In this year’s NFL draft, the Seahawks had a decision to make with pick number 5. They badly needed to upgrade their defensive line–and the most talented defensive linemen, Jalen Carter (and some argued the most talented player in the draft regardless of position) was available. However, Carter had a lot of red flags relating to his commitment to the game and legal issues, among other things. A cornerback, Devon Witherspoon, who Pete Carroll said was a rare talent and compared his instincts and understanding to Troy Polamalu, was also available. Additionally, Witherspoon checked off all the boxes in other areas. But cornerback wasn’t a position of need. The Hawks chose Witherspoon.
I agree with this decision, even if Carter turns out to a great player and Witherspoon does not. To me, the rationale behind the decision is sound, and this is what I care about and focus on. Results matter. If Carter is great and Witherspoon is not, that has serious ramifications for the Seahawks. But the team can’t control the results, not completely. They have more control over their decision making–and the process they rely on for making decisions (which includes the way the gather and analyze information). I believe process is more important not only because one has the most control, but if the process is good, that increases the likelihood for good results.
This not only applies to the NFL, but almost anything. (I wonder what it doesn’t apply to.) Here are some other examples:
- Foreign policy. Political leaders do not have crystal balls. They can only make decisions based on the available information, which is almost never complete. In my view, they should not be judged so much on the results, but the way they made their decision. Did they make a sound decision based on what they knew at the time? Did they know what they should have known?
- Athletics. The USA volleyball sports psychologist advocates that players should focus on maintaining the proper mindset, rather than the results of their action. She explains that results tend to influence a players’ mindset. For example, if a player blocks a ball, they feel confident and optimistic, but if the player is blocked, they feel the opposite. She advocates that players should exert greater control over their mental state, instead of letting external events determine it. If a player can do this, this will increase the chances of good results. For example, a player can focus on being aggressive versus fearful. The player can also focus on specific actions (e.g., hitting the ball in front of them, not above), while paying less attention to the actual results.
Perhaps this approach seems too extreme. As I said the results matter–and sometimes they matter a lot. In foreign policy, a sound decision can lead to catastrophic results for many people. But people have more control over the decisions they make versus the actual outcomes. To get the desired results, we should focus on what we have the most control over and make sure we get that right.
The stakes for an NFL team in the draft are different from the stakes for a federal government in a possible war. If the Seahawks are wrong, they lose a bunch of games but still make money. The coaching staff’s purpose is the game itself; the ownership’s purpose is the business. These are two very different things, so a loss in one realm can still be a win in another, and these things have to be considered. You can play to win or you can play not to lose, and depending on whose office you’re sitting in, you can be pleased with the results either way.
When it comes to the possibility of war and the loss of human lives, erring on the side of caution seems much more prudent, which means you have to make decisions not to be wrong. I’m saying winning matters, but no losing matters more.
Anyway, with the Seahawks example you provide, I agree with your position, but I also wouldn’t have a problem with taking the other guy. The Raiders were the winningest team in NFL history signing red-flag guys for most of three decades, and as John Madden pointed out several times, they stopped being red-flag guys once they were Raiders. Winning can solve a lot of supposed off-field issues.
There’s several ways I could respond to this:
1. Isn’t reasonable to just assume that an NFL team’s primary goal is to win–that winning is closely aligned to profits?
2. Certain segments in a society will benefit from going to war. Suppose war had a net positive economic effect. We’d assume that wouldn’t outweigh the costs of human lives, right?
Just to be clear, are you equating winning in sports with winning in war? I wouldn’t thinking of winning a war as an objective for foreign policy. The goal of foreign policy is to do what’s best for the nation’s interests.
I also don’t think erring on the side of caution is a principle that really makes foreign policy significantly easier. The U.S. and its allies allowed Putin to invade Georgia and Ukraine, allowing Putin to occupy Crimea. I suspect part or a lot of this was not to provoke Putin. (Obama also wouldn’t agree to send weapons to Ukraine, if I’m not mistaken.) We could make a strong case that this emboldened Putin and eventually lead to the larger scale invasion of Ukraine.
I think it’s still not clear which policy was the best, but I think one could make a case that being cautious (i.e., staying out of the fray) can also have significant drawbacks.
I suppose, but there’s also the Troma Team approach. If you spend very little money and make the minimum a team can make, you still make money. The Athletics are 12-46 as I type this and they have the lowest payroll in the Majors. The team owners are still projected to make 25 million bucks this season.
Besides. As is documented every season, many head coaches need to win THIS season in order to keep their jobs. A GM might care less about winning this season or next if there’s the possibility of a dynasty in three years or so.
Right. This is my point. If the cost is human life at the expense of some process, I’m not on board. I’m saying that some adherence to the process must be balanced with the severity of potential consequences. Nobody’s going to die if the Seahawks stick to their process or don’t stick to their process.
Absolutely not. The application of process over product to international relations was your example. I’m pushing back to say it’s not that simple when we’re talking about death and war. It’s not that simple in the draft room either, but at least you can be wrong without people dying.
It makes it significantly more difficult. Our countrymen and countrywomen were stuck in Iran for 444 days because we don’t negotiate with terrorists. That can’t have been easy for anyone to let happen.
Something seems wrong here. What alternative does one have besides creating and following a good process to make the best decision possible? The fact that one would be willing to take a higher risk because the consequences are not so severe seems tantamount to a bad process. Essentially, the individual would be willing to compromise or eschew a good process–for higher rewards, for example–simply because the consequences aren’t so severe. This sounds like an example of a bad process. What am I missing?
What did I say to make you think I believe the following a good process is simple? I don’t think that.
In this post I’m trying to make two points:
1. We should judge decision-makers by the process they used to arrive at a decision, more than the results–because the former is something they have the most control over;
2. Individuals should spend all their time and energy on getting the process for decision-making right, and not worry about the results–for similar reasons as #1.
The approach doesn’t make decision-making any easier. It doesn’t guarantee the good results, either. But I think both maximized the probability for good decisions and good results.
Do you agree with that?