With last week’s announcement that Notre Dame will fill its recently vacated Head Coaching position with Brian Kelly of the University of Cincinatti, this begs the question: What ever went wrong with their selection of Charlie Weis?
From a Quality-of-Hire standpoint, Charlie Weis was perfect when he accepted the position of Head Coach five years ago. His accomplishments included three Superbowl Championships as Offensive Coordinator of the New England Patriots. Further, his success at the professional level followed success at both the high school and collegiate levels as well. Charlie came in a winner, flashing his rings at his new-hire press conference, shortly thereafter proclaiming to his team that for each and every game, they would enjoy a “decided schematic advantage.” Translation: Even Charlie was drunk on Charlie Kool-Aid! (Oh, and I’d be remiss to not mention the ultimate cherry on top: Weis was a Notre Dame alumnus.)
It started out wonderfully – in his first season as ND’s Head Coach in 2005, ND attended its first Bowl Game (which it lost), and Weis was named “Coach of the Year.” In addition, he was offered a 10-year contract extension worth an estimated $30 to $40 million. Despite the bowl game loss, ND was ranked #2 going into the 2006 season. (As an aside, you might find it interesting, however, that Weis didn’t recruit the players that stepped on the field during his inaugural 2005 season; rather, Tyrone Willingham did, but that’s a story for another day.)
However, in 2006, the wheels started coming off. By 2009, they were off completely. Weis finished a dismal 35-27 despite all the 5-star recruits, all the donors and booster monies, all the football facilities, the prestige of “the program”, etc. Sure, ND won its first bowl game in 9 appearances versus a highly inferior University of Hawaii team last year, but that didn’t get Weis off the hot seat.
So, what happened? Weis came in a bonafide 5-star Quality-of-Hire employee with an impeccable track record, so why the mediocre results? If it is, in fact, true that “the best predictor of future performance is past performance”, then wouldn’t Weis have been successful?
So, today, I’m on record questioning one of the most widely protected sacred cows in the talent acquisition world. I don’t believe that past performance is always the best predictor of future performance, and there is no number of PhD dissertations or theses that can wholeheartedly prove this myth. Hypothesize they may, but prove, they cannot. And if you’re already in the camp that agrees, you likely know that testing and assessment vendors have a wealth of their own commissioned research scurrying to prove otherwise. However, the tides may be shifting as Jeremy points out in his blog, “When Good HR Metrics Go Bad.” He cites a study published in Organization Science by 3 ‘rogue’ PhDs’ suggesting that predicting performance based on experience is more akin to a “ricochet shot” than anything else.
And, since it’s the end of the year, let’s take this a step further: I am also on record that this sacred cow of “past performance as the best predictor of future performance” is a cop-out. Why? Because it allows us to say that a candidate isn’t right because they don’t have a track record of success doing exactly what we need done. Yep, it takes us off the hook for having to put our neck out and vouch for a candidate despite the fact that we tacitly and instinctively believe the candidate would be successful.
Today, take pride in the fact that you’re a finely honed tacit and instinctive machine; take pride that you’re not afraid to make a match when “the match” might not be immediately apparent to the ‘naked eye’ (i.e. the non-recruiter). Oh, and by the way, don’t be afraid to keep your own track record on-hand so that when a Hiring Manager asks you where you’re coming from, you can inform them that you have a substantial history of success making matches where they might not immediately be apparent (wink, wink).
Good stuff!
I’ve argued against the ‘past-performance’ metric for years.
Let’s use a project manager as an example: Just because this project manager has a certification and experience delivering projects on-time and under-budget, does that necessarily make them a good fit for your company? No.
Sure they’ve got a track record of success but what were some of the underlying reasons for that success? Was it the support structure at their previous company? Was it the type of projects they worked on? The project team?
If you interview them and they just don’t feel ‘right’…pass on hiring them.
On the other hand, you have an application from a Project Manager with who has provided an honest accounting of projects (some failed, some succeeded) and they don’t have a certification (PMP, etc). In most instances, this person would be overlooked for the previous candidate, but I’d talk to this PM first because my gut tells me to.
Completely agree with your points Josh and Eric. A great resume does not make a great employee. You have to consider all factors involved in the success and failure of an employee. Just because someone was successful at company A does not guarantee their success at company B. Every organization has a different culture and support system in place. It is important to find the person that will succeed within YOUR organization, not someone who was successful somewhere else.
more research for your argument comes from the ny times mag’s 9th annual year in ideas issue. the research found that random promotions and promoting both the best and worst performers led to more efficient workplaces than promoting based solely on past experience: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/magazine/ideas/2009/#r-2
f
This is a lot more simple than you indicate. Charlie Weis won early in his Notre Dame career with talent that someone else recruited. By Year 3, when the talent was mostly what Charlie had brought in, the Irish fell apart.
