Gridiron Leadership

Gridiron Leadership
This page intentionally left blank

GRIDIRON LEADERSHIP
Winning Strategies and Breakthrough Tactics
Evan H. Offstein
Jason M. Morwick
Scott W. Griffith
Foreword by Art Rooney II
PRAEGER
An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC
Copyright 2009 by Evan H. Offstein, Jason M. Morwick, and Scott W. Griffith
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior
permission in writing from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Offstein, Evan H., 1971–
Gridiron leadership / Evan H. Offstein, Jason M. Morwick, and Scott W. Griffith.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-313-37817-1 (hard copy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-313-37818-8 (ebook)
1. Football—United States. 2. Football players—United States—Conduct of life.
3. Leadership. I. Morwick, Jason M., 1972– II. Griffith, Scott W. III. Title.
GV954.O44 2009
796.332092—dc22 2009020505
13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5
This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.
Visit www.abc-clio.com for details.
ABC-CLIO, LLC
130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911
Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911
This book is printed on acid-free paper
Manufactured in the United States of America
Among all of the tributes that can be bestowed upon a person,
the lasting legacy of the printed word in the form of a dedication
is probably most fitting here. In our case, it is to the brother of one
of the authors who recently died of cancer.
It is with great respect that this book is dedicated to Gene Griffith, who
died September 20, 2008, from colorectal cancer at the age of 49. He was a
great friend, a great brother, and a great son. He was also a great competitor
in the game of life and, of course, in the game of football. A person that
didn’t know the word “quit.” A person whose deeds personified the words
“courage, conviction, strength, and honor.” A person that is not remembered
for how he died but how he lived. And although you are gone, my warrior
brother, you will never be forgotten.
CONTENTS
Foreword xi
Art Rooney II
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xix
Introduction: Learning from the Gridiron xxiii
Chapter 1 Inspiration of the Individual 1
The Habit of Losing 2
Aim High! 3
Everyone Is a Guardian 5
Four Downs 7
Contract Negotiations 8
Play It Safe or Go for Two? 10
Protecting the Quarterback 12
Put the Team First 13
Goal Line Stand? 15
Chapter 2 Power Rankings 19

Old School 19
Mix It Up 20
Bottom of the Power Rankings 22
Press 23
Power Surge at the Line 25
On the Shoulders of Greatness 27
vii
viii Contents
The Power of the Network 30

Staying Power 32
Chapter 3 Franchise Players 35

Skilled Position? 35
Quick Reads 37
Line Judge 38
Winning Desire 39
Commit to Stopping the Run 41
Score a Lott 43
Game Face 44
Final Roster Cuts 49
Chapter 4 Big Upset 53

Off the Roster 54
Fantasy Football 56
Under Review 58
Postgame Interview 60
Cleared to Play 61
Beaten Deep 64
Keeping It Simple 66
Chapter 5 Finalize the Roster 73

Culture Clash 76
Ready . . . Set . . . No! 79
Identifying the Starting Lineup 81
Ready and Willing? 83
Flex That Muscle 84
Putting It All Together 87
Chapter 6 The Call on the Field Stands 91
After Further Review . . . 92
Workout Warrior 93
Second Guess the Coach 96
Gridiron Commitment to the Extreme 99
Comeback 102
Contents ix
Spurred to Victory 103

First Play of the Game 107
Kneel 108
Coach’s Call 110
Chapter 7 A Winning Strategy 113
Running the Reverse 116
Look for a Mismatch 119
Game Changer 121
Buddy Ball 122
Halftime Adjustments 124
Use Your Timeout 126
Deep Threat 127
No Huddle Offense 129
Unanswered Points 131
Closing Speed 131
Option Attack 132
Chapter 8 Becoming a Playoff Team 137

A True Patriot 138
T.O. 139
Locker Room Influence 140
Blocking Assignment 141
Signal Caller 143
Special Teams 144
T.O. Revisited 145
Halfback or Fullback? 147
Wildcard 150
No Mistaken Identity 151
Flying High 153
Chapter 9 A Culture of Winning 157
Outside the Lines 158
Buddy Ball Redux 159
Game of Inches 160
Offensive . . . Language 163
x Contents
Helmet Decals 164

Tailgate 167
Gone—But Not Forgotten 169
Out of Bounds 170
Start with the End in Mind 171
Afterword: Postgame Analysis 175

Index 181
FOREWORD
Gridiron Leadership strikes a chord with me. Hard to tease apart, this
book hits home both personally and organizationally. In many ways, it
reads like a recipe book. A recipe book that my grandfather started,
that my dad followed, and that I now work on. It is a recipe book on
how to dream, design, and build great organizations. And in many
ways, the themes spelled out in this book are timeless. In fact, I’d argue
that they’ll forever stand the test of time. Some leadership activities
never go out of style—like building a great roster, setting the example,
demonstrating character and integrity, knowing the competition, or
communicating and caring for your teammates or employees or soldiers.
It’s like Steel. It lasts. And it makes things strong.
Gridiron Leadership also spoke to me regionally. At times, I wasn’t
sure if it was calling me to think more deeply about the Steelers or
more deeply about the region that the Rooney family has embraced
and held dear for about a century. In that vein, this book reflects not
just the very best of the Pittsburgh Steelers, it also calls attention to
the special attributes of the region of western Pennsylvania. Evan, Jay,
and Scott make a compelling case that the same characteristics that
make an organization effective also make a community successful.
Indeed, words like grit, toughness, tenacity, perseverance, teamwork,
and caring have all been used to describe Pittsburgh and the surround-
ing area of Western Pennsylvania. As I turn the pages and reflect on
the attributes of great leadership, I think about the importance of edu-
cation and role modeling. The very essence of Gridiron Leadership I’ve
heard before at places like Duquesne University, which champions a
mission that challenges all students to learn with mind, heart, and spi-
rit, and to build all goals on a strong moral foundation. As I said, this
book speaks to me. And it will speak to you.
xi
xii Foreword
Every now and then a book comes along that grounds us. That
reminds us. Gridiron Leadership is unique because it reminded and rein-
forced for me what true leadership is all about. Evan, Jay, and Scott
also remind us that while football may be entertainment to some, it is
so much more about leadership, discipline, management, and execu-
tion. There’s a great chance that after reading this, you’ll never
approach leadership in the same way. But I’d also argue that you’ll
never see or watch the game of football the same way either. What
most see on Saturday or Sunday afternoons is really the proverbial tip
of the iceberg. The management skills and leadership talent that is
required in the off-season and during the week to achieve a victory on
Sunday is often ignored and sometimes forgotten. Gridiron Leadership
never lets you forget that the victory on Sunday is gained only through
tremendous and exacting leadership skills. And it would be folly to
think otherwise. Great management, great coaches, skilled and talented
players—all working together—produce victories. Much of that game
planning, the strategy, the tactics, and the long-term planning occur
where the media cannot see. Evan, Jay, and Scott offer a credible and
compelling glimpse of how to produce victories.
After reading Gridiron Leadership, you’ll know that football (or any
organizational activity) is much ado about human resource manage-
ment. Recruiting. Hiring. Promoting. Firing. Training. Performance
evaluation. Great organizations can do all of those things better than
their rivals.
The things that I liked best about this book were the chapters on
innovation, strategy, decision-making, and culture building—the build-
ing blocks of a sustainable competitive advantage. Any owner, any
group of fans, any coach wants to win consistently over time. The true
hallmark of a legacy is a body of work in which there are more wins
than losses. We live in a world of short attention spans and of immedi-
ate gratification. Predictably, neither of those attributes will ever
amount to a sustainable competitive advantage. Instead, you need what
Evan, Jay, and Scott prescribe: a spirit of innovation, creativity, and
continual improvement. Strong, consistent, and sophisticated decision-
making. A good strategy, and an even better game plan. More than
anything, though, you need a culture of winning. Better than about
any other book I’ve read, Gridiron Leadership spells out the importance
of creating and fostering high-performance cultures. Even more, the
authors tell you step-by-step how to do it.
This book will not surprise you. And in fact, the lessons that flow
from the text are all lessons that many of us learned directly or indi-
rectly on the football field, baseball diamond, or hard court. What
Foreword xiii
makes it a great read and an effective tool is that it is a testament to

