Avoiding Unhappy Endings

It's always nice to get invitations, especially when someone calls and says you'd be a great addition to their team.  In my experience, pretty much no one thinks their job is perfect, even when they get good pay or enjoy a solid reputation and can boast a healthy tenure.  There's always the question about the future - Could I make more in a new job?  Where is my present job going?  Everyone says you should have options, so what are my options?

So anyway, I love my job and the people I work with.  I like the drive to work, I like the pay and benefits and the industry is growing.   But there have been changes at my company and like anyone else, I believe I have to consider options if and when they become available.  So I was happy when I received not one, but two inquiries from recruiters on companies they said would be happy to have me.   I had pleasant conversations with each of the recruiters, and phone interviews were scheduled.  I sent my most recent resume to both, and then did some homework to learn about both companies. 

You may have read articles about how businesses use social media and the Internet to learn details about the people who apply for jobs.  It happens that the same tools are available for ordinary people, to find out about the companies they are considering for application.   For example, I was interested in the growth potential at each company, both for my role and also for the company health in each case - there would be no purpose in taking a job at a company which folds or needs to lay off employees a couple years later.   Also, there are a number of web sites which offer employee reviews of their jobs at companies, covering things like salaries, job satisfaction, company officers, Glassdoor.com and Indeed.com are two very convenient examples.  Search engines can also provide information in changes in ownership or leadership, lawsuits, new products and other important events in the company history or plans.   


In the course of doing my homework, I learned that both of the companies were relatively new businesses; that is, they were part of larger, established companies but were starting new projects that had a certain amount of risk.  Employees from both companies expressed doubt about their employers’ business plan and leadership, and morale at both companies was low, as grievances apparently had been ignored by senior leadership, either because they were unaware of the concerns or because they do not consider employee satisfaction a high priority.  In both companies a majority of employees answering surveys said there was no sense that a career path was viable for them.  

These discoveries created problems for me.  I find it unwise to take any claim at face value, and I am aware that people are more likely to complain than to praise a large company/employer.  But when making a career decision, I realized that only two offers could be seriously considered – one with significantly better long-term career prospects, or one with considerably better immediate pay and title.  Since both of the offers were for essentially the same rank/role with only marginally better pay, and in both cases the drive to work would be much longer, with computer systems different from the SAP I know and proprietary system I work with now, the results of my personal risk/benefit analysis dictated staying at my current position.

After reviewing and checking my work and results, I contacted both companies and declined the offers.   In both cases the recruiter was very courteous and professional, which is one reason I have not identified the companies; someone else in a different place in life may find their decision different for very good reasons.  But I do believe that my decision examined and weighed valid risk factors, both in staying at my current job and in taking a role at a different company.  I wrote this article in hopes you may find it helpful in some of your own career decisions.

Good luck.   

    

If you are considering whether to pursue a Masters degree in Business Administration, I have bad news for you. You have a lot of choices to make. First, you need to examine your personal career path, and decide whether pursuing an MBA makes sense for you. Your education is just one set of tools you use in building your career, and an MBA is not necessarily going to be the right choice to get you where you want to be. You have to know what you want to do, and to understand how the MBA will help you accomplish that goal. Sometimes other degrees will serve better. In my case, as an example, I went back to school after years of work, because I realized that my career needed the specific credentials an MBA could offer, and I also needed to add specific courses to improve the breadth of my skill set. I obtained an MBA with a concentration in Accounting, because my work in Credit would gain from that specific degree. A colleague of mine with similar experience chose to pursue a Master's degree in Accounting, because he planned to earn a CPA License and work as an Accounting department manager. For him, the needs were different so the degree to pursue was different. The first lesson is to understand that the MBA will not change you, it can only add to your tool kit of credentials and highlight what you can do for an employer. An MBA is focused on management, and should be obtained only if your career path is in management. I should note that an MBA is not necessarily ideal for an executive; many CEOs never earn an MBA because they don't need it at the top of a company. Many department heads need degrees in their field, but not an MBA, per se. Then again, many professionals use the MBA they earn to build a broader skill set, and to maximize the development of their professional network - to build their brand, as is popular to say today. An MBA is a tool, which if used properly, can help a professional reach their full potential. The first step is deciding what tools you need, and in this case whether an MBA is worth the work and cost it takes to earn the degree.

Let's say you are sure you want to pursue an MBA. Fine, how do you choose the right program? Again, it comes back to what you need. There are literally thousands of MBA programs available right now, just in the United States. But there are certain standards you should consider, and you should also look for attributes to a program which will be of value to you. First off,I strongly advise considering only schools which are AACSB-accredited. The AACSB is the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, and it is the premier international organization for business schools. Every major business school is included, 711 are accredited as of this year, and they include every valid concentration for an MBA that exists. Earning an MBA will take money, time, and a lot of work, so you want to protect your investment by making sure your school meets that standard.

Next, you'll want to think about your concentration. Again, going back to my own career as an example, I spent eleven years in Operations Management, then worked as an auditor for a Healthcare company for five years, then five years in Credit management before deciding I needed to earn an advanced degree to get where I wanted in my career. I also wanted to gain better tools in Accounting, so I pursued an MBA with a concentration in Accounting. That meant I needed to find the best school that could meet that combination, and since I was still working it had to offer a flexible schedule and be close to home.

Choosing a school next depends on your ideal job. There are schools with internationally famous names, like Harvard or Wharton or Stanford. Those schools have three main disadvantages, however. First, they are extremely expensive, often costing several hundred thousands of dollars. Second, they are difficult to get into as MBA candidates. And third, most high-profile schools are reluctant to change their programs when innovation and evolution are available. They forget the ideas and environment that changed the reasons why those schools became the leaders. Smaller and newer schools are not automatically good, but if you pay close attention, you can observe the ones developing programs which are ready for the 21st Century, and which ones may offer tools unavailable from the 'premier' schools. Online classes, for example, utilize virtual team-building and multiple culture collaboration, while city-affiliated universities are bringing local business owners and leaders in to address classes, offering timely and first-hand management experience. The key is considering what you want from your MBA program, then exploring to find the right schools by location, price, concentration, and reputation in your chosen field.

