Ever since the passing of the legendary New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner in 2010, probably the most interesting owner in all of USA-based professional sports is Mark Cuban, the owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks.
Cuban made his fortune, (a prerequisite for professional sports franchise ownership these days), in the early days of the internet, selling his company Broadcast.com at the height of Dotcom frenzy to Yahoo for $5.9 billion (yes, that is billion with a ‘B’), in Yahoo stock. He purchased controlling interest in the Mavericks in early 2000, and since then has been at times the league’s biggest cheerleader, critic, and informal spokesperson. He has also become committed to building his organization around some core guiding principles – the HR/Talent pros reading this would probably call it company culture I suppose.
This past week in a lengthy post titled Let’s Talk Mavs #MFFL, on his Blog Maverick site, Cuban opened up to the team’s fans, and really the public in general about many of the options, thought processes, and eventual decisions that the team made as they attempted to re-make the roster in the aftermath of the NBA Championship they won in the spring of 2011, the ‘lockout’ shortened season of 2011/2, as well as the recently concluded 2012/3 season and the ensuing scramble to make deals and sign new players.
Now I don’t expect the average FOT reader to be all that interested in the intricacies of the NBA’s collective bargaining agreement with the player’s association, or the strengths and weaknesses of specific players, but for the HR/Talent pro there is lots to learn from Cuban’s approach to building and caring for his organization, and his willingness to be as open and transparent about the process.
So here’s the point, or perhaps more accurately the questions that I want to pose to FOT
Nation culled from Cuban’s piece, about whether or not you see your organization (or should see your organization), as a place where the right people can perform even better than they have in other settings, or earlier in their careers. Or are you largely assessing candidate’s ability to perform based almost totally on how they have performed in these past settings, that may or may not be comparable to yours?
For an interesting take on this, check this excerpt from Let’s Talk Mavs #MFFL where Cuban is discussing evaluation of potential new Mavericks players, (or in your terms, ‘Recruiting’), to get the gist:
We also feel like we have some players that will be far better on our team than they were on previous teams. I like our ability to work with what I call “fallen angels”. Players who are traded or left unsigned because everyone in the league thinks that they can only be the player they saw in another organization.
We have taken players like Jason Terry, Jerry Stackhouse, Brandon Wright, Tyson Chandler and you can even say Vince Carter among others that were perceived as having this problem or that problem and had them contribute in new ways that were beyond what the “experts” expected.
We pay less attention to what they did in their last system than what we believe they will do in our system with our group of players. We are not always successful as last year pointed out, but we have a good track record.
In 2011 and 2012 you could not swing a cat at an HR/Talent conference without someone going on about ‘Moneyball’ and the lessons we as talent pros needed to take from that story and had to try and apply in our organizations. But where almost all of these ‘Moneyball’ analyses missed the mark was in their conclusion that the real lesson was to apply more metrics and statistical approaches to talent management. If we just had more data about people, it almost didn’t matter what data, we’d make smarter talent management decisions and FINALLY get some respect from the CFO and CEO.
But ‘Moneyball’ really wasn’t about that, at least not fundamentally. The lesson was that the way to ‘win’ in an unfair game (one where your competition had significantly larger financial resources), was to figure out which assets were undervalued and acquire more of them, and which ones were overvalued, and sell them to the competition, (or simply cut them loose).
So back to Mark Cuban.
In evaluating potential new players based not only on what they have done for other clubs, (information every other team also has access to, and is therefore not a competitive advantage for anyone), and assessing their specific potential value to the Mavericks, and by building an internal system and culture where they believe the right players can actually improve, Cuban is playing a form of Moneyball recruiting as well, one not just based on the numbers. It is based on the rest of the market undervaluing talent that Cuban knows can thrive if put in the right setting.
I will repeat the questions then – Do you see your organization as a place where the right people can perform even better than they have in other settings, or earlier in their careers?
Or are you largely assessing candidate’s ability to perform based almost totally on how they have performed in these past settings, that may or may not be comparable to yours?
Is your shop a place for these ‘fallen angels?’