how inextricably linked sports, in general, and football, in particular,
are to leadership. They made the case. And it cannot be argued
against. Sports matter. They develop us.
Lastly, Evan and Jay are both West Point graduates and veterans.
Scott is a decorated law enforcement officer. As I read through Gridiron
Leadership, I got the sense that these men can walk the talk. They’ve
been through the crucible and know how to roll up their sleeves to lead
out front. Endorsing this book with me are also General Raymond Odi-
erno and Sergeant Major of the Army Kenneth Preston. Like great
football coaches, but much more so, these two men know a thing or
two about leading under and during difficult and dangerous situations
and circumstances. Their selfless spirit and thirst to lead is an example
for us all to follow.
So, do as I did and enjoy Gridiron Leadership. You’ll be a better
leader for doing so.
Art Rooney II
President, Pittsburgh Steelers
PREFACE
Every year around the same time, a serious pall sets in. A stupor like
no other. A state of depression so severe that no medication, social
support, or medical intervention can make a dent in our sadness. As is
often the case, misery loves company, so we began to ask around to see
whether other people suffered the same malady that we did at about
the same time every year. We wish we could say that we’re surprised at
what we found, but we weren’t. Using the best scientific and statistical
tools available, we believe that approximately 59 million adults suffer
our melancholy. We’ve heard people take off work, stay indoors, resort
to drink at 8:00 a.m., and refuse correspondence with friends and
family.
All because the Super Bowl has ended, which means the end of the
football season has arrived. With many, a state of severe and solid
denial sets in. It means watching Steve Sabol and NFL Films on a con-
tinuous loop. It means trying to get excited by Arena football. It means
trying to get motivated for baseball. If it weren’t for March Madness
and the NCAA basketball tournament, people would do harm to
themselves.
Sure, football is tough and vicious. But it’s also uniquely American.
It’s about the underdog, the upset, the dynasties, the tradition, and the
theatre of top-shelf competition. It bonds people together and creates a
community even in our iPod-toting era of quiet independence. Football
is a game of execution, of hope, and of luck. For that reason and many
more, millions upon millions celebrate what could happen and what
does happen on any given Sunday.
We feel, however, that the playing and watching of football is more
than entertainment. It offers us lessons. Deep lessons. Strong lessons.
Lasting lessons. All three of us benefited from playing and watching
xv
xvi Preface
football from an early age. For such a brutal and vicious and violent
game, it sure seems to give quite a bit. From football, we learned team-
work. We learned camaraderie. We learned performing our assignment
with a sense of duty that speaks to benefiting the team over the indi-
vidual. We learned about discipline. We learned about coping with
pain. We learned about getting up, dusting ourselves off. We learned to
play hurt. We learned how to lose and to get better from losing. We
learned to depend on others. We learned how to learn so we weren’t
fooled twice. We learned to anticipate. We learned how to marry
instinct and analysis to improve execution. We learned to follow. We
learned how to motivate. We learned how to respond to an attack. We
learned that sometimes in life you had to go on the offense. At other
times, defense. We learned what it meant to play by the rules. We
learned how to compete under the honorable umbrella of sportsman-
ship. We learned to have fun—even while enduring the pain that
accompanies top performance. We learned, above all else, how to com-
pete and contribute in the great field other than sports—how to work
within and make better our team, our organization, and our society.
Meet any leader in any community and we bet that sports, in general,
and football, in particular, helped shaped their personal leader
development.*
The idea for Gridiron Leadership, as crazy and corny as this sounds,
came from a bout of this depression after the 2007 season ended with
the New York Giants winning the Super Bowl over the heavily favored
New England Patriots. After this most memorable of Super Bowls, we
all got together and commiserated over the oncoming dead space that
is known to many as the off-season. It was during this time that we
realized how much the game of football really gave to us, what it meant
to us, and how it literally offered a textbook education on how to live
and on how to compete.
That is what this book is. It is a how-to leadership book wrapped in
a zone blitz, disguised as a Hail Mary pass, or concealed in a Bubble
Screen. That’s precisely what made this book so enjoyable to write
(and hopefully so enjoyable to read); it’s like football in that we
learned so many lessons almost through osmosis. We learned but never
*For the personal examples used throughout this book, and the stories you would
not be able to find in the headlines or by watching ESPN, we took the liberty of alter-
ing and adjusting the times, names, places, and contexts in which the stories take place
or when the principles were originally revealed. All of the stories are grounded in truth,
but some literary license is used to either protect reputations or more strongly and read-
ily convey a point.
Preface xvii
really realized it until it was over. Unlike many classrooms and lectures,
where the learning is in your face or pedantic, football is anything but.
It is learning by doing and in a way that seems to be so much more
enjoyable than opening up a textbook on leadership. After all, it is this
game that has provided some of the greatest and worst leadership les-
sons that we’ve ever encountered. Although all three of us have been
on the receiving end of millions of dollars of leadership development
and hours upon hours of leadership training, the most meaningful train-
ing that seemed to really embed was the training found between the
hash marks. So, celebrate with us. And as any good fan would do, we
ask you to root for our message or root against it. Send your applause
and boos to us at the Web site www.gridironleaders.com. And don’t de-
spair; the off-season seems to go by fast. There’s always next year.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First down always begins with families. With that, we’d like to offer
cheers from the crowd for our families. For Evan that includes Laura,
Madison, and Molly. For Jason that includes Christa, Ainslee, and Mas-
ton. For Scott, that includes Jennifer, Patrick, Taylor, and Wyatt.
Thinking through and then writing a book requires so much fan sup-
port. We’re lucky since our greatest fans appear to be the ones closest
to us. Second, third, and fourth downs don’t go well if you can’t get
some good gains on the first. Thankfully, our families made sure that
our first down started strong. For their support, we offer both our thanks
and love.
The three of us always wanted to be good players, and, even better,
coaches. For that miracle to occur, a roster of supremely talented indi-
viduals had to join our roster in one way or the other. Below are just
some of the leaders and coaches that have impacted how we thought,
saw, or practiced leadership. Later in the book, we argue that a great
player is supported by a tremendous roster. Below, you’ll find a listing
of All-Pro and Pro-Bowlers that we are truly humbled to play with and
for. We’d be remiss to say that most, if not all, of the leaders men-
tioned below made the serious game of leadership fun. In short, we are
indebted to those below who continue to shape how we study, see, and
practice leadership. There is no better first string anywhere.
So, we offer thanks to the following: Alan Offstein, Patti Offstein,
Jody Offstein, Al and Bernice Offstein, Sean Mikula, Brett Sciotto, Jeff
Golan, Ed Sudzina, Mike Dugan, Art Callaham, Barb Buehl, Lee Fie-
dler, Danny Arnold, Mike Monahan, Del Pedew, Colleen Peterson, Pat
Mifsud, Tony Wright, Rick Stafford, Bob Maricich, General Jerrold
Allen, John Gould, Tom Arnold, Ryan Janovic, Todd Uterstaedt, Doug
Savage, Ahmad Tootoonchi, Michael Monahan, Kevin Govern, John
xix
xx Acknowledgments
Rhodes, Arthur Jones, Chris Harmon, Lowell Yarusso, John Spears,

Kevin Shuba, Blair Tiger, Sara Gaba, Kerri Adams, Jonathan Gibralter,
Tom Hawk, Quincy Crawford, Ralph Jordan, Mike Condrey, Jeffrey
Blavatt, Tom Mastaglio, Bob Millward, Jack Hansen, Jason Schroeder,
Teddy Williams, Toshi Desaki, Jeff Beamon, TJ Morrelli, Brian Joy,
Larry McGhee, Steve Paulin, Jeanie Seifarth, Mark Sullivan, Bill For-
ster, Tom Grubbe, Tom Lamb, Eric Hutchings, Gary Levenson, Tom
Ryan, John Van Alstyne, Dick Cummins, Devi Gnyawali, Terry Cobb,
Donald Hatfield, John Winn, Kevin Carlson, Jeffrey Arthur, Steve
Childers, Bill Stringer, “Rock” Roszak, Mike Garner, Gloria Harrell-
Cook, Bill Younger, Ron Dufresne, David Harney, Claudia Ferrante,
Barry Ronan, Debra Orner, Don Battista, Cynthia Cycyota, Russ Hay-
nie, John Hodson, David Jones, Ray Kniphuisen, Jeff Snyder, Sue
Head, Mike Min, Tom Dowdell, Al Moore, Lisa Cesnick, Bill and Ro-
bin Seddon, Alan and Carol Heft, John Walsh, Vic Martina, Brian
Cameron, Nancy Rice, Tim Anderson, Chris Whitehurst, Gil Valadez,
Jill Fox, Joe Litley, Ed Deutschlander, Robert Vedra, Susan Bogan, Liza
Dorsey, Shaun Bradley, Sean Carroll, Connie Kallback, Mike Yanko-
vich, Chris Crane, Jeff Leischner, Catherine Conley, Pauli Overdorff
and Allen Silverstein, Rick and Linda Morwick, Keri Smith, Wayne
Smith, Robert Nelson, Peter Stelling, John Griffith, Donna Griffith,
Chris and Deane LaDelfa, Nick Canada, Doug Deleaver, Tim Day,
Dave Heffermon, Mike Crews, Dr. Nancy Wyant, Bob Burandt, Bill
Westfall, Eric Chudziak, Paul Christman, Evan Berry, The Men and
Women of Law Enforcement, The Men and Women of The Cape
Coral Fire Department, Hope Hospice, Dr. Alex Rodi, Jim Bloom,
Grant Alley, James Riggs, Jim Tyree, John Makholm, Mike Brave,
Mike Stuff, Steve Tuttle, and Dr. Charlie Meslo.
Jeff Olson’s title at Praeger reads Senior Acquisitions Editor. To us,
he was that and much more. In short, Jeff was our Assistant Coach. He
was the Offensive, Defensive, and Special Teams Coordinator. A
Johnny-on-the-spot persona, Jeff was always available for any reason.
His cool, Landry-like demeanor provided us with both technical and
emotional support as we worked on this book. Book writing is and
never will be easy. Few people do it. With that said, it would be a ton
more enjoyable and easier if every senior editor was like Jeff Olson. We
don’t have a game ball to offer. But if we did, we’d offer it to Jeff
Olson. He’s incredibly deserving.
Between the three of us, we’ve got three books, about 30 journal
publications, and somewhere upwards of 100 leadership presentations
behind us. Of all the leadership projects that we’ve worked on, this one
may just have been the most enjoyable. It gave us the opportunity to
Acknowledgments xxi
think and reflect on a game that we truly love and believe is impactful
of our professional development. More important, it gave us the oppor-
tunity to reflect back on all of our personal and professional coaches
who’ve shaped our lives to such a degree that it would be impossible to
document. More than anything, football is about a game of people
working together. When we think back to those that we’ve worked
with and for and who also developed us, we are in awe. If we could,
we’d shine the Friday Night football lights on each and every one of
you and all of your achievements since your achievements and learning
became our learning and achievements. We can’t do that. Instead, we
can only say thank you. Thank you.
INTRODUCTION: LEARNING
FROM THE GRIDIRON
Upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that, upon other
fields, on other days, will bear the fruits of victory.
—General Douglas MacArthur
As a second-year doctoral student down at Virginia Tech, one of the

