Built to Fail

Silence and Bill Belichick are synonymous; 'on to the next week.' so knowing exactly what he's doing is always speculation. The latest guessing game is Belichick's coaching staff, specifically the Offensive and Defensive Coordinators. If you go to the Patriots' website their aren't official titles for either, with Joe Judge listed as an offensive assistant and Matt Patricia listed as a Senior Football Advisor.

Now, it's no surprise that coaches returned with the Belichick coaching tree very rarely finding any success on their own. It's ironic with Nick Saban being in the coaching tree and constantly having to replenish his staff. There is even speculation that Belichick didn't go get former OC Bill O'Brien from Alabama for fear that he'd be one and done. It's all in the name of stability, and there are benefits to that in a business sense, but this is more than that.

What this is, in its simplest form, is taking the lesser candidates just so they'll stay around. It's settling for mediocrity under the guise of stability. Those who aren't in demand are very likely not because they aren't good enough to draw promotions. In the pure football sense you can argue the pros and cons of the greatest pro football coach having control of everything versus being able to count on other talented staff members, but a deeper dive needs to be done on this business practice.

Examining it just from the business aspect, these are the types of decisions that can destroy a business. The obvious is limiting the success based on picking less qualified candidates, but there are dominoes that echo going forward. Better qualified candidates who get passed up because they may continue to progress will still find better opportunities. As well, the pool of replacements will diminish in talent if they feel they can't progress for the betterment of themselves.

I once interviewed with an employer who put it very simply, “We hope you move on to bigger and better things. While, of course, we hope that you love it and want to retire here, if you move on to something better that means you did great things here. It also means you have improved this place and allow us to raise the floor of what we can do and who we can hire next.” This is a concept that seems obvious, but isn't always put into practice. While it may be naïve in today's working world, I still subscribe to the thought that employees who exceed expectations should expect compensation financially and in promotions and bosses should put their best forward for the betterment of everyone involved.

Instead, companies who value 'stability' over ability end up creating their own migration of talent. What's worse is that it isn't just talent that leaves, but talent with ambition, which is the foundation of an improving company. On top of that, it creates a complacency in the workplace, a status quo. Comfort is the enemy of progress and, while things may be calm and even grant the feeling of invincibility when it comes to job stability. It sets a culture that is hard to shake. Thus, those in any sort of management position within don't rock the boat because of a feeling of 'it is how it is.'

So what's left is a hierarchy of complacency installed from ownership to management based solely on sticking around versus the merit of your abilities. It can even be compounded by those in charge identifying those with ambition and allowing the culture to beat it out of them, or not allowing them to rise. I've been told in my career that there were promotions I didn't receive for fear that I would bolster my resume to further a possible exit. My reaction was simple, if you don't allow me to climb the ladder here then I'll have no choice but to find somewhere that allows my ambition to continue. What's worse is it harms the company. Instead of putting the best people in charge to improve they are held back and what they would have been in charge of continues with no, or worse, leadership.

This where the notion of loyalty often rears its head. There should be some level of loyalty to the employer for doing just that, employing you. However, call it a new age way of thinking, but that's just not how it is. The employee and employer have entered into a partnership, mutually beneficial, and as long as both needs are met then the partnership continues, work for compensation. As well, loyalty is something that goes both ways. I, as an employee, will strive to do my work to the best of my ability and strive to go above and beyond, and the employer will move those deserving up. However, if I'm told that I won't receive a promotion I'm qualified for simply because it could mean I advance beyond that place, well the loyalty has been broken. That's capitalism, people in the workplace striving through work to better themselves and their situations.

What that loyalty actually means in this situation is control. The employer wants control of what their work force can do, yet again suppressing ambition, and the ability to make more money. Perhaps there is a conflict of interests, but the way I've regularly seen it is frustration over employees pursuing opportunities outside of the work place they don't feel like are being met. Instead, the employer is driving out its best employees under the notion they have final say instead of working with them and putting that ambition to use to better their company.

None of it, none of the language under the guise of business terms, can cover up the masking of shortcomings. There is fear to not only be unable to replace talent, but fear of actually having employees who want to challenge the way things are in the name of improvement. Progress cannot be made without a little conflict. If everyone thought the same way then progress stops. Those who surround themselves with yes people will likely fail. The smart ones surround themselves with people who tell them how it is and are better in areas they are not to help with their weaknesses.

By going for stability instead of talent you start a chain reaction that diminishes standing of your company and what it can do. Maybe the company will get lucky and hire someone early in their career with ambition, but with the culture set it will only be a matter of time before they drive them out for bigger and better and thus the chain will continue. And to be clear, it's not a temper tantrum to say give me this or I leave, but instead the implication of the American Dream to improve yourself through your work. If you're valuable the company will do what it can to keep you, if not then they open the door for you to pursue your worth.

In the football sense this is what Bill Belichick is doing. On top of that he is putting another mark in the column that Tom Brady was more responsible for the success of the dynasty, if he can't pull it off. His drafting has already come under criticism and he stands to put more onus on himself with the 'staff' he has built because if it doesn't work it is a mark against his decision making yet again.