In other words, past performance at the pro level had nothing to do with anything here. Charlie Weis’ biggest problem was that he couldn’t recruit enough talent to be successful. That’s a pretty basic skill for a big time college football coach, and Charlie just didn’t have it.
What he did have, in spades, was an over-the-top arrogant nature that turned off a lot of would-be recruits. So, arrogance plus a lack of skill in recruiting equals???? Well, you know what it equals.
Wonder if the person who made the decision to give Charlie Weis a 10-year contract, after a single year of coaching players someone else recruited, will follow him out the door???
Excellent insight! First though, as a New England Patriot and a Notre Dame fan, Charlie should have NEVER gone to Notre Dame. That aside, this is one reason that when I was a corporate recruiter and my manager said “don’t try to sell the candidate” I took note to some extent but I also tried to get my managers to understand and trust my instincts when it came to candidates. Today I work for an outside recruiter and it is so important to find someone who not only has the skills but the personality to fit into the client company. I have seen candidates with the best resume that in front of the manager, could not even do the most simple of things, like TALK. I have also seen the reverse, Talking managers into speaking with candidates who did not have the strongest resume, and they turn out to be the perfect candidate.
In the current market, I think you should take past experience and employment and add them to your overall equation, but I find more managers who live and die on both past experience and/or testing may miss some great potential employees
The real issue isn’t past performance data but the translation of being successful at the pro game versus being successful at the college level.
Take a look at Urban Meyer. He was a successful head coach at Utah and he continued to be successful at Florida.
Take a look at Nick Saban. He was a successful head coach at LSU and Alabama but he was not successful in the NFL.
Take a look at Pete Carroll. He was a bust in the NFL but has been successful at USC.
Taking a look at the Weis situation makes more sense in this context. Clearly, the best past performance data to consider is prior head coaching positions at the college level. NFL experience, for all that it brings you, doesn’t help you become an elite college level coach.
Excellent! I have long disagreed in the past performance myth.
Thought provoking post. Thanks. Here’s a Harvard Business Review article from 2006 that talks about the risk of hiring stars from the competition. http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2004/05/the-risky-business-of-hiring-stars/ar/1
Everyone, just wanted to take a moment to thank you for all your comments
I’m a big believer that we all learn together, meaning from the conversation that follows.
Lance, you bring up a great point and one that I was expecting. “Clearly, the best past performance data to consider is prior head coaching positions at the college level.”
This mirrors the belief that past performance alone isn’t enough, meaning NFL experience is not relevant enough to be considered as a predictor of future performance. I don’t disagree, however I’d ask the following:
How successful do you think Brian Kelly will be in the Notre Dame Head Coaching role? If we’re going to say his experience is more ‘relevant’ than Weis’s, then are we suggesting he is going to be highly successful as he was at the University of Cincinatti?
And for that matter, let’s take this one step further — are we oversimplifying the performance equation by only evaluating the variable of ‘past performance’ despite how relevant or irrelevant it may be? In other words, what about the other variables?
- What about how the cold weather in South Bend isn’t attractive to the hotbed of football talent in the Southeast, Texas, and California?
- What about not only ability to politically handle the press, but the boosters as well?
- What about the current attitude of Notre Dame players who were loyal to Weis (i.e. those he recruited). What about the negative press Kelly received in the way he departed the University of Cincinatti prior to the biggest bowl game in their history?
- Do we think his ‘brand’ was impacted, meaning in the minds of the players he’s moving on to coach? Do you think they will be fully loyal to Kelly if they believe he’ll leave them high and dry, just as he did at Cincinatti?
Interesting headline. Just one problem. You never really answer your own question. What whet wrong? What was it exactly that was or was not done that undermined the promise? Your answer is that the evidence used to hire was flawed. Then, what should be used to guide decision making? What could be used as a prediction of the future? You ask one question and answer another. Question: Does this mean that your next article will be beyond question?
Jack, good question – a question I wish there could be an easy answer to.
The point I’m trying to suggest is that the notion of using past performance as an indicator of future performance is a flawed one.
You may have differing reasons as to why Weis failed at Notre Dame. Most people do.
Media has changed whereby it’s about the conversation that follows, as opposed to the way things used to be (meaning you read an article and accept it as fact).
What are your thoughts? Let’s converse, meaning have a 2-sided conversation
P.S. We discuss recruiting and talent-related subjects here at FistfulofTalent.com.