You can find information on MBA programs via the web. Once you know the criteria that matters to you, simply search by that criteria and then review what you learn. Again using my own career as an example, I was returning to school after a significant time working, so rather than seeking an MBA which would get me a junior management position, where a prestigious school gives a young professional a chance at the fast track, I needed a degree which would expand my skill set a bit and underscore my experience. Since I was working full-time I needed to be able to take courses on a flexible schedule, and I did not want to incur heavy debt, I determined that the University of Houston at Victoria best served my goals. The same year I graduated, I was offered a position which represented a twenty-four percent raise, along with a more significant position than my previous role. My case is anecdotal, yet I would say that my decision was based on experience, serious cost-benefit analysis, and my results bear out the value of the process. .

Are You The ‘Tim Howard’ of Your Company?

I watched an incredible game by USA Goalie Tim Howard in the ‘Knockout Round’ game against Belgium.  A record fifteen saves by Howard kept a lackluster US team in the game into the ‘Extra Time’, when two crucial lapses by his teammates led to Belgian scores and the end of the team’s run in the World Cup.  While Belgium was clearly superior in talent and coaching, Howard’s teammates were sloppy and lazy, causing Howard at times to call out his teammates for stupid mistakes.  Most of the first half was spent on the US side of the field, as if it was asking too much from Howard’s teammates to try to score.  Over and over again, a single Belgian attacker shot through three or four defenders, who stood by and looked around as if they expected someone else to do the hard job of defending their side of the field.  Howard played like a master; most of his team were disgraceful, including his coach.  The US played a total of four games in the World Cup.  They won once, and lost or tied the rest.  The US fell behind Ghana, Portugal, Germany, and Belgium, playing poorly early on in every game.  They came back to lead against Ghana and Portugal, but could only seal the deal in victory once.   The team failed to pass effectively, failed to exploit opportunities, failed to shoot accurately, and failed to learn.  Tim Howard deserved much, much better in effort from the team.

I’m no all-world athlete, but I have been in situations where I essentially carried my team, getting little or no help and watching everyone make excuses if things went bad.  A lot of businesses have people who are very good at covering their butts, but who couldn’t be bothered to hustle or go beyond the routine effort, even when critical results were at stake.  These businesses often have key performers who do most of the work and end up carrying everyone else, for no reward beyond a serious work ethic missing from their colleagues.  If you are one of those people, you know what I’m saying here.  If you are not one of those people, you might need to look around and see who’s doing your work for you, and give them some appreciation and respect.   

Social Media tells us business must change, adapt, and grow, in their relations with employees just as in their business plans and goals.  Many people believe that employers have responsibilities to employees beyond simply paying them the agreed wage and benefits for doing their jobs.  I generally agree that there is a moral component to the employer-employee relationship, but not to the same degree and portion on each side.  A not-unreasonable analogy might be to a nominal family.

In the nominal family, one or both parents take pretty much all responsibility but also hold all authority, while children are allowed privileges and assigned duties according to their age and ability.  A lot of employees won't like it, but employees should not begin their careers at a company with a great deal of power or privilege; it must be earned, even when their role is significant to the company.  This does not mean that seniority makes an employee higher in authority or power, but it does mean that you have to prove yourself, before you should be trusted with power to change the company's direction and priorities.   A lot of new hires seem to believe they need to act boldly and to take charge; in many cases this is not unlike the new teen driver who imagines he will drive just as safely as his much-more-experienced father, leading in many cases to a sharp rise in accidents and traffic citations.  Business strategy should be decided by executives and owners, and employees should focus on carrying out that strategy to the best of their ability.

It's sad to see how many younger employees reject the authority of their superiors.  This only leads to confusion and disruption of the company's mission and message.  I'd suggest that it's better, for the company and for employees, for each of us to focus on our role earned and assigned by the owners and senior management.       

So Who Cleans The Sewers?

I like reading articles on LinkedIn's 'Pulse', but sometimes I wonder whether the authors have really thought through their message. For example, a lot of authors tell people some version of 'do what you love'. Cynical folks, like myself, remind them that a lot of what we like to do does not pay well, if at all. Or to paraphrase my dad's advice, 'they pay you to work because you would not do it for free'. I understand the message, of course. It's great when someone can get paid a good salary to do something they really enjoy or feel is important. But there are a lot of things that need to be done, that are never going to be on anyone's wish list. And yet, those jobs have to be done.

One summer while I was going to college, I worked at Safeway as a 'Courtesy Clerk'. These are employees who carry groceries to your car, stock shelves, clean up messes, and generally go where they are needed to keep things going. The courtesy clerks also had to clean out the dumpster and truck pit behind the store. Safeway, like other grocery store chains, gets product delivered by 18-wheelers which back up to the loading dock. There's a small gap of a few inches from the back of the truck to the back of the loading dock, and usually a ramp between the truck and dock to carry stuff into the warehouse section. Things do get dropped or spilled, however, and they fall into the pit where the inclined ramp ends at the dock. After a while, time and heat cause the stuff to rot, and someone has to go pick it up and throw it away. The smell and feel of rotting vegetables, eggs, milk, and 'no idea what it is' is something nobody wants to encounter, but it's part of the job. Put on a rubber apron and some gloves to go to work. I hated cleaning out the truck pit but never complained; it was just part of the job.