authors had the good pleasure, or terrible misfortune, to take some
newly admitted doctoral candidates on a tour of the Virginia Tech
library. As they were nearing the end of the orientation, one of the
new doctoral students, only weeks separated from his native India,
remarked, “Americans are deeply religious people.”
Unsure what to say, the author mustered a thank you.
“You all worship an animal!” he shot back, a sly smirk emerging. A
couple of the other international students stopped, unaware of this
young man’s intention or direction. Not everyone sensed the joke com-
ing from this young, brilliant, and highly observant, man.
“Sorry, but I’m not quite following you. In America, Sunday tends to
be a day of worship for many people. But, no animals.”
“You worship skinpig!” he laughed.
Over the course of several years, one of the authors grew very close
with this brilliant mind from outside of Calcutta, Manish Srivastava, as
the two navigated their business strategy studies together. But on that
Sunday in the library, he made an observation that really doubled as a
truth. In the United States, we may not worship skinpig, but we do
hold dear the pigskin and all things football. It never ceased to amaze
Manish that in the fall, Sundays were a day of anticipation and cele-
bration made whole by the National Football League. Millions would
tune in, and thousands upon thousands would enter enormous stadiums
and coliseums to watch and live the game of football. Indeed, even
many baseball purists acknowledge that the great American pastime is
xxiii
xxiv Introduction
no longer baseball. It is football. And the fabric of sports, in general,

and football, in particular, is woven into every facet of our lives to
include business and organizational life.
During recent speaking and consulting engagements, more and more
people have asked us to speculate or comment on how leadership train-
ing and strategy development could be improved. Their concern is well
founded. With so many leadership and strategy books out there all
seemingly saying the same or similar thing, we need a new, fresh
approach to capture and understand the concepts and practice of lead-
ership, strategy, and execution. More often than not, we’ve relied on
sports and the sports metaphor to communicate or drive home a point
during coaching sessions. Metaphors are powerful learning devices that
accelerate learning and understanding. The sports metaphor is particu-
larly potent since it is a common thread that, taken together, forms the
fabric of American culture and shared experiences. It’s a common plat-
form for so many of today’s leaders and managers. This book is our
attempt to bridge the gap and link the lessons people already know
from growing up in and around sports so that they can better apply
these lessons to their own organization and specific situation.
One of the surefire ways to enhance learning is to pair a concept
with a related concept that we love. And there are few things we love
as much as football. For example, one senior HR manager had difficulty
understanding Human Capital recruiting strategy. In the course of the
discussion, the inevitable point of recruiting for need versus “best
available” arose. To cement his understanding, we used a sports meta-
phor, and turned to the New Orleans Saints and Houston Texans.
In the 2006 NFL Draft, Reggie Bush, a widely known and critically
acclaimed Heisman Trophy Winner from the University of Southern
California, was touted as the best available player in the draft. The Hous-
ton Texans, who picked first in that draft, drafted for organizational need
and chose not to recruit and select the best player available. Instead, they
chose the much less-regarded and heralded Mario Williams, a defensive
end out of North Carolina State. The New Orleans Saints, who picked
second, quickly snagged Reggie Bush despite having at least four running
backs on their roster. Two of those running backs were well regarded and
consistent performers, Deuce McAllister (four 1,000-yard rushing seasons
out of a possible seven) and Fred McAfee. The two strategies are markedly
different. The Saints drafted “best available” and the Texans drafted for
organizational need. The personal and organizational consequences are
real; time has lent some support to the Texans’ strategy of recruiting and
selecting for organizational need. Williams started almost immediately,
played extensively, and has seen his performance dramatically improve
Introduction xxv
over his first couple of seasons. Williams had 14 sacks in 2007 and ended
the 2008 season with 12 sacks.1 Small sports story but large learning
lesson.
THE GRIDIRON LEADER

Many skeptics may question the validity of comparing football to
other aspects of life. Is it really that similar? More specifically, is leader-
ship on a football field really the same as in the corporate boardroom,
in an inner-city nonprofit organization, or on a faraway battlefield? In
many cases, the answer is a simple, yes. The fundamentals of leadership
don’t change, regardless of the landscape.
We opened with a quote not from a famous coach or player, but
from a historical figure that also believed in the relevance of learning
leadership on the athletic field. Shortly after World War I, Douglas
MacArthur was appointed as Superintendent of the United States Mili-
tary Academy at West Point. MacArthur was charged with revitalizing
West Point and ensuring its graduates were better prepared for future
challenges. In addition to changes in academics and military training,
MacArthur instituted an “every cadet, an athlete” policy.2 He
expanded the intercollegiate athletic program and mandated intramural
sports for all cadets, a requirement that exists to this day.
To understand more how Gridiron Leadership parallels leadership in
real life, we need to have a basic understanding of the definition of
leadership. Almost any textbook nowadays will provide a simplified def-
inition of leadership, defining it as the ability to influence others to-
ward a common goal. However, we would argue that this common
definition doesn’t capture the essence of leadership. Leaders don’t just
influence others, they build teams. Leaders create a culture of achieve-
ment. They remove barriers to success and develop the members of
their organization to reach new heights. Leaders influence others to-
ward a common goal not only through motivation, incentives, or force,
but by creating a vision and strategy. This type of leadership is seen ev-
ery day on the gridiron. We’ll prove it to you.
When thinking about past leaders of the game, you may think of
great quarterbacks such as Joe Montana, John Elway, Dan Marino, or
Johnny Unitas. How many leaders would want to be able to perform in
clutch situations, like Elway did in the 98-yard game-tying drive of the
1987 AFC Championship game?3 Who wouldn’t appreciate the calm-
ness of “Joe Cool” Montana as he led his team to 31 fourth quarter
come-from-behind wins?4 And who wouldn’t want Joe Namath-like
self-confidence, such as when Namath guaranteed a victory over the
xxvi Introduction
heavily favored Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III? However, leaders,

like athletes, come in all forms. Just remember Sonny Jurgensen.
You may be asking yourself, Sonny who? You wouldn’t be alone.
Many fans have forgotten about one of the greatest passers of all time.
Drafted in 1957, Jurgensen spent his first four years as a backup quarter-
back with the Philadelphia Eagles. During his first starting season in
1961, Jurgensen set two NFL records, passing for 3,723 yards and 32
touchdowns. Six years later, he shattered his own passing record with a
total of 3,747 yards while playing for the Washington Redskins. He
would later go on to lead the league in passing yards five times (tying
Dan Marino), be selected for the Pro Bowl five times, and would win
three NFL individual passing titles.5 Remarkably, Jurgensen was only 5-
foot-11 and played in an era when the defense had fewer restrictions
than a modern day cage match. Yet, Jurgensen’s professionalism stands
out as much as his individual achievements. When Redskins coach
George Allen decided to start the younger Billy Kilmer in the early
1970s, preferring Kilmer’s conservative style of play versus Jurgensen’s
more risky approach, fans and spectators became deeply divided. How-
ever, Jurgensen never publicly displayed any signs of discontent and
openly helped Kilmer.
The history of football is full of heroes like Sonny Jurgensen. We
tend to remember the flashy players or coaches, or those that can gen-
erate the best sound bite. But it’s not always the coach on the sideline
yelling and screaming that has the biggest impact on the players or the
outcome of the game. Game-winning plays are not usually done in dra-
matic fashion despite what we may believe by watching the highlight
reel on ESPN SportsCenter. Although we will touch on many known
and relatively obscure athletes, the game of football provides countless
examples to learn from.
The Gridiron Leader is also a coach. Coaching has been in the man-
agement lexicon of late. Nowhere can we learn more about leadership
and management than by looking at some of the greatest coaches in
football. Who would deny the oft-quoted Lombardi a space with other
great leaders, regardless of profession? There is much to be learned from
winning coaches such as Bear Bryant, Don Shula, Bill Parcells, and Joe
Paterno.
Coaches deal with and manage a variety of stakeholders. Whether
it’s the players, agents, owners, NFL rules committee, or the media,
these stakeholders are complex, vocal, and powerful. To coach, lead,
and execute with all of these stakeholders breathing down your neck is
difficult. This is true for managers in almost any organization. Today’s
managers don’t just deal with supervisors, subordinates, and peers. They
Introduction xxvii
also have to balance external stakeholders, whether it’s customers, part-

