves creating the right environment in which people are motivated to excel.  John Farrell has created an environment of collective accountability.  He's also been transparent, communicating his decisions and rationale to players clearly and firmly.  

What about the beards?  Well, they are fun.  They are a wonderful bonding experience.  In the end, though, the team design and environment matter most. 

Torre, Francona and the Importance of Soft Skills

An executive asked me the following question the other day: "How do I persuade the skeptics who continue to denigrate the importance of "soft skills" in management?  Can you give me a concrete example that I can use to help influence their thinking?"   He posed a tough question, because we all know that persuading these skeptics can be a very challenging endeavor.  I offered an  example for him to use that I think might be helpful. Consider the managers of the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox for much of the last decade - Joe Torre and Terry Francona.  Fans in baseball love to dissect a manager's game decisions.  Should he have issued an intentional walk in the 7th inning?  When should he have pulled his starting pitcher?  Should the manager have pinch hit for the weak-hitting catcher in the 8th inning? 

Often times, I believe fans over-estimate the importance of these "hard skills" for managers.  What do they under-estimate?  The soft skills.  Fans often do not understand how critical the manager's skills are with regard to managing the clubhouse, dealing with different personalities, enforcing team rules, managing conflict, etc.   Torre and Francona, I believe, excelled at these "soft skills" - even though they, at times, frustrated fans with their actual game management decisions.  Were they superb in those "hard skill" areas?  Perhaps.   However, they surely excelled on the soft skills.  A recent example this week reinforced my view on Torre and Francona.  The New York Yankees' current manager, Joe Girardi, did not handle an issue with aging catcher and designated hitter, Jorge Posada, very well at all, and as a result, we had a controversy that stretched for days. 

For business executives, we can take a lesson from this baseball example.  Do we attribute success to the wrong set of skills at times?  Do we fixate on the small technical miscues, while missing the fact that some leaders have tremendous people management skills that actually overwhelm any small technical deficiencies?  What really matters most for organizational performance?  That's what every executive should ask themselves.