A couple summers before that, I worked in a pet store. Sounds cool, right? Well, as the new guy my job was to clean up all the puppy and kitty poop. I also had to clean the snakes, something I never even thought about when I applied for the job. Again, not the cool experience but it was part of the job.

After college, I became a manager at a cinema. There are nice things about that kind of job, but there was an obscene amount of paperwork, I worked hundred-hour weeks in the summer, and customers sometimes became violently angry over some of the strangest things (I started looking for Rod Serling when a customer threatened to go get his gun if his popcorn wasn't fresh enough the next time he came to the show). But again, all of this was part of the job, and if it wasn't as if I could just ignore the parts that weren't fun.

In my experience, most jobs are like that. They have things that make them worth doing, but there's almost always some parts that are things you just endure or get done. There are also jobs which have essentially nothing to make them enjoyable, but they still have to be done. Someone has to make sure things keep working, stay clean, are safe, and are inspected. No matter how technology advances, no matter what is exalted as Job Satisfaction, as long as there are humans there will be unpleasant tasks and jobs to do, and we owe it to the next generations to be honest that honest work includes the parts we don't do for fun or glory. Some of the most important work you will do won't ever get even a single bullet point on your CV or resume, and some of the work that makes you a person of integrity will be low-paying, difficult and unpleasant. It's also important to respect those whose titles are humble, whose work attire is purely functional, and whose successes are usually ignored by everyone else.

If no one cleaned the sewers, everything else would fail.

The Moral Wage

I try to be a reasonable person.   So when I read all these articles and hear about protests demanding a 'Living Wage', I really do try to be open to their argument.  The problem, of course, is that ever argument I have seen up to now tries to argue two ridiculous contentions; that the minimum wage needs to go up to a certain amount, and two, that people should be paid according to what they want and expect to receive, rather than what their work is worth.  So when considering wages, the question is how to determine a fair value for the work done.


The first point has to be that money must be created to exist.  Work therefore has to produce value for it to be worth paying.  That's the blunder in the concept of minimum wage laws and 'living wage' or 'fair pay' arguments.  The counter to that, in my mind at least, would be that if my employer hires me to show up and do 'x', they must pay me for that work regardless of it's actual value in the market.  This brings me to the subject of contracts.

   
Contracts, my second point, are an agreement between two or more parties.  If you want money from someone, to get it legally and morally you have to reach an agreement with him or her.   In employment terms that means you negotiate your pay and work duties.  You do what you promised and the employer pays what they promised.   If you don't like what they offer, go find someone willing to pay what you think is reasonable.  If you can't find someone willing to pay what you think is reasonable, then you need to go back and reconsider your definition of 'reasonable'.  


I'm not being snide there.  People don't agree on all details, but there is a general sense of reasonable value.  The problem for us working folks, is that we have a much better idea of how hard we work than how much our work creates in real value. My work, for example, does not appear to create revenue, which seems to make it not very valuable.  What I do, however, prevents loss that would otherwise happen, and I can figure out how much I am saving my company by simply looking at how the previous manager did and how much the average company loses to fraud, default, bankruptcy, and general delinquency.  I also use sites like Salary.com to see what the market pays people in the same or similar roles.  I will be blunt here - there are some jobs that have a lot less work than mine but pay better, but there are also jobs that have more work and pay less.  The working conditions are also important to deciding where you work, and for what pay.  All in all, I have enough information to make an informed decision on not only what I consider reasonable, but also what options I have should I wish to change my position. 


By now, it should be obvious that you have to do your homework to know what you can expect to get paid.  I have to warn you, there is no shortage of potential employers who will pay you as little as possible, so you not only have to know what you believe you should get paid for a job, you need to know what skills and experience drive a good wage.


The title of this article, though, is 'The Moral Wage', not 'How to Get a Good Wage'.  There are two reasons why I gave it that title.  First off, if you want to make good money you better be worth it, which means you have to know what is needed for your company to succeed and for you to impress in meaningful ways.  Second, you should be able to see how your boss and employer chooses to set your wage.  In matters of pay, morality and competence have more than a passing acquaintance.  So if your employer is paying you less than scale, or if you examine the market and conclude you can make significantly more than your present wage, you have a choice to make - if you stay where you are, you are accepting the wage you have as reasonable.  If you ask for a raise, you should explain to your employer what you think is reasonable, and why you should be paid the higher rate.  If that fails, you should then explore your options and opportunity.  Note, please, that the moral responsibility is yours, not the employer.  


  

The Wicked Witch of the Mall

I like to read articles at LinkedIn, but sometimes the message sent by the writers may not be what they, or the site, believe they are imparting to the members.  LinkedIn, as you may know, is a web site based on business networking and communication, and to that end the site has what they call ‘Influencers’ – people with one thousand or more ‘followers’ but for all practical purposes these are celebrities, senior executives, and generally people with a rather large amount of money and power and – sadly – egos to match.  I understand that the site would become unwieldy if just anyone could post articles, but the selection of ‘Influencers’ is sometimes unwise, and many of the rich and powerful display arrogance and a callous ignorance of how most regular people live and work to such a degree, that their articles betray an abominably poor ethical knowledge.  A sad example of this type would be Kat Cole, who runs the Cinnabon franchise business, and who – in my opinion – grossly over-estimates both her business acumen and her people skills.  LinkedIn has run a number of ‘Insider’ articles which depict Ms. Cole in an ideal light; one released Friday was written by Ms. Cole herself, and is essentially free advertising:

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140424123846-9155454-cinnabon-s-lessons-in-expertise-and-exploration-can-serve-you-well-in-business-and-in-life