ners, government agencies, the media, or the public.
Coaches learn to lead under the greatest of microscopes. Fans,
pundits, players, owners—all question their moves, their strategies.
The spotlight is bright and the criticism is clear and always forth-
coming. Their decisions can be second guessed by Monday morning
quarterbacks and can be replayed incessantly. With the rise of tech-
nology, today’s organizational leader is equally under the microscope
via bloggers on the Internet or 24/7 news services. To lead and man-
age under these circumstances is quite difficult. We can show you
how the best coaches manage these stakeholders under challenging
circumstances and how you can too. In short, football is akin to a
classroom on the field that will help you improve your leadership
skills and abilities.
At the NFL level and among the collegiate ranks, the competition is
fierce. It is ultra competitive. Every week, every season, rivals are trying
to get better, to improve. There’s no such thing as the status quo.
There’s no such thing as an off-season. Competition can (and does)
come from many angles and directions. Ever hear about closing speed?
Did you know that the NFL quarterback must make approximately four
“reads” within a single second and then make and execute that deci-
sion? Football in the NFL and college is a game of seconds. It is fast
paced. Things can change with a tick of the clock. In organizational
life, regardless if it’s the military, business, or nonprofit, the same can
be said. Today’s world offers a global marketplace with competition
that comes 24/7 from across continents. Leaders must make quick
reads. Evaluate, assess, decide, and execute. How coaches prepare and
handle competition can teach us a great deal about how to deal with
rivals here and abroad.
Make no mistake, the rewards and stakes are high. Losers get fired.
Winners get to stay for now. In this faced-paced, ultra-competitive
environment, there are lessons that we learn about survival and success.
Like business or the military or government, it is a what-have-you-
done-for-me-lately environment. Just ask Mike Shanahan. Shanahan
coached the Denver Broncos to two back-to-back Super Bowl victories
in 1997 and 1998 but was fired in 2008 for failing to make the playoffs
for the third consecutive year. In both college and the NFL, records are
fleeting and high levels of performance are necessary week-in, week-
out, and season-in, season-out. Does this context of high expectations
and immediate gratification sound familiar to you? The cases we will
examine will help you learn to deal with it and thrive in these
circumstances.
xxviii Introduction
TALENT IS NOT ENOUGH

If you are like us and believe in what Howard Cosell once said,
“Sports is human life in microcosm,” then you may begin to believe
that football provides an excellent platform to study leadership. But
you may be asking yourself a much broader question: Can leadership
even be taught? Is leadership like athletic ability, a genetic gift that
some have and others don’t? Watching college and professional football
on any given weekend would lead one to believe that the talent that
propels one to the top is something one is born with. However, the his-
tory of the NFL is full of talented athletes that never achieved their
full potential.
In the early 1990s, no one considered the New England Patriots a
serious threat. The team’s only trip to the Super Bowl in 1986 was a
dismal loss against the Chicago Bears, 46-10. For the next seven sea-
sons the Patriots spiraled down, amassing a record of 42-69, and only
winning nine total games from 1990 to 1992.6 In 1993, newly hired
head coach Bill Parcells and quarterback Drew Bledsoe were the answer
the franchise was looking for. Bledsoe, an All-American for the Wash-
ington State Cougars, was the number-one overall draft pick in the
1993 NFL Draft.
At 6-foot-5 and over 230 pounds, Bledsoe was an impressive individ-
ual. He was known for his powerful arm, throwing 4,555 yards in his
second season; he would go on to average 3,701 per season for the next
six years.7 After his second season with the Pats, he was the youngest
quarterback ever to play in the Pro Bowl. Despite these stats, a Super
Bowl victory eluded Bledsoe. Although he was on the roster for Super
Bowl XXXVI, Bledsoe was relegated to the sidelines after missing most
of the regular season due to an injury received in the second game of
the season. Even after being traded to the Buffalo Bills and later to the
Dallas Cowboys, Bledsoe had difficulty in the postseason. After an
inconsistent beginning to the 2006 season, he was moved to the
backup quarterback position and replaced by Tony Romo.
Simply stated, talent may help an individual or a team, but it’s not
enough. Great football players, like great leaders, continually practice,
prepare, and learn to improve through their experiences. It’s the count-
less repetitions on the field, the time spent sweating in the gym, the
numerous hours studying the films, and the never-ending lessons
learned on game day that make players truly great. This is not to say
that Bledsoe didn’t possess a strong work ethic and commitment. He
did. There is no doubt that Drew Bledsoe was a good quarterback.
However, the sheer volume of his numbers in terms of passing
Introduction xxix
completion, attempts, and yards just wasn’t enough to guarantee a team

championship. Individual stats and numbers will always be part of the
game and, to some degree, a measuring stick when it comes to individ-
ual and team success, but it isn’t winning. They are not the same and
should never be confused.
Contrast the start of Drew Bledsoe’s career with his replacement,
Tom Brady. Brady was a sixth-round draft pick in the 2000 NFL draft
and was a fourth-string QB behind Bledsoe and backups John Friesz
and Michael Bishop. When Brady started at the University of Michi-
gan, he was seventh on the depth chart and had to struggle to move up
to become the backup to Brian Griese. Brady became so frustrated at
one point that he considered transferring.8 A few years later, Brady
would find himself starting after Bledsoe was injured during the second
game of the 2001 season from a hit delivered by Jets linebacker Mo
Lewis. Brady would lead the team to the Super Bowl and return three
more times over the next few years. Brady is now regarded as one of
the best quarterbacks of all time with three Super Bowl championships,
one NFL MVP, two Super Bowl MVPs, four invitations to the Pro
Bowl, the NFL record for most touchdown passes in a single regular
season, and the fourth highest career passing rating of all time.9 With-
out a doubt, Brady may be one of the most talented ball players to walk
the gridiron. However, it was more than simple genetics that propelled
Brady to the top spots at Michigan and New England. Brady may have
fit better with Coach Bill Belichick’s strategy or matched up better
with the strengths and weaknesses of the offensive line. Or, Brady may
have been a better decision-maker or executed plays better. As we will
discuss throughout this book, there are numerous variables to success.
If Brady’s path to greatness doesn’t make you believe that it takes
more than just talent to make it to the top, then think of New York
Jets receiver, Wayne Chrebet. Growing up in New Jersey, Chrebet’s
high school coach nicknamed him “Mush” because of Chrebet’s habit
of talking fast, a result of his low self-confidence.10 Chrebet went on to
play at Hofstra University, but was not drafted by any team in the NFL
after graduation. When he finally did earn a walk-on opportunity with
the Jets, he barely made it past the front gate. A security guard didn’t
believe the 5-foot-10, 185-pound Chrebet was an actual football player
and almost refused to let him into training camp.11 This was nothing
new to Chrebet, who had been stopped many times in life by people
telling him he was too small or too slow to play professional football.
By the time Chrebet retired 11 seasons later, he had amassed 580
receptions and 7,365 yards from scrimmage, ranking him 2nd and 5th
respectively in the Jets record books. Chrebet’s story is the proverbial
xxx Introduction
underdog story, but the history of football is filled with similar cases.
The message for all leaders is that we all can improve; we can all reach
goals beyond expectations through dedication, determination, and con-
stant effort. This book offers insight to put it all together—how leaders
can refine their skills, learn from the experiences of others, and contin-
ually improve to ultimately become better leaders.
CREATING YOUR PERSONAL LEGACY

Ultimately, the greatest legacy a leader can create is a dynasty. A
string of good or great seasons. A reputation that endures through time.
The benchmark for high performance. The hard-to-beat team that is
emulated by everyone else. In business jargon, it is called a sustainable
competitive advantage. A textbook would likely define sustainable
competitive advantage as getting better-than-average returns over time
or consistently beating rivals over the years. A dynasty is really the
organizational or team manifestation of the concept of competitive
advantage.
Football is filled with great dynasties. Paul Brown’s Cleveland
Browns from 1946 to 1955, the Pittsburgh Steelers from 1974 to 1979,
or the popular Dallas Cowboys from 1992 to 1995, to name just a few.
In all of these examples, the coaches did not build a sustainable com-
petitive advantage based on one player or one innovative play. Vince
Lombardi’s Green Bay Packers, a great dynasty from 1961 to 1967, did
not achieve greatness due to quarterback Bart Starr or because Lom-
bardi introduced zone blocking. It was due to a combination of success
factors including the selection of key players such as Starr and running
backs Jim Taylor, Carroll Dale, and Paul Hornung. It was also a result
of Lombardi’s rigorous training regimen that demanded absolute perfec-
tion. It was Lombardi’s ability to motivate his players, such as when
the Packers defeated the Cowboys in –13 degree weather during the in-
famous Ice Bowl of 1967. We could go on.
A sustainable competitive advantage stems from the leader’s ability
to combine strategy and execution. Game plans are not and never will
be enough. Plenty of people have great ideas, but few can actually exe-
cute. In Gridiron Leadership, we learn to marry the two—strategy and
execution. If learning both sides of the equation is important to you,
your team, or your organization, then the game of football will provide
the perfect laboratory to study where this comes together to create
success.
The organizational world, like football, is loaded with examples of
leaders that successfully created a sustainable competitive advantage.
Introduction xxxi
At General Electric during the Jack Welch era, no one could dispute
GE’s corporate dynasty. From 1981 to 1998, GE’s market value
increased from $12 billion to $280 billion.12 Welch instituted numer-
ous changes at the conglomerate, and it was no surprise that executives
initially pushed back. They struggled with trying to manage for the
long-term while being forced to meet short-term results. To Welch, it
would be easy to focus on strategy or execution alone, but he expected
his leaders to do both. He jettisoned businesses that could not meet his
mantra of being number one or two in their respective markets. He
continually purged the company of bottom performers. However, he
spent the majority of his time coaching the next generation of leaders,
building a stronger team. He was not content to stay in the executive
offices in Fairfield, Connecticut, and instead chose to remain actively
engaged on the sidelines, coaching and cheerleading for the business.
The dismissal of complacency and the refusal to be content with the
status quo are two powerful drivers of sustainable competitive
advantage.
How do you get there? How do you become a Gridiron Leader and
achieve a sustainable competitive advantage for you, your team or orga-
nization and, eventually, earn the moniker—dynasty?
You will do this by mastering the concepts that we will discuss in
detail: motivating individuals, developing people, building a competi-
tive team, understanding rivals, vigilance, discipline, honing decision-
making skills, crafting a winning strategy, and more. You must do it
all—not just focusing on some aspects to reach the end zone.
A ROADMAP—WHAT’S IN THIS BOOK

