In the best of all possible worlds, you’d have a team comprised of star players working within a superior system. You’d win Super Bowls, collect industry accolades and generally kick every potential competitor to the curb.
If only it were that easy.
But the conversations that circle this balancing act are fascinating and I’d like to share one with you that took place, like all modern day conversations, at the virtual agora of Twitter. Tom Peters, author of In Search of Excellence, the eminence gris of management thinkers, along with Mike Myatt and Whack on the Side of the Head bodhisattva Roger van Oech chimed in on a conversation on Thursday of last week that hit home on the interplay between stars and systems. I won’t be able to capture every twist and turn of this non-linear conversation, but here are a few interesting themes worth exploring.
First off, let me lay out my own bias. I believe that good systems will beat star-studded teams many more times than not, in both sports as well as business. Yes, you can come up with examples of stars beating systems and so can I. My point is a bit deeper than anecdotes, though.
Is it the players or the coaching? The stars or the system?
Tom’s tweet put the ball in play.
@Tom_Peters : If I said “Players most important element of football team,” you’d say I’m idiot: “Duh.” So why many biz people treat “people 1st” as news? 9:44 AM Aug 5th
@Tom_Peters : In football (etc) the “HR guy” is called GM/General Manager-most important guy in org. So why is HR boss in biz usually marginal? 9:47 AM Aug 5th
I follow Tom. I like what he has to say and respect where he’s been. Two tweets on management by way of football metaphor and I was sucked in. And being a Redskin fan, I had to share my pain. But the idea that football – or business in general – is simply a case of hiring the best people and letting them do their thing ran counter to my experiences over the past 20+ years.
Systems beat stars.
I’d rather have a world-beating system in place and teach my people to run my offense than be saddled with stars in the absence of an over-arching vision and framework. If I had to choose, that’s what I’d choose.
If you’re even loosely familiar with the Washington Redskins, you know that over the past decade, they’ve spend more money than the federal government on high priced free agents and seen less production out of them than, well, the federal government. With a few short years of Gibbs 2.0, they’ve consistently lacked a system.
I won’t hit every back and forth here, because the discussion went on for quite a while and had many participants on both sides. Suffice it to say, we didn’t end up disagreeing.
Yes, it’s best to have both systems and stars. Nice work if you can get it.
I hate absolutes as much as the next guy. I loathe the Twitter back and forths that aim for an absolute, black & white view of the world. But I care about this subject and have a definite attitude about the impact of the right systems on the people you’ve got.
This, to me, is a bloody important point. I can create a system and install it in an organization. It might be a “facts not feelings” decision making culture, a framework that dictates how marketing and sales will work together, a marketing calendar that stretches over the horizon and a sales process that takes a top-down, macro-to-micro view of the category and key account.
It might be something completely different, too.
But it’s a system that defines how we go to market and what defines “our way of doing things,” and it not only makes us professional, it makes us better than the other guys.
From Tom: IN USA, Patriots football coach Belichick has great system-but would not be on top without top talent to exploit it. 1,281,027,509,000.00 via web
If you’re an American football fan, which clearly I am, the reference to the New England Patriots’ coach, Bill Belichick is a good one. I’ve always considered the Patriots to be a team that was system first and stars a distant second. They happen to have stars – on offense – but their defense is relatively star-free. It’s the system.
Yes, I’ll have one of everything – with an extra side of teamwork.
Tom’s point about college coach Bo Schembechler brought up a different angle which added an important element to the otherwise “systems versus stars” wrestling match: namely, the role of teamwork and cohesion.
From Tom: @Note_to_CMO Consider “Bo” Schembechler. Won, as he said, with “just” “good” players-BUT chose for CHARACTER. “Good w “character” = great. 1,281,028,296,000.00 via web in reply to Note_to_CMO
I think we ended up on the same side of the field at the end of the discussion. Systems and players both matter a lot in any enterprise.
“Their drills were bloodless battles, their battles bloody drills.”
Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian writing of the legions under Vespasian, describes the apex of organizational behavior.
A training regimen so closely mirroring actual performance that each becomes interchangeable with the other. One prepares the practitioner for the other in an iterative, seamless manner. When the time comes for action, no unnecessary thought is required. The doer need do no more than do what he or she has done countless times before. Muscle memory takes over and the enemy falls, one after the other.
I’ve worked for a Legion before, just once. The Consumer products division at Sony Recording Media in the early to mid-1990’s embodied what Josephus described above, taking a commodity product – where a 10% price decrease drove incremental sell-through upwards of 1,800% (yes, that’s what I said) – and creating a consumer branded franchise where both end users and retailers picked us over our competitors.
We worked within a “facts not feelings” culture, led with unarguable industry data synthesized from syndicated sources and combined this with proprietary consumer insights that drove the big decisions. We had planning down to an art form and brought more creativity to the category than all of our competitors combined. And it showed up in our share numbers.
When a major competitor with 16% share abandoned the category, we laid out a plan to do more than just capture “our fair share” of this significant slice: we set out to take all of it.
We put our plans together based on all of the points above, discussed space management and category captaincy, promotional calendars to drive key merchandising dates and presented everything that we were compared to our competition.
And yes, we did get our fair share of it – which happened to be all of it. We ended up #1 in the category with twice the share of our nearest #2 competitor in a pure commodity business.
What made this work for us was that we had a tremendously strong system in place – the sort that wins Super Bowls, if we revert back to our football metaphor – and yes, we had strong performers in key positions. What was also apparent was that we had great chemistry – the character part, the teamwork element that Tom ascribed to the Schembechler philosophy, steeped in practice and discipline.
All the elements of this far-ranging conversation with some of the most respected names in management were there in my own history. And while I’ll lean on systems as my first “need to have,” I’ll readily acknowledge that having the right high performers on board working not only within that system but working well together made all the difference.
Many thanks to Tom Peters, Mike Myatt, Roger van Oech, Mike Wagner and everyone else who chimed in!