In that article, Ms. Cole describes herself as “a restaurant and franchise executive ... running Cinnabon”.  Let’s start there.  Executives are hired by a board of directors to run and grow a business.  Cinnabon’s web site notes that Ms. Cole was hired as Chief Operations Officer in 2010, following fifteen years working in the ‘Hooters’ restaurant chain, where she started as a waitress.  Ms. Cole has an MBA from Georgia State University.  She became Cinnabon’s President in 2011.

http://www.cinnabon.com/about-us/management.aspx

Now, I have great respect for anyone who can move up through the ranks, but Ms. Cole’s story is a bit thin.   Franchises are run primarily by the managers at each location, and the corporate office licenses the franchises and makes sure they comply with corporate policy, especially regarding branding, marketing, and using approved supplies and product. 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1583975/What-franchising.html

The President of Cinnabon, then, turns out to be just one of fifteen members of senior management at Focus Brands

http://www.focusbrands.com/management

It turns out that Cole’s job at Cinnabon was the same in 2011 and in 2010; she simply got a new title.   It may sound cynical, but the available information of her time at Hooters suggests that Ms. Cole rose through the ranks the same way, by having roles created for her. 

Entrepreneur.com observes that Cole went from waitress to executive VP at Hooters by the time she was 26 years old … without a degree or any relevant management or business experience.  The site also notes that Cinnabon is owned by Focus Brands, an umbrella corporation that does most of the real operations planning and execution.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227970#

Again, nothing wrong with a success story, but we’re not talking here about someone who handled the standard tasks of management, like creating and working under a budget, or meeting performance quotas for revenue growth; we’re talking about someone who knew how to network and schmooze to get promotions.  I don’t mind that so much as I object to Ms. Cole selling herself as an expert in employee development and business management, as she did in an interview with Daniel Roth (also posted at LinkedIn):

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140424121614-29092-how-cinnabon-president-kat-cole-made-it?

Cole takes credit for everything she can, from Cinnabon’s location to promotional partnerships (both are essentially lies – franchises are largely dependant on the franchise buyer and the parent company drives most of the promotional tie-ins, not Cole).

Here’s how Cole describes her resume:

“There's nothing about that on paper that makes me a very attractive business candidate. But I knew from my real world experience that if you gave me a team or gave me a company I am a sure bet to serve them and build a business.”

Confidence is fine.  But there’s nothing in her actual experience to back up that claim.

 Cole goes on

That background has colored how she hires and fires. Ivy Leaguers aren't chased, skills are secondary concerns. "You hire for attitude and culture fit, because you can always train skill," she says.

That bothered me.  It sounds clever, but just who decides what ‘attitude’ or ‘culture’ you use for your standard?  It’s extremely easy for that to be cover for ‘my way or the highway’, as many bosses in the past have decreed. 

I was even more concerned with Cole’s next statement:

 "High performers hate working with mediocre performers," she says. "Not just low performers. Mediocre performers. So you're devaluating your best team players by not addressing people who aren't really cutting it for the brand."

Pay very close attention to that statement, because therein lies a heart of selfish cruelty.  First she believes she speaks for all the ‘high performers’ at her company, and uses that arrogance to announce that anyone but those ‘high performers’ need ‘addressing’, and she clearly implies that firing anyone who isn’t ‘cutting it’ is the best solution.  Not a hint about confirming the cause of performance concerns.  Not a word about working with employees to improve performance, to make standards and expectations clear.  A boss whose first and only thought is to kick out employees who don’t fit her idea of ‘attitude’ or ‘culture’, is a poisonous employer, I think. 

Forgive me for not applauding Ms. Cole. 

Thoughts on the Performance Review Process

One common tradition in the modern workplace is the annual Performance Review.  There are good reasons for a formal, annual record of how an employee performed, but a lot of companies mess this up.  Since I started working for a living full-time in 1983, I have never once received a performance review that was helpful for either the company or for me, in terms of improving either my value as an employee or developing my career.  There are ways to improve the process, which is the purpose of this post.

A lot of companies have a formal procedure for reviewing work.  This protects the company from accusations of discrimination, and gives employers a sense that a fair system is in place for raises, bonuses, and promotion.  The problems, though, include lack of applicable recognition of specific work, the fact that review only once a year is not a good way to track real performance development, and of course the complete lack of a reasonable way to project career development.  Another big problem seems to be that companies don't want to pay a lot in bonuses and raises, so they push hard against written praise for good work.

Three common types of performance review are:

The Rank & Yank - first made infamous by Jack Welch at GE, Managers are told by executives to rank their staff first to worst, then turn those findings into their bosses.  The company then uses that information to get rid of employees they decide are 'low performers'.  This is cruel, and even Mister Welch later admitted it was a mistake and a bad idea, not least because this kind of process kills morale, and focuses on getting rid of staff rather than rewarding hard work.   But it's still common for companies to use this practice, especially if they worry about having to lay off staff.

The Unanimous Average - this one showed up the most in my career.  Companies make a big deal about reviews but it seems HR hates to actually reward good work.  So, they have come up with a nasty way to cheat success while making it look like they are being fair.   At a former position, the HR people explained to managers that we could rate employees on a scale of 1 to 5, where the middle was meant to reflect average.  The trick is, to get a rating in any work area above average, the employee had to demonstrate that they regularly exceeded the average or expected level of performance all year long in that area.  And just in case an employee did accomplish consistently superior results in their work, the review covered a wide range of areas, with the same requirement applied to each area.  And if an employee was clearly superior in their responsibility, the other area ratings diluted the effect to deny them an overall rating above average.  And just in case an employee managed to be consistently superior in all aspects of their work, HR makes sure managers are told that no less than 75 percent of employees must be ranked in the 'average' category.  Considering that managers are also encouraged to note anyone falling below the average standard, this system exists to push gardes toward the middle, regardless of how well someone actually does in their job.