Gridiron Leadership is exclusively an application book that will
improve a leader’s strategy development and ability to drive execution
with proven techniques you may already know from football but may
not have yet applied to your own work/life situation. Football, like
organizational life, is sequentially interdependent. That is, it marries
basic concepts with the more complex. Before you can get into com-
plex offensive or defensive schemes, you must master the basics, such
as blocking and tackling. We will start off the discussion by touching
on the fundamentals of leadership, such as motivation and understand-
ing the leader’s basis of influence. From the basics, we will charge
ahead into building a strong roster of team members and the impor-
tance of character. You will then be ready for more advanced concepts
of selecting the right talent, decision-making, strategy development,
and creating and sustaining a high performance organizational culture.
xxxii Introduction
Here is an overview of what lies ahead:
• Chapter 1: Inspiration of the Individual. Winning starts with the

individual. To build winning teams and long-lasting, high-performing
organizations, leaders must first start with building high-performing
individuals. The charge, then, for leaders is to get the most out of
their teams through inspiration and motivation. This chapter high-
lights some classic and more progressive tactics and strategies to moti-
vate all kinds of people who serve in all kinds of positions.
• Chapter 2: Power Rankings. All leaders wield power in one form or
another. Power is the atomic unit of leadership that allows leaders to
influence others and exert control over behavior. Without power,
leaders can’t get things done. However, power comes from many
sources. In this chapter, we explore the various sources of power and
how leaders can create, build, and foster their power base.
• Chapter 3: Franchise Players. Leadership, like the game of football,
is not an individual activity. To accomplish the goal, leaders rely on
the collective strength of the group or team. Winning will always
begin and end with people. Leaders must first identify skilled, intelli-
gent, responsible players who have the desire and commitment to
achieve objectives. Identifying, selecting, and developing the best
individuals are the building blocks for high-performing teams.
• Chapter 4: Big Upset. We cannot discuss leadership without men-
tioning the importance of character. A leader must ensure that char-
acter, honor, and integrity exist throughout the organization. There
is no such thing as an off-season when it comes to character. Leaders
and their teams must exercise sound judgment on and off the field.
Leaders must also protect their group’s reputation—a valuable, hard,
and real asset.
• Chapter 5: Finalize the Roster. Building off the previous two chap-
ters, we discuss the final elements to putting together an all-star ros-
ter. Moving beyond individual abilities and character, we highlight
the importance of selecting individuals that fit into specific jobs,
who are aligned to the organization’s values and strategy. We’ll also
probe topics around a team player’s readiness, willingness, and adapt-
ability to fill different roles in the organization.
• Chapter 6: The Call on the Field Stands. Up to this point, we’ve
talked about motivating the individual, power, and the importance
of building a high-performing team. These incredibly important themes
serve as the last line of defense before execution—decision-making.
Introduction xxxiii
Throughout this chapter, we discuss some decision-making tools and

landmines to be aware of.
• Chapter 7: A Winning Strategy. This chapter examines what hap-
pens when organizations develop and execute a coherent strategy
versus those that don’t. Leaders are ultimately responsible for devel-
oping strategy. And a good strategy can be a game changer. We will
discuss several examples from a variety of organizations and how you
can apply these concepts to your own strategy development.
• Chapter 8: Becoming a Playoff Team. Most winning organizations
make the leap from a collection of individual efforts to a team that
can execute perfectly together. The very best teams are able to cre-
ate a collective mind where team members know their own role but,
more importantly, know the role of the team members to the left,
right, upstream, and downstream and how their performance affects
the greater whole. We’ll detail in this chapter on how to improve
team decision-making and execution along with improving team cre-
ativity and innovation.
• Chapter 9: A Culture of Winning. We conclude with a discussion
on how leaders can create a winning dynasty. Behind each dynasty
and central to its continuation is the force and power of organiza-
tional culture. In this chapter, we highlight how great coaches, play-
ers, and owners develop, maintain, and, even change their culture.
More important, through the use of football cases both recent and
past, we build a link between culture and performance.
NOTES
1. NFL Web site, http://www.nfl.com/players/mariowilliams/profile?id=WIL431243
(accessed March 13, 2009).
2. Theodore J. Crackel, West Point: A Bicentennial History (Lawrence: Uni-
versity Press of Kansas, 2003).
3. ESPN Web site, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=Elway_
John (accessed March 13, 2009).
4. All Sports Web site, http://www.allsports.com/players/joe-montana/ (accessed
March 14, 2009).
5. Pro-football reference Web site, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/
players/J/JurgSo00.htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
teams/nwe/ (accessed March 14, 2009).
players/B/BledDr00.htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
xxxiv Introduction
8. Sports Illustrated Web site, Lee Jenkins, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/

2008/writers/lee_jenkins/01/30/tombrady/index.html (accessed March 14,
2009). Please also see: Nick Cafardo, The Impossible Team: The Worst to
First Patriot’s Super Bowl Season (New York: Triumph Books, 2002), and
Charles P. Pierce, Moving the Chains: Tom Brady and the Pursuit of Every-
thing (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007).
players/B/BradTo00.htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
10. Rafael Hermoso, “Garfield’s Chrebet Hopes to Impress Jets,” The Record,
May 4, 1995, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22475068.html (accessed
February 13, 2009).
11. Wayne Chrebet and Vic Carucci, Every Down, Every Distance: My Journey
to the NFL (New York: Doubleday, 1999).
12. John A. Byren, “How Jack Welch Runs GE.” BusinessWeek, June 8, 1998,
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/23/b3581001.htm (accessed February 13,
2009).
1
INSPIRATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
She’s coming along.

—Bill Parcells
With the seventh pick in the 1996 National Football League (NFL)
draft, the New England Patriots selected Ohio State speedster, Terry
Glenn. Then-coach Bill Parcells probably wasn’t enthused about spend-
ing a high pick like that on a wide receiver, which Parcells thought
could be snagged in a later round for a cheaper price.
Almost at the end of training camp, a reporter asked Coach Parcells
how the rookie receiver was doing. Without missing a beat and without
a second passing, Parcells smiled and said, “She’s coming along.”1 The
room full of sports reporters broke out laughing. The joke was on Terry
Glenn, or so we thought.
Terry Glenn would use his coach’s comment as a motivational factor
for the remainder of the season. Some in the sports arena credit this
one remark for motivating Terry Glenn to shed his previous reputation
as an injury prone, prima donna.
Glenn finished a remarkable rookie season recording 90 receptions
for 1,132 yards and six touchdowns. Maybe more important, he helped
his team reach Super Bowl XXXI. At the time, his 90 receptions were
the most ever for a rookie in a single season. He finished second in
Rookie of the Year voting behind his former Ohio State teammate,
running back Eddie George.2
Clearly, though, Parcells touched a nerve that caused Glenn to per-
form and to play tough, even hurt. In the final game of the regular sea-
son in which the Patriots had to win to earn a playoff bye, they were
down to Parcells’s former team, the New York Giants, 22-0. And then
Glenn got hurt and suffered a hip pointer. The trainers and coaching
staff offered to sit him the rest of the game. He refused. Eight catches
1
2 Gridiron Leadership
and 124 yards later, the Patriots won an improbable 23-22 victory.
Several years later, Parcells would ask Glenn to join the Dallas
Cowboys. With Parcells again as his coach, Glenn led the Cowboys
receiving corps in touchdowns for 2003 and 2005.
The lesson of this story is one that is often told, but seldom exe-
cuted. Not everyone is motivated by the same factors, and the best
leaders know the triggers, needs, and sparks that motivate some but not
others. Clearly, Parcells knew what would move Glenn in the right
direction and then provided the spark to light his fire. The approach
Parcells used would obviously not work for all players or in all situa-
tions, but it was effective for Glenn.
Moving the Chains

Great leaders know what motivates their players. It isn’t always the same
triggers, and the very best leaders know what buttons to push and which
ones to avoid.
Although we will discuss some common principles that should apply

across situations and across individuals, the beginning lesson is not one
of commonness. Rather, it is a lesson of uniqueness and uncommon-
ness. Leaders know and come to understand the different motivations
behind people’s performance.
THE HABIT OF LOSING

