Anytime underdogs, perceived to be lacking in the talent necessary to achieve championship-level performance, win it all, it begs the question, what on earth enabled that outcome?
The theatre of sports can be a dramatic window through which to observe behaviors that produce winners. Basking in the glow of an improbable SF Giants victory that few predicted, let’s reflect upon some of the key factors that combined to produce a winning formula… and ask ourselves, as business leaders, what can we learn from this World Series upset.
1. Team First: if we compiled a video of post-game Giant interviews, you would be overwhelmed by the number of “stars of the game” who answered the interviewers’
post game questions by addressing the performances of others on their team rather than their own. They simply checked their egos at the clubhouse door. This
was a group that understood that no one person (think Barry Bonds) was the whole ball club, and they were going to win as a team or go home as individuals. Not
unlike the code of conduct of troops at war, they had each other’s backs, and trusted others to pick up the slack if their own performances were sub-optimal.
2. Performance based: big salaried stars like Barry Zito didn’t make it into post season play because their performance leading into the playoffs did not justify their
presence on the field. The GM and field manager were honest, as well as empathetic, when it came to addressing those difficult personnel choices, and the players,
including those who were sitting, honored those decisions, and remained supportive of the team and its management.
3. Dynamic: today in sports and in business you need to be able to iterate and evolve dynamically to adjust to the needs of your organization, your competitive
environment. Only one player that started in the field for the Giants on opening day was in the World Series line up. The series of moves and decisions that led to
the final roster was a study in talent acquisition and development.
4. Diversity: From old and discarded players, to young and inexperienced rookies, from homegrown talent to Columbian and Puerto Rican immigrants, from a former
world champion to a man who endured years of obscurity in the minors, this team was as patchwork as patchwork could be. The fact that they weren’t clones of
one another, that they had a mixture of youth and experience, baldies and beards, hippies and crew cuts, demonstrated that you don’t look for a single type, you
look for many types to make a great team.
5. Decisive management: Management gets paid to make tough decisions and stick by them. They might not always be right, but they play it as they see it, they
strive for fairness, appreciate the contributions of those that got them there, put performance first, and directly communicate those decisions to those individuals
impacted. How much complaining did you see out of former Giant starters who sat the bench or didn’t make the roster? Something tells you the players respected
management’s thoughtful decisions enough to support their manager and team before defending themselves.
6. Development: the core talent in the organization was homegrown, drafted in their teens, developed in the minors, and professionally tutored in the big leagues.
Without that talent acquisition and development system, the Giants would not have had a chance to compete at this level. They then filled critical holes around
that core group very strategically. The combination of inside and outside, development and acquisition was brilliant devised and executed.
7. Shared Vision: to a man, there was not a single person in that organization that believed in anything less than the ultimate goal… a World Series ring… nothing short
of that was considered a victory. To a man they thought they could beat the unbeatable in Cliff Lee. To a man, they thought they could shut down the Texas
offense that had so easily wiped out the Yankees. Just goes to show you when you aim high, you achieve beyond anyone’s expectations.
8. Vulnerability and Will: finally, this group coined the word “torture” to describe their brand of baseball. That was humble acknowledgement that this would never be
easy… that they were imperfect in many ways and that they were going to experience the school of hard knocks. It was their acceptance of that fact which
enabled them to remain confident in the low moments. And it was their collective will that drove them to overcome those imperfections in such a glorious way.
If you had your choice between a group of highly talented execs who did not team well together versus a group of overachievers who did act as a team, which would you choose?
I think the Giants just answered that question. What do you think?