The Apathetic Boss - People work hard today.  Managers are expected to carve out time to review their employees' peformance according to an often-bureaucratic system, while still devoting full focus on their own work duties.  If the manager has not been keeping track of performance all year long, when the time comes for the annual review the manager is often overwhelmed by the new burden, and many of them simply pull out the previous year's review, make a few changes and turn that in as the new report.

Now, it's easy to complain, but it's important to consider how we can do this properly, to reward good work, to identify opportunities for improvement and to accurately reflect individual accomplishments in a way that is consistent with group or team performance.  I learned a lot from my bosses over the years, good bosses and bad, an one thing I realized early on is that no manager is independent from his team.  So I made sure to speak regularly with my people, daily and weekly, making sure they knew I noticed good work and had suggestions on how to fix mistakes or improve poor results.  So I found that monthly meetings of about ten minutes with each employee, and the notes from those meetings - combined with a semi-annual review to summarize where they were at the halfway point - gave me a way to keep detailed results to support my annual review, and to not surprise anybody.  This has worked for me at every place I worked, because with very few exceptions, people want their good work to be noticed, and when they are having trouble they expect their boss to have ideas on how to improve, not stand around harshly condemning employees with no interest on helping them, which is rather what a manager ought to do for his people.

So, in summary, here are my suggestions to improve performance reviews:



[]  Speak with your people everyday, send written updates by email at least twice a month, noting both wins and areas for improvement;

[]  Make sure your team knows the key performance indicators - what does the employer say is most important, and how you will document success in those areas;

[]  Plan your meetings in advance, so you won't be distracted.  Remember these meetings are about both how the employee is doing, and how the employee feels about his job and the team;

[]  Fight for yor people's ratings.   HR can be grossly unfair to rewarding success, but if your company does not reward success, your best people will leave for companies that seem to offer that recognition.  Also, your team will respect you for following through on your commitment to your team.   You don't need to get angry with your boss, but make sure you document specifics on how your people went above and beyond, how their work mkes money or saves money for the company, and how your team adds real value to the company.

Thanks and good luck.

FBS 2013: The Drummond Rankings

Anyone familiar with college football knows there has never yet been an actual national championship worthy of the name.  Up to now, three general systems have been used, all with serious flaws.  Originally, football teams competed in their regions and there was no real consensus about who was best at the end of the year.  The bowls set up alignments by conference and the press polls named their favorite as champion, but this was always unofficial, since in many years the acknowledged contenders never played each other. At every other level, from pee wee football through the NFL, a playoff determines the champion, but for reasons of greed and arrogance the NCAA refused to set up a valid for Division I-A, later called the FBS, teams.   Instead, a corrupt system called the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was imposed, which was no ‘series’ at all, since two hand-picked teams got to play for the championship according to a subjective system which seemed to favor large state schools, and every other team was left out, regardless of how well they played.  The new ‘playoff’ proposed to begin next year is simply that same corruption extended to a four-team clique, as evidenced by the total lack of published criteria about how a team qualifies for the playoff – a committee with no published qualification criteria will announce the four teams on whatever basis they liked, including sheer favoritism.  The new system is no better than the old, and deserves no support from the fans, whose demand for a legitimate playoff system has been long, clear, and yet ignored by the NCAA.

As I wrote before, every other level of football, from the beginners to the professional leagues, uses a playoff system and has clear metrics on just how a team qualifies.  Ultimately, every valid system is simple in its construction, and two elements decide the teams – record, and opponents’ record (or Strength of Schedule).  I have no official standing with the NCAA, but back in 1980 I sent DeLoss Dodds (who was the NCAA’s point of contact for the playoff debate back then) a simple proposal to use the existing system to have thirty-two teams playoff to decide the championship, using sixteen bowls.  Dodds sent back a form letter which basically ignored the idea, which has been the NCAA’s consistent and contemptible treatment of their responsibility for decades.  I recognize now that there are reasons to limit a playoff (mostly due to the costs and difficulty for fans to attend five weeks of games away from their hometown.  At the least, however, an eight-team system can be established, perhaps sixteen if the first round follows the FCS model and allows the higher-ranked teams to play at home early on.  The key point is finding an equitable way to rank the teams for qualification and standing.  And I believe the system I created in 1980 is still the most reasonable.

For each of the FBS teams, I use a point system as follows:  award ten points for each win, and take away five points for each loss, regardless of the opponent.  Then add additional points according to wins by teams the FBS team has defeated; for each team the FBS school defeats, award an additional point for each win that team has over an FBS team.  Better record is tie-breaker for teams with same point totals. This system is easy to work, awards points for wins over good teams, and does not reward teams for either easy schedules or losing to teams with good records.

Accordingly, my system applies to the 2013 season and creates the following rankings (with BCS rankings in parentheses):