Do you remember Rich Kotite? If you live in Philly or New York,
you probably need life-saving medical intervention after reading his
name. Kotite was the former head football coach of the Philadelphia
Eagles and the New York Jets.
Kotite was remembered for many things. Unfortunately, winning
wasn’t one of them. He is infamous for going for a two-point conver-
sion against the Dallas Cowboys when down 24-13. Even after the
objections of his coaching staff to settle for an extra point, Kotite
refused. Randall Cunningham was caught just short of the end zone
and the two-point conversion would fail. Asked later why he did it, he
told reporters that the chart he used to determine whether to go for
one or two points was rain soaked and he couldn’t read the chart.
Sadly, Kotite would go on to lose 31 of his last 35 NFL games as a
head coach. A major hypothesis was that his players stopped playing
Inspiration of the Individual 3
for him. In essence, they “quit” winning and, sadly, the habit of losing
became a common trait.
And this is of major concern to all leaders and managers everywhere.
It isn’t enough to recruit and select talent. Or even to train people. To
leverage the talent, knowledge, and abilities of people and of teams
requires a willingness to spend it. In other words, above all else, people
must be motivated. If they aren’t, their human resource, their human
capital is wasted. Production plants, assembly lines, and computers can’t
quit or become unmotivated. But people can and sometimes do. That is
where great leadership and management come into play. An essential
duty of any coach, leader, or manager is to inspire and motivate people
to perform their best. It isn’t clear what exactly Terry Glenn’s perform-
ance would’ve been without Parcells pushing those buttons. We do
know, however, that when Parcells was there, Glenn performed.
Moving the Chains

Great leaders ensure there is no quit at the individual and team level.
Instead, they inspire individuals to consistently do great things.
AIM HIGH!
If you don’t remember Rich Kotite, there’s little chance that you
remember Curvin Richards. People in Pittsburgh and in Dallas remem-
ber Richards, though. The University of Pittsburgh has had some great
running backs in its day. They include Craig “Ironhead” Heyward,
Curtis Martin, Kevan Barlow, and, of course, Tony Dorsett. But the
second-best running back at Pitt may just have been Curvin “Swervin”
Richards, who was selected in the fourth round (97th overall) of the
1991 NFL draft by the Dallas Cowboys.3
Jimmy Johnson, the Hall of Fame former coach of the Dallas Cow-
boys, probably used Curvin “Swervin” Richards to motivate an entire
football team.
As the story goes, Johnson warned Richards that he needed to work
on his ball protection and demanded that he and the Cowboys protect
the ball better and reduce turnovers. But Richards kept fumbling. So,
Jimmy Johnson cut Richards when he fumbled the ball in the final
game of the 1992 regular season at Chicago. Cutting a player during
the season is almost unheard of, let alone the last game of the season.
In this particular case, the NFL advised Johnson that he could not
replace Richards on the roster—essentially meaning that the Cowboys
would be down a man on the overall roster when the playoffs began.
Johnson, after sleeping on it, stuck with his decision and cut Richards
anyway.4 Why, then, did Johnson cut the backup to Emmit Smith
knowing that no replacement would be readily available?
Johnson was tough and wanted a championship team. He recognized
early that there’s one surefire way to do that and that was to have high
standards. Those high standards weren’t just meant for game time. He
famously cut John Roper, a promising linebacker from Texas A&M, for
falling asleep during a team meeting. Clearly, Johnson sent a signal
loud and clear that standards mattered and that there were consequen-
ces for not meeting those high standards.
Jim Jeffcoat, a Cowboys defensive end from 1983 to 1994, would
later tell Maxim magazine that “some guys see kindness as a weakness”
and that’s what made Johnson so successful.
Although fear and meanness may temporarily motivate people, we
don’t think that’s what was at work here. Instead, it was the high stand-
ards demanded on the field. The reason why Jimmy Johnson, and by
association the Dallas Cowboys, were so successful was because Jimmy
Johnson communicated, valued, and enforced high performance stand-
ards. And, herein, lies a lesson for all leaders and managers. Leaders are
the guardians of standards. Leaders decide, set, and enforce standards.
When a leader doesn’t do that, standards fall and become meaningless.
Standards have to be meaningful. They can never be empty words or
hollow voices. Rather, a foolproof way to motivate people is to set stand-
ards and attach positive consequences for meeting or exceeding them
and, on the flip side, negative consequences for not meeting them.
Yes, it was sad to see Curvin Richards’s career cut short. But Jimmy
Johnson knew that high standards motivate all to action—but only
when they’re enforced. Leaders must enforce and attach consequences
to the standards they set and communicate. There’s no real compro-
mise here. Very simply, it must be done. By the way, the corollary to
this is equally true. When leaders fail to set and enforce standards, they
de-motivate others and create a feeling of apathy since people realize
no action or lack thereof is met with a consequence. When leaders fail
to act as the guardian of standards, by circumstance, they are also
becoming a guardian of something entirely different—losing.
Moving the Chains

The first step to motivating and inspiring is to communicate, maintain,
and enforce high performance standards.
EVERYONE IS A GUARDIAN
Maintaining high standards is true for any profession. As an exam-
ple, a friend of ours was asked to come and speak to a police depart-
ment regarding ethics, professionalism, and leadership after one of the
officers was arrested for criminal activity. The department chief was
well liked and devoted much of his time to developing a positive work-
ing environment for the members of his agency and the community.
Although he was confident that this was an isolated incident, the chief
wanted to ensure the resulting fallout didn’t have a negative impact on
the rest of the department. He felt that bringing in a highly regarded
speaker would be a valuable tool to reinforce the department standards
with all the members.
When our friend arrived and gathered the officers, he listened before
he spoke. He listened to the language they used as they filed into the
room. He listened to how they described what they believed happened
in their own words. He watched their posture and body language for
clues as to what they were truly feeling.
“I could tell,” he later told us, “that some of them didn’t know how
they felt for [the arrested officer] or to what degree he had impacted
the agency or the community. He seemed like a good guy. Everyone
liked him. They didn’t seem angry over the incident. They didn’t like
the fact that it happened, and they wanted to know how he got mixed
up in it, but they didn’t seem ticked off or mad.” Our friend then spent
the next several hours talking to the officers about setting and main-
taining high standards.
“At first, they just didn’t get it,” he surmised for us. “My perception
was that they weren’t seeing and feeling the impact of this officer’s
criminal actions. They were sympathetic when they should’ve been
angry. This guy was on their team, a member of a noble profession that
only a chosen few have had that entrusted privilege. How dare this guy
violate that privilege, their oath to each other, their agency, and the
community they have sworn to protect and serve. What was going
on here?”
“So, what happened?” we asked.
“As the conversation progressed, I felt that my initial perception was
misplaced. I could see that the officers in the room saw and felt that
their honor code was seriously violated. I heard them speak about the
importance of creating a relationship of trust with each other and the
citizens of their community. That their profession and their agency
demanded its members embody character, and to do anything else was
unacceptable.”
Our friend told us that before he left for the day, a group of officers
and administrative personnel came up to him to exchange pleasantries.
An administrative officer who had not said much extended his arm to
shake hands and said, “We know that none of us is as strong as all
of us, and we all have a great responsibility. Our officers are committed
to doing the right things and want accountability when someone isn’t.
[The arrested officer] violated the highest standards of the department
and we’re glad we found out, and he’s out—period!”
When teams adopt and internalize a set of standards, individuals will
act in the best interest of the group. In high-performing organizations,
the leader is not the sole and exclusive guardian of the organization’s
standards. Everyone has a shared responsibility to maintain the integ-
rity of the core values and standards of the team.
This applies to many different environments and situations. We met
a mid-level manager of a large Fortune 500 company who explained
how he once handled a low-performing employee. The story reminded
us that setting and maintaining standards applies to any level of organi-
zation, from executives down to junior leaders.
“He just couldn’t perform,” the manager started. “Our team was a
group of highly skilled project managers. We were tasked with a variety
of projects. We were responsible for delivering results on time and on
budget. We prided ourselves on the ability to work in a fast paced envi-
ronment and to find a way to work through obstacles to complete
the job.”
“What happened?” we asked.
“He just couldn’t meet a deadline. Every assignment was the same.
There was always an excuse, always a reason as to why it couldn’t be
done. I knew he had the ability. I mean, he was intelligent, had a back-
ground from the same industry, and had been properly trained in pro-
ject management. I ensured that he had frequent, consistent feedback,
and when I noticed he was slipping, I tried to provide a lot of personal
coaching. I also ensured that the projects he was working on were no
more difficult than what others had and were inside the scope of what
his ability should’ve been. I even paired him up with the more success-
ful members of the team to help him out. Still, nothing seemed
to work.”
“So, what did you do?”
“I finally had to let him go. I didn’t feel good about it, but I ex-
hausted every opportunity to try to develop him. He was very likeable,
but at the end of the day we are all paid to deliver results on time and
he couldn’t meet that standard.”
We were curious. “How did the rest of the team react?”
“Interestingly, when I briefed the rest of the team, no one seemed

surprised. Everyone simply nodded their head as if they knew this was
coming, and I also sensed some relief among some of the team
members.”
Like Jimmy Johnson, this young manager made a clear decision to
maintain the standards of the team. Severing the tie with the employee
wasn’t a callous act, nor did the manager ignore opportunities to cor-
rect the behavior. Ultimately, it was a simple call based on the known
and adopted standards of the group. The junior leader not only pre-
served the meaning of the standard but also preserved the performance
of the team.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders set high standards and create an environment where all
organizational members maintain the standards.
FOUR DOWNS
What we are about to say now may seem counterintuitive or, even
conflicting, with our previous argument regarding high standards. As
we’ll explain, what we are about to say can coexist with enforcing high
standards.
In football, we’re lucky. We don’t just get one chance; we have four
chances to get a first down. It is a game of multiple chances, with asso-
ciated risks and rewards. The same can be said for extending second
chances to those we lead—some people deserve and demand more than
just one down. In the case of Curvin “Swervin” Richards, he was
warned on several occasions. He got more than one chance, but if you
need any more evidence regarding the power of second downs and sec-
ond chances, then look no further than Barry Word.
Barry Word was a flat out, world-class running back coming out of
Virginia. In 1985, Word rushed for 1,224 yards for the Virginia Cava-
liers, which at the time of publication, ranks fifth best in Atlantic
Coast Conference history. In 1985, Word was selected as the Atlantic
Coast Conference (ACC) player of the year and was drafted in the
third round, 62nd overall, by the New Orleans Saints in the 1986 NFL
draft. But things didn’t go well during his first couple of years in the
league. In 1987, Word along with two other Virginia athletes were
indicted on cocaine distribution charges, and Word would spend five
months in prison. Predictably, the New Orleans Saints gave up on

