This may seem a bit dated given all that has gone on in sports the last week. I want to take you back to the announcement of the new inductee to the Baseball Hall of Fame. As you may recall, the very good Andre Dawson made it in the regular voting.
I am a passionate baseball fan so bear with me while I make the argument that Andre Dawson is not deserving of the Hall. I believe that the Hall of Fame is for the exceptional, not the very good. I have watched baseball for 45 years and have seen some very good players. I have also seen or watched on TV a handful of exceptional players. Let me recount them in alphabetical order: Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Johnny Bench, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Lou Brock, Rod Carew, Roberto Clemente, Steve Carlton, Bob Gibson, Tony Gwynn, Catfish Hunter, Al Kaline, Sandy Koufax, Reggie Jackson, Mickey Mantle, Juan Marichal, Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Paul Molitor, Joe Morgan, Eddie Murray, Jim Palmer, Tony Perez, Cal Ripken, Jr., Frank Robinson, Nolan Ryan, Mike Schmidt, Tom Seaver, Ozzie Smith, Willie Stargell, Carl Yastrzemski, and Robin Yount. This list is based on the best players I have seen in my lifetime. In 45 years, I believe there are 33 outstanding baseball players. A very elite list. Since 1970, 178 men have been elected to the Hall of Fame. Is it possible there's some dilution going on?
So what's the big deal. Here it is-as you add men who are good, they become the model and base for the future Hall of Fame voting. In the past, there were certain targets that if met, brought you into the Hall. Offensively, if you had more that 3,000 hit or over 500 home runs you were a lock. Pitchers who won 300 games also got in. These are automatic entries because it is so difficult to do. Unfortunately, a player like Andre Dawson doesn't match up. He had a .279 batting average, 438 home runs and 1,591 runs batted in. Now, the next guy who has similar numbers will have to be considered. Again, Dawson was a very, very good player but not exceptional. The Hall will continue to dilute and the exceptional will be crowded out by the very good.
How about your organization? Ever had to hire someone in a hurry to fill a position? You allow someone in your organization that "can do the job" but is not perfect for the job. You should only be hiring exceptional people. Once you dilute the hiring, all others interviewed are compared to the very good (or worse). What will eventually happen to your organization? It will move toward mediocrity rather than excellence. This will require more time supervising, mentoring, cajoling, documenting and ultimately firing. Not very productive from my standpoint.
Keep your standards high. Perform at your best and expect the same of others. It's a slippery slope once you go down the path of settling for less than the best.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think there is a flaw in your analogy. You've named 33 exceptional players. Some, I have noticed were exceptional INDIVIDUAL contributors, but how many were part of teams that achieved sustained success? And how many were stars from the beginning and did not benefit from the mentoring of an excellent coach? I could not agree with you more about hiring the best. But, as a hiring manager, I have learned that a mix of stars and journeymen is the right combination. If you define "best" as including the ability to improve a team so that all team members improve also, then I am with you.
ReplyDeleteTurbo91-you make good points and I agree with them. My point is if you lower the standards in your hiring (or any endeavor), you will ultimately dilute the organization. Thanks for the comment!
ReplyDelete