1. Florida State 13-0, 190 pts  (#1 BCS)
2. Auburn 12-1, 183 pts   (#2 BCS)
3. Ohio State 12-1, 176 pts  (#7 BCS)
4. Stanford 11-2, 169 pts  (#5 BCS)
5. Michigan State 12-1, 163 pts  (#4 BCS)
6. Baylor 11-1, 159 pts  (#6 BCS)
7. Northern Illinois 12-1, 153 pts  (#23 BCS)
8. UCF  11-1, 153 pts  (#15 BCS)
9. Missouri 11-2, 152 pts  (#8 BCS)
10. Alabama 11-1, 151 pts  (#3 BCS)
11. Fresno State 11-1, 149 pts  (#20 BCS)
12. South Carolina 10-2, 143 pts  (#9 BCS)
13. Louisville 11-1, 142 pts  (#18 BCS)
14. Oklahoma State 10-2, 141 pts (#13 BCS)
15. Arizona State 10-3, 141 pts (#14 BCS)
16. Oklahoma 10-2, 139 pts  (#11 BCS)
17. Oregon 10-2, 128 pts  (#10 BCS)
18. Clemson 10-2, 125 pts  (#12 BCS)
19. Duke 10-3, 125 pts  (#24 BCS)
20. Rice 10-3, 124 pts  (BCS unranked)
21. Bowling Green 10-3, 121 pts  (BCS unranked)
22. UCLA 9-3, 114 pts  (#17 BCS)
23. Ball State  10-2, 113 pts  (BCS unranked)
24. USC 9-4, 113 pts  (#25 BCS)
25. LSU 9-3, 111 pts  (#16 BCS)
26. Wisconsin 9-3, 108 pts  (BCS unranked)
27. Miami (Fl) 9-3, 106 pts  (BCS unranked)
28. Notre Dame 8-4, 106 pts  (BCS unranked)
29. BYU 8-4, 104 pts  (BCS unranked)
30. East Carolina 9-3, 101 pts  (BCS unranked)
31. Virginia Tech 8-4, 100 pts  (BCS unranked)
32. Georgia 8-4, 99 pts (#22 BCS)  

   35. Texas A&M 8-4, 96 pts (#21 BCS)

If all we want is to pit #1 vs #2, my system is in agreement with the BCS and the two human polls, and in fact also with the six computer ranking systems the BCS uses for its ranks.  But if we extend to a simple four-team playoff, things change.  BCS darling Alabama gets 3^rd place in their scoring, but based on actual wins and how their opponents did they only rate 10^th place.   My third and fourth teams, Ohio State and Stanford, only get seventh and fifth place in the BCS, in large part because they won early and lost late, while teams which lost early and won late got extra support in the BCS system.  I rolled the numbers all the way thorough #32 to show how the BCS starts to fall apart as we get further along; UCF and Northern Illinois did a better job than the BCS granted them, and there is an increasing disparity between the polls and objective results as we look at teams in the two and three-loss range. 

So how would my system plug in a playoff?  As a compromise to the logistics and the networks, an eight-team playoff is both functionally feasible and worth calling a playoff.  I’d take the, what, thirty-nine existing bowls and re-assign teams according to a simple three-level system of designation:

The top eight teams are in the playoffs.  They play at the top four locations, and each week the top surviving teams stay where they are and host the others.  While some fans won’t be able to afford making up to two additional trips to see their school, the rising interest in a bonafide NCAA FBS playoff will ensure seats get filled; 

The next teams are assigned according to conference and bowl alignment agreements;

The remaining bowls are filled according to bowl preference and team acceptance. 

That would produce the following playoff line-up if we applied it to 2013’s season:

Rose Bowl:  [1] Florida State vs. [8] UCF

Sugar Bowl: [2] Auburn vs. [7] Northern Illinois

Orange Bowl:  [3] Ohio State vs. [6] Baylor

Fiesta Bowl:  [4] Stanford vs. [5] Michigan State

Let’s say FSU beats UCF, Auburn beats N Illinois, Baylor beats OSU, and Michigan St beats Stanford.  That gives the following second-round playoff match-ups:

Rose Bowl:  [1] Florida State vs. [5] Michigan State

Sugar Bowl:  [2] Auburn vs. [6] Baylor

Now let’s say the two games both end up in upsets; Michigan State upsets Florida State and Baylor beats Auburn.  The same two bowls would be used, and the higher-seeded team stays put.  That would give us:

Rose Bowl:  [5] Michigan State vs. [6] Baylor

It’s workable, it’s based on common-sense standards for ranks, and it’s not your canned-product football we’ve choked on for decades.  

College Football, the BCS, and the So-Called Playoff System

I will start this post with a disclosure; I am a Baylor graduate, and therefore regard the BCS with more than a small measure of mistrust.  Having seen how large schools with money and influence have used a great deal of immoral influence to essentially buy championship trophies over the years, I doubt the claims from media and those same self-anointed feudal barons of football that the system works very much at all in a fair and reasonable fashion.  The simple fact that after more than a century of organized football there is no national championship for FBS football built off a playoff system, even though literally every other major sport has a functional playoff system, including the ‘lower’ divisions of football. 

But it’s one thing to be cynical, and another to dive into the deep end without a thought to the process.  We are in the last year of the BCS system for – allegedly – determining the national champion of college football, to be replaced by a skimmed-milk version of a playoff system next year. This post examines elements of both the BCS and the 4-team playoff system starting next year.

So far as I am concerned, college football has never had a true national champion.  There were teams so dominating that they were the champion by consensus, there are schools with trophies in showcases that claim championships, which in truth prove only that school’s ability to manipulate voters and a corrupt system, and there are schools which played well enough to deserve a place in the decision but which were wrongly denied for any number of subjective reasons, such as belonging to the ‘wrong’ conference, not beating the ‘right’ opponents, or some other excuse.   The BCS system was allegedly going to correct this, but in practice the façade quickly failed.  Fans did not accept the BCS as valid, even though in most years the championship placed favorite contenders against one another and produced a credible result. 

The simple fact is that fans demand playoffs for FBS football.  Not some ‘+1’ system or another contrived means to keep fat cats happy, a legitimate playoff where the champion proves themselves on the field against the top contenders.  The BCS simply does not pass the smell test.

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/state-of-the-bcs-survey-fans-decry-bcs-overwhelmingly-call-for-playoff

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4779279

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/11/18/conference.survey/index.html

For this essay, I did some looking into the BCS system, primarily using the official BCS site and a very helpful blog called BCS Know How.

http://bcsfootball.org/

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/

The basics of the BCS are pretty simple; the system uses a formula to determine a 1^st and 2^nd team for BCS rankings, which play each other for the championship.  The problems start with the way those rankings are determined.  The short version of the BCS formula is that two human polls, the USA Today Coaches Poll and the Harris Poll count for two/thirds of the formula, with four selections from six computer polls making up the remaining one/third.  The human polls are the heavy movers.  