Word and the potential that he possessed. It looked like Word would
be another poster child of wasted youth after sitting out the entire
1989 NFL season. But the Kansas City Chiefs, led by the disciplinarian
and old-school persona of Marty Schottenheimer, took a chance on
Barry Word and offered something that motivates all people—the
chance for redemption. And Word would deliver.
In 1990, Word won the NFL Comeback Player of the Year, an award
aimed at emphasizing redemption and second chances, after rushing for
1,015 years on 204 carries, all while sharing the load with perennial
Pro-Bowler Christian Okoye.5
So, you can have both. Schottenheimer was known for many things.
No doubt, he held high standards. But when high standards are coupled
with the possible opportunity for redemption, a culture of inspiration
follows. When people and players see that they can take chances and,
occasionally, miss perfection and still be welcome on the team, people
become more committed—not less.
We are aware of an old Army officer who used to say that the unit
standard was not, and never would be, perfection, but it would always
be excellence. This statement reflects that mistakes will be made, peo-
ple will learn, and, occasionally, second chances will be given. This
isn’t being soft. Rather, it sends a signal that we can all overcome
obstacles.
The other learning point, though, is that some people deserve sec-
ond and, maybe even third, chances, while some only require one. To
answer exactly how many downs or chances one should get, you need
to return to the opening quote of the chapter. To make that assess-
ment, you must do what Parcells did and does—you must really know
your people to make that call. We just want you to know, however,
that it’s okay to give second chances and, if you do, it holds the oppor-
tunity to motivate and inspire.
Moving the Chains

The opportunity for redemption is motivating in and by itself.
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Great leaders, coaches, and owners motivate people by creating a
meritocracy. Put differently, they reward those who outperform others
within and outside the organization. Frankly, almost three centuries of

economic thinking and one century of psychological research support
what we are about to say—a merit- or reward-based mentality drives
effort and increases motivation in ways both easy and complex to
understand.
In the late summer of 2008, Steven Jackson signed a five-year con-
tract extension valued at $49.3 million and included an $11 million
signing bonus with the St. Louis Rams.6 At the time of the deal, the
new contract made Jackson the fifth highest-paid running back in the
league. Of course, his new, huge contract is rewarding and motivating
to him. But, more importantly, it motivates others within the Rams
franchise, as well as running backs throughout the league.
If the Rams seem down since the heady, Super Bowl days of Kurt
Warner, Marshall Faulk, and the “Greatest Show on Turf,” it isn’t
because of Steven Jackson. History will judge Steven Jackson as a great
running back for the Rams. He can do it all. He can run, block, and
catch the ball out of the backfield. A large, fast, and bruising running
back, he can run through or around the opposition. His performance is
highly correlated with the performance of the St. Louis Rams. When
human capital means that much to an organization, it must be com-
pensated with some type of resource, which doesn’t always have to
be money.
But money is a reward and, of course, money can motivate. The
inspiring statement that this contract says to other players is that if you
outperform others and reach levels considerably higher than the already
high performance standards, you will be rewarded. It is really a function
of expectancy. If people expect to get rewarded for high effort and even
higher performance, they’ll exert themselves tremendously. And an old
economic concept entitled Tournament Theory suggests that the
higher the prize for winning the Tournament or being the best,
the greater the effort. In other words, the higher the potential rewards,
the higher the effort. So, Jackson’s huge contract was a direct signal to
others on the team that the potential was there for rich payouts if they
could deliver Jacksonian performance levels. Also, it probably moti-
vated other running backs in the league who can now use Jackson and
his contract as a benchmark for their own performance, and their
own contract.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is what we call leader-induced
socialism. In leader-induced socialism, the leader believes that every-
one should be treated equally (which means not fairly) and be paid the
same, given the same or similar resources, and given the same amount
of time off. Of course, this never works, does it? When there is no
consequence for performing high or low and rewards will be adminis-

tered the same across the board, the incentive to try or to exert effort
disappears. In general, organizations that adopt a socialist mentality
underperform those that are merit based.
And it doesn’t always have to do with money. Leaders control or
have access to all kinds of resources to include promotions, time off,
scheduling, public recognition, and special assignments to name just a
few. Leaders can juggle and dole out these resources to create a meri-
tocracy that celebrates top performance while marginalizing average
performance. So what are you—a socialist or a capitalist? If you are a
great Gridiron Leader, you, in essence, are a capitalist.
Moving the Chains

Create a meritocracy. Attach a positive consequence to top-shelf
performance. Others will take notice and try to follow suit.
PLAY IT SAFE OR GO FOR TWO?

Players look to coaches, to their Gridiron Leaders. Shortly after
looking, something special occurs. Looking turns into acting. One of
the wiser senior Army officers that we came across once remarked that
platoons inevitably morph, over time, to mirror their platoon leader. In
other words, followers look to their leaders for cues on how to think,
act, and behave. Leaders set the tone, and they model desirable behav-
iors. Of all lines in this book, the one following may just be the block-
ing and tackling of all leadership, on and off the playing field. Truly
great leaders set the example.
There are precious few leadership acts that motivate as strongly, as
passionately, as setting the example. The reverse is true as well. Few
leadership activities kill the spirit as quickly as leaders who, for whatever
reason, fail to set the example. Hypocrisy is the silver bullet that kills
many a leader, and you’ll find it when leaders don’t set the example for
others to follow. Gridiron Leaders seem to recognize the inherently moti-
vating influence of setting the example. And setting the example can
come in many forms, shapes, and sizes—all of which are quite powerful.
Football, sports, business, military operations, or just success, in gen-
eral, often require heavy doses of courage. Tom Osborne knows a thing
or two about courage and setting the example.
In 1984, the Nebraska Cornhuskers were supposed to have a banner
season. Some believe that the Cornhuskers ultimately disappointed
that year. We disagree. Instead, we contend that the 1984 season

cemented the legend of Nebraska football and the legacy of coach Tom
Osborne more than any other season—including their National Cham-
pionship years of 1994, 1995, and 1997.
The Cornhuskers were picked early in 1984 to win it all. They were
one of the few college teams to be ranked number one the entire sea-
son. Indeed, they were 12-0 and ranked number one in the country as
they entered the Orange Bowl to face the fifth-ranked and home favor-
ite, Miami Hurricanes. Down most of the game, the Cornhuskers
fought back to score a touchdown on a fourth-and-eight option-play
from quarterback Turner Gill to Mike Rozier’s backup, Jeff Smith.
Smith scampered 24 yards for a touchdown that narrowed the lead
to 31-30. Rather than go for the easy route and kick the extra
point to tie the game, Osborne opted for courage over safety. He
went for two.7
The pass from Turner Gill was incomplete, and the Miami faithful
stormed the field. Contrary to what the scoreboard read, however, there
were two winning teams that evening.
Osborne did two good things that evening in the Orange Bowl. First,
he set the example. All year, Osborne and coaches like him preach
winning. And when the pressure was on, Osborne backed up his rheto-
ric with actions and decisions. If you watch the video clip on YouTube,
you hear one announcer remark that Osborne “made this decision a
long time ago.” When what a leader says (talk about winning) closely
approximates what a leader does (going for the win), you’ve got a per-
son that sets the example. Second, it was the gutsiest of calls—a deci-
sion colored more by courage than anything else. Although Osborne
had built a strong career up to that point, few would argue that it was
bulletproof. Osborne knew that he would be second guessed locally in
fan-crazed Nebraska, but also nationally. It would’ve been far easier,
and safer, to go for the tie. But courageous leaders don’t go for the tie
when it’s all on the line. And especially when they’ve talked about
winning—not tying—all season. Invariably, they go for the win. Fol-
lowers are motivated by this approach and will stand behind leaders
like that.
Moving the Chains

Set the example. If you talk about winning, then go for the win—don’t
try not to lose.
PROTECTING THE QUARTERBACK

On September 23, 2007, Mike Gundy, the Oklahoma State football
coach, came completely and utterly unglued. In one of the more spec-
tacular postgame tirades in all of football history, Gundy literally
screamed at Jenni Carlson, a sports reporter for the Oklahoman, for a
negative commentary that she had written on one time starter and star,
quarterback Bobby Reid.
A true YouTube sensation, Gundy screamed at Carlson to come
after him in her columns. After all, he screamed, “I’m a man! I’m
forty!” To many, Gundy’s outburst may have appeared over the edge.
But to others, and probably to scholars like Kathy Kram, Gundy’s tirade
deserved something a bit more. It deserved praise.
Kathy Kram is a researcher and scholar at Boston University and is
considered an international authority on the topic of mentoring. In her
seminal book, Mentoring at Work, Kram suggested that one potent, but
often overlooked, way for mentors to develop, encourage, and motivate
their proteges is to shield and protect them from outside forces and external
threats.8 We couldn’t agree more. And while this may seem like it involves
mentoring, we think it touches on something a bit bigger—leadership.
We don’t know much about Mike Gundy. We do, however, know
that he got Oklahoma State back on the football map, a feat not done
since the Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders days. But we can say
that his defense of one of his players on that September evening typi-
fied the leadership characteristics of mentoring and Gridiron Leader-
ship. It is important to note, though, that shielding is not coddling, nor
is it babying. Rather, it is standing up for your players, your employees,
or your people when you believe in them.
We’ve all seen or experienced the opposite scenario—when leaders
throw their staff, their players, their team, or their employees, right
under the proverbial bus. If protecting your team members from out-
siders that want to do harm is motivating, creating scapegoats and
throwing personnel under the bus or to the wolves kills motivation,
destroys morale, and is just plain wrong. A case in point may just be
Stan Brock, the former coach who replaced Bobby Ross as Army’s foot-
ball coach in 2007. Shortly after losing their second consecutive game
to start the 2008 season to 1-AA New Hampshire, he told the press,
“I think some guys quit.”9 To young men who play Army football vol-
untarily without scholarship or traditional National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) luxuries, this comment attacked the very heart
and character of players who are sent to the true playing fields of
Afghanistan and Iraq. Given the choice, who would you rather play
for—a leader that publicly blames their subordinates or one that goes
the extra distance to protect them?
That’s not to say that it’s easy to protect and shield your team.
Because it’s not. Leaders are under tremendous pressure to perform. Ulti-
mately, it is the leader that is responsible and accountable for getting
the job done. When that doesn’t occur, some leaders look for excuses or
ways to shift blame, thinking that it will protect their job and their repu-
tation. Ironically and almost without exception, it does the exact oppo-
site. It makes the leader appear weak and incapable of handling the
responsibility and accountability that goes hand-in-hand with leading.
Finally, we want to highlight that we aren’t, and never will be, advo-
cates of babying or coddling followers whether they be players, employ-
ees, or personnel. There is a time and place, however, where the
pressure, the accusations, and the glare get too fierce, too hot to be put
on the followers. Leaders need big shoulders, like Mike Gundy, to bear
this weight themselves. We don’t know about you, but we’ve found that
one of the most effective leadership activities and motivating tactics
involves sticking up and standing behind followers when they’re unjustly
or unfairly signaled out. And, by all means, leaders should never create
scapegoats to save their own skin. That’s not leading; that’s cowardice.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders will stick up for and stand behind their players and
personnel when they’re unfairly targeted or criticized. How motivating
is it to know that a leader has your back?
PUT THE TEAM FIRST

There is a leadership principle taught to Army leaders that states
“know your subordinates and look out for their well-being.” Coach
Gundy’s outburst demonstrated this principle, but perhaps no other
coach embodied this concept more than Coach Eddie G. Robinson of
Grambling State University. Coach Robinson coached for 56 years
from 1941 to 1997, becoming the winningest coach in college football
history at the time he retired with over 400 wins. He compiled 45
winning seasons with 17 Southwestern Athletic Conference champion-
ships. Over 200 of his players went on to play professional football, and
he set a pro football record in 1971, that still stands today, when 43 of
his former players were in training camps. However, it wasn’t his win-
ning stats that made Robinson a great coach.
Coach Robinson saw his teams as more than just a collection of ath-
letes, and he didn’t just care for his players while they were on the
football field. He once stated, “You have to coach ’em as though he
were the boy who was going to marry your daughter.”10 During team
meetings, Robinson didn’t just talk about football. He talked to his
players about drugs, class attendance, and the importance of studying.
He would often go to the dorms in the early morning to wake his play-
ers for breakfast. He sought to use the game of football to better those
who participated on his teams.
It must also be noted that Robinson, an African American, began his
career at the historically black college well prior to the civil rights move-
ment. Not only did Robinson have to battle against the institutional racism
of the time, but he also struggled with little funding to get the small
school’s football program off the ground. He initially had no paid grounds-
keepers and would line the field himself.11 He also had no paid assistants,
no trainers, and little equipment. Robinson would make lunches for his
players prior to road trips since his players would not be able to eat in the seg-
regated restaurants of the South. Yet, these obstacles did not prevent Robin-
son from producing winning teams, nor did it make him resentful against a
system that seemed to be against him. Robinson showed, through his own
example, that success was possible through hard work and perseverance.
Much can be learned from Coach Eddie Robinson. He was an inspi-
ration to many of the athletes that played for him, as well as many
others familiar with his legacy. He was a great leader, not only because
of his ability to develop high-performing teams but his personal com-
mitment to his players. For over five decades, Robinson put his players
first. Improving the character of his players was more important to him
than his winning stats, and he couldn’t seem to understand why some
coaches wanted to put themselves in the limelight. His lesson for all
leaders seems simple: get to know and care for your people. Realize that
they are more than just workers on a production line or cubicle occupi-
ers. The impact of a leader that shows genuine compassion and takes
the effort to understand their people can have far reaching effects and
motivate people to reach new heights. As Coach Robinson once
explained, “You can’t coach ’em if you don’t love ’em.”12
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders take the time to get to know and look out for the
well-being of their people. Taking interest and showing compassion can
motivate people to higher performance.
GOAL LINE STAND?

Do your players know where the goal line is? And, more important,
are they willing to either take the ball into the end zone or, in other
situations, defend their goal line? Both are equally important as we
attempt to better understand motivation and inspiration. Over the last
several decades of organizational and individual performance research,
we’ve reached a rather solid conclusion. Namely, goals—in and by
themselves—are extremely powerful motivators.
Bill Cowher is revered and loved in Pittsburgh. In 15 seasons as the
Pittsburgh Steelers head coach, he led the Steelers to six AFC Cham-
pionship games and two Super Bowl appearances, and one Super Bowl
victory. But even the most ardent Cowher supporters would argue that
Cowher’s value as a coach rested in his motivational abilities as
opposed to his tactical and strategic prowess. Not to say he was weak
in those areas, but his core competency was getting his players to per-
form consistently to a very high level. What few realize is that behind
the yelling, screaming, jut-jawed competitiveness of Cowher was his
ability to rationally and logically use goals and goal theory to inspire
the individual and advance the team.
Internally, Cowher was known to break a 16-game season into four,
four-game mini-seasons. He correctly thought that winning a cham-
pionship involving 16 regular season games and three or four playoff
games was too difficult and too large for a typical player to comprehend
or grasp. So, he broke the larger goal of making the playoffs into win-
ning a series of four games at a time. This way the players could see the
goal clearly, and it was never too distant or too much of an abstraction
for players.
The fact that Cowher broke down goals into manageable parts is
really just one part of effectively using goal theory. In general, we know
from years of research largely driven by the research tandem of scholars
Ed Locke and Gary Latham that goals guide and direct behavior. With-
out goals, we wander aimlessly and waste a ton of mental and physical
energy. The Gridiron imperative then is to communicate what the goal
is. Not once, but twice and three times. Write it down. Talk about it.
Modern management also supports Cowher’s approach. Management
guru John P. Kotter advocated the creation of short-term wins to create
momentum. “Most people won’t go on a long march,” Kotter wrote,
“unless they see compelling evidence . . . that the journey is producing
expected results.”13 Kotter warned that without these short-term goals,
employees would give up trying to meet the long-term goals of the
organization.
Additionally, goals are important because they provide the specific

challenge against which all performance is benchmarked and judged.
The Gridiron imperative then is to create attainable but challenging
goals. These are the types of goals that marshal creativity, innovation,
and effort. If the goals aren’t attainable, people, players, and employees
are less likely to exert effort judging it as just a waste of time. Con-
versely, if the goals are too easy, then people aren’t pushed and become
lazy and distracted. The best goals are really on the edge of the goal
line—on the brink between the doable and impossible.
Where Cowher really tapped into the power of goal theory was his
ability to provide clarity and understanding to the goal itself. Take a
minute and assess whether all of your followers, your team, and your
personnel know exactly what the short- and long-term goals are. With
Cowher, it seemed as if everyone on the team knew exactly what the
goals were all of the time. We also know from Locke and Latham’s
research and from watching the Pittsburgh Steelers with Big Ben Roth-
lisberger, Jerome Bettis, and Hines Ward that goals work best when
they are set, agreed upon, and accepted by all members of the organiza-
tion. Here, too, it seems like Cowher was particularly gifted at getting
everybody on board to see the goals not as “his” but as “theirs.”
There are several key takeaways here. The most important lesson is
to recognize the sheer power and the allure of the goal line. Like grav-
ity, the goal line itself pulls the ball downfield. The challenge for the
Gridiron Leader is to add the push to the pull and really drive the ball
downfield. That power will always be amplified when there is goal
clarity, when the goals are attainable but still difficult and challenging,
and when everybody on the team accepts the goals as their own.
Remember, too, as a leader that you must provide feedback to ensure
players know how close or how far they are from achieving the goal.
Obviously, the farther away, the harder they must drive the ball. What
are you waiting for? Dive for the end zone and cross that goal line.
TIP DRILL
Apply these Gridiron tips and principles now—
1. Understand what makes each one of your people tick. Not
everyone is motivated by the same drivers. To improve perform-
ance from your team or organization, do not attempt to moti-
vate everyone in the same manner. Find the unique drivers that
motivate people and learn the ones to stay away from.
2. Become a guardian of standards. Establish, communicate, and

enforce high standards for everyone on the team. Ensure that
there are rewards for meeting the standards and consequences
for those that don’t. Don’t compromise. Standards that are
adopