We all know Billy Beane’s shit doesn’t work in the playoffs, but I think it could work in the business world. Not that I’ve ever been a part of the business world…
When Beane wrote Moneyball (a little Joe Morgan humor here), he outlined a philosophy of leveraging market inefficiences. Ten years ago on-base percentage was a very underrated skill. The A’s took advantage, signing high-OBP players to contracts below true value. Over the years Oakland has also found value in youth, unproven closers, and fielding.
As Malcolm Gladwell discusses in Blink (though he’s hardly the first one to notice it) successful business people tend to fit a stereotype — tall, white, handsome, strong , and male. Other than instilling confidence in employees who hold subconscious preferences for this type of leader, there are no inherent benefits to any of those superficial traits. One can assume that there are many short, black, ugly, fat females out there who can CEO the heck out of many of the people who currently hold high-ranking jobs.
My plan is to hire as many of them as possible. Since they haven’t been given a fair chance to show what they’ve got, I’m sure their salary requirement fall well below what they’re actually worth. My company would florish having an overabundance of over-qualified employees, outperforming and underspending companies who go the traditional route. After a few years others would notice our success, and my strong leaders would be lured away to higher-paying jobs. Of course, I’m smart to realize that letting Jason Giambi walk is part of the plan, and bring in Nick Swisher to start the cycle over again.
Sounds a little like an extreme version of affirmative action, doesn’t it? Except it’s self-initiated and motivated by success, not external law. Hmm, maybe both sides of the AA debate are right — affirmative action is effective and discriminatory. More minorities (especially short, ugly people) should be hired, but because they’re talented workers, not in order to pander to morality.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Share This
Sky is a baseball fan and racket sport afficianado living in upstate NY. His favorite color is orange and is just about ready to give up on his life-long dream to become the next Magnus ver Magnuson (World's Strongest Man). His favorite baseball teams are the Yankees and Red Sox, proving that there's hope in the Middle East.
May 19th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Clever, but in a purely intellectual way. (at least at the CEO level)
The biggest difference here is that hitting a baseball is an entirely objective measurement of skill/talent. You could be a disfigured, 3-fingered freak (did “Three Fingers” Brown really have 3 fingers?), but if you can hit a curveball or a 95 mph slider at a regular clip, you can be successful.
“To CEO”, as you put it, is a much more subjective action that depends much more on how people perceive you. You disregard the fact that “stereotypical” CEOs are selected is because they “[instill] confidence in employees who hold subconscious preferences for this type of leader,” but I would argue that that is a great basis on which to select a CEO. A CEO is the face of the business both internall and externally. You NEED someone who inspires confidence in their employees (not to mention stock holders) and “looking the part” is a huge part of that equation.
Where the “Moneyball” formula may apply is at the lower levels of hiring. To predict entry level employees who will work harder and better. I would hypothesize that college GPA & activities as well as pure aptitude/intelligence are not the best measurements for evaluating future success in business (despite the fact that these are two factors that are probably most prevalent in hiring decisions). I’d look for objective ways to measure loyalty, determination and drive (as evidenced by my contstant posting to this site during work hours, I would not be hired…).
(I would bet that HR departments already do this to some extent…)