The Harris Poll, according to the New York Times, is a “motley group of voters in the poll — which includes former financial consultants, television executives and Internal Revenue Service employees”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/sports/ncaafootball/voters-in-the-harris-poll-take-their-task-seriously.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I’m sure we all are glad to know that one/third of the decision to rank the top college football team have a base of voters who often “have nothing to do with football”.  Particularly troubling about the NYT story is the observation that most Harris Poll voters know only about the teams they see on network TV; if a team is not nationally televised, the voters will not be able to know much at all about them, and will rely on secondary impressions.

The other human poll, the USA Today Coaches Poll, might at first appear to be a more reasonable look at the best teams.  But there’s maggots in the cheerios here, too.  First, the voting panel is just 62 coaches from the American Football Coaches Association; this means that dozens of FBS coaches are denied a vote for purely arbitrary reasons.  But the bias goes far deeper.

A 2011 empirical study by Doctors Michael Strodnick and Scott Wysong determined that coaches tend to favor their own teams and conferences, and were consistently biased in favor of large and traditional schools and against smaller and non-traditional schools.  

http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/upon-further-review-empirical-investigation-voter-bias-coaches-poll-college-football

Essentially, the Harris and Coaches Polls both rely on emotional preference, something not used in NCAA Basketball RPIs or valid playoff systems.

Recognizing this flaw, the BCS committee decided to add the results of six computer polls; the polls from Jeff Anderson & Chris Hester,

http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

Richard Billingsley,

http://www.cfrc.com/

The Colley Matrix,

http://www.colleyrankings.com/currank.html

Kenneth Massey,

http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Peter Wolfe,

http://prwolfe.bol.ucla.edu/cfootball/ratings.htm

and Jeff Sagarin.

http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm

At first these polls may seem very scientific and trustworthy, but problems show up pretty quick.  First, of course, is the point that the computer polls only make up one/third of the BCS score – the subjective human polls are twice as heavy in weight as the computer polls.  Second, the BCS formula rejects the highest and lowest computer ranks, for no valid reason.  The argument might be made that the BCS is trying to eliminate outliers, except that with only six computer polls, rejecting two of the results would mean rejecting fully one/third of the data, comparable to rejecting the votes of 21 coaches or 35 of the Harris Poll voters.  Further, any valid poll methodology eliminates outliers, so again there is no valid reason to reject any of the poll results, unless doing so is a tacit admission that the poll is invalid.  But since selected results from any of the polls are rejected by the BCS process, this indicts the entire poll spectrum.

A closer look at the computer polls reveals reason for concern as well. For example, Massey Wolfe and Sagarin include FCS schools in their rankings but Anderson & Hester, Billingsley and Colley* do not.  This alters the population sample of the various polls, preventing a genuine apples-to-apples comparison.

(* Colley does not list discrete FCS schools in its rankings, but includes ranks for ‘FCS Groups’ without explanation or member identification)

At the express direction of the BCS committee, margin of victory may not be considered in the computer polls.  Pollsters like Sagarin and Massey have shown a polite dissent by releasing not only the official BCS rankings using an ‘approved’ formula, but also a set of rankings using margin as a valid consideration.  Sagarin goes to the point of listing a formula called ‘PREDICTOR’ which include victory margins, and has commented that he considers those rankings more valid in projecting actual game winners.  I understand the desire to eliminate manipulation of a process by dumping points on an opponent, as Alabama did to Baylor in 1979 for example, by using their starts to score 28 points in the fourth quarter to make their win look more impressive.  However, when a team controls the game throughout, pulls its starters in the third quarter and still wins by a crushing margin, that fact is a salient indicator which should be considered.  I found the refusal by the polls to reveal their exact formula/algorithm a bad sign, as this prevents the replication which is a requisite condition of any valid scientific case.  

In 2010, BCS Know How did a series on the computer polls and revealed some specific by each poll:

Anderson & Hester:  Does not consider previous years results.  For SOS counts opponents and opponents of opponents.  Sets a ‘conference strength’ then uses that as a benchmark to set specific SOS.  Ranks according to wins, losses, SOS by formula, wins against poll top 25, losses to poll non-top 25.

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/better-know-a-bcs-computer-anderson-and-hester

Billingsley:  Does consider previous years as a starting point for rankings.  Premium awarded for staying undefeated.  Considers the SIZE of the attendance where the game is being played as a factor in game quality, which is bias in favor of larger schools.

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/better-know-a-bcs-computer-billingsley-report

Colley Matrix:  Based on winning percentage and SOS.  Does not consider previous years in rankings.  Punishes teams for playing ‘weak’ opponents.  

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/better-know-a-bcs-computer-colley-matrix

Kenneth Massey:  Claims to base rankings on ‘equilibrium point for probability model applied to binary (win or loss) outcome of each game’.  That seems to mean you get points for winning when you are not supposed to win, and lose points for losing when you are not supposed to lose.  Previous years are considered, and so is date of the game as well as venue. 

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/better-know-a-bcs-computer-kenneth-massey-ratings

Peter Wolfe:  Eats small children then spits out their bones to find the results.  Well, maybe not, but Dr. Wolfe does not say much at all about how he determines his rankings.   All he will say is that he tries to create a “maximum likelihood estimate” of a team winning a given game.   Wolfe counts results from 730 different schools, by far the broadest population sample, but his limited explanation seems to suggest a modified transitive property theory, mitigated by not counting margin.  He does not say, but the explanations imply that prior years are considered when determining expectations.  Finally, Dr. Wolfe is a professor at UCLA, which may or may not influence his initial assumptions.

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/better-know-a-bcs-computer-peter-wolfe-rankings

Jeff Sagarin:  Counts preseason rankings, ratings compound both opponent records and records of opponents’ opponents.  The preseason ranking factors are removed when the BCS ranks are first released.  Undefeated and single-loss teams gain a premium value, and road wins are considered especially important.

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/better-know-a-bcs-computer-jeff-sagarin-ratings

Now, let’s have a look at the playoff system starting next year.  According to BCS Know How,

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/college-football-playoffs  

The playoffs will use a six-bowl system using three ‘contract’ bowls and three ‘host’ bowls for the abridged playoff system, using four teams.  The highest-ranked champion from five minor conferences (CUSA, Mountain West, Sun Belt, AAC, and MAC) gets one of twelve spots in a system suspiciously similar in appearance to the BCS, with champions from the six major conferences and five ‘at-large’ positions to be determined by a selection committee, which also announces the rankings.   

The selection committee will release a ‘Top 20’ ranking each week beginning in Week 8 of the season, very much like the BCS rankings.  Two semifinal games will be held either Dec. 31 or Jan. 1 of each year, with a championship game the first Monday in January that is at least six days after New Year’s Day. 

The committee will have absolute authority in selecting the four teams in the playoffs, and although they “will be instructed to weigh strength of schedule, win-loss record, head-to-head victories with other teams in contention and whether the team won its own conference“, it’s impossible to know how objective that process will prove to be in practice. 

No information has been released about who will be on the Selection committee, or what criteria will be used to choose the members.

No metric has been announced to determine which teams should be chosen for the playoffs.

No information has been released regarding whether polls will play a role in the playoff team selection, or if so how they could be used.

Job Matching

I’m in an unusual position these days.  On the one side, my wife is looking for work, and on the other I am hiring to fill a position for my company.  First off, no, I can’t give the job to my wife.  The experience does give me some insights into the stress for both job seekers and businesses in the job market. 

Except for a few of us, I’m thinking the top of the class students who get several job offers to choose from, looking for a job is stressful and annoying.  We need a job to pay the bills, we see all kinds of places where we are sure we’d do a really good job, but very few of the places we contact is interested to even offer an interview.  It doesn’t get better with experience, either.  When I was laid off from Reliant Energy in 2009, I didn’t get a job interview for weeks, even though I began applying for open positions immediately and found many for which my skills superbly fit the job requirements and description. I understood the numbers, the factors which drive the traffic of job searches, and I knew the ebb and flow of company interest in applicants.  I knew it would be a lot like fishing, where things you never saw controlled your opportunity and access to the decision-makers, but the emotional burden of slugging through the process with no visible results was heavy for all of that.   In the end, my job search paid off, though I was lucky to apply at the right place at just the right time.  My advice to you job seekers on that count, is that you have to keep trying, so that when the right place and time come together you will be the one who gets that chance.   I can’t say it’s unfair, because as much as it feels unfair to get no response to applications and constant effort, there’s no rule that someone has to answer you.  I am trying to keep my wife’s confidence and hope up, because I understand how she feels, and we both understand that while there will eventually be a resolution, how and when are out of our reach to know right now. 

So now I consider the employer’s point of view.  OK, the job seeker is not all that concerned with how the employer feels.  I think that’s a mistake, though.  While there are bad companies and bad bosses even in good companies sometimes, establishing rapport is important for the job seeker, and it may help to understand that the company, or at least the person doing the hiring, really does want to get the position filled.  The thing is, the employer does not want to just get someone in the spot; they need the right person there or else they will be worse off than they were at first. 

I have an opening to fill.  The position received a fair amount of interest, and I received seventeen applications in less than a week.  I started by trying to contact the applicants by phone - since the job involves a lot of talking with customers by phone, this is a primary skill I can test while screening applicants as well.  Not everyone was available on the first try, but most did answer right away, and there were only two applicants I could not speak to before I reached my decision for the first cut.  So the first thing that jumps out at me, is that if you apply for a job, you’d better have a phone number available which reaches you right away.  Trusting emails or your answering machine may mean you fall behind other candidates before you even know you were considered.

The next point that jumped out at me as I spoke with candidates, is how few of them knew anything about my company.  In an age where so many online tools exist to research companies, anyone applying for a job with a large firm must be able to show they have done their homework.  The fact that anyone applying for the job had to go through the company website means they were only a click away from learning all kinds of things about my company and what it does, how long we’ve been in business, and how we built our brand.  When someone applies for a job that way but admits they don’t know anything about my company when I call, that’s not a good sign. 

On the other hand, a number of candidates set themselves apart early on by the way they answered questions, and their apparent interest, not so much in getting hired as in getting this particular job.  Just as people who apply for jobs are silently praying that the position is not the job from hell, employers are hoping they don’t accidentally hire the employee from hell.  A candidate can do a lot to help themselves by just showing they are comfortable with your company.  

Another suggestion to candidates, is to know your target.  I’m a credit manager, and that means I exchange emails and have phone conversations with a lot of customers.  So anyone working in my group has to be comfortable with talking to customers, and with answering a lot of emails, sometimes very complex ones with lots of attachments and details.  Several of the applicants did not seem to understand the job, even though the website clearly defined the duties and requirements.  A couple spoke in a way that suggested they wanted this job only until they found one more to their liking, which is a bad signal to send when applying to a company for a specific open position. 

The best candidates seemed to be able to understand my position, to figure out what I was looking for then show how they were that person.  This ability not only helps me set them ahead of other candidates, it assures me that communication with that person should not be a problem once they are on the team.  And communication is a huge part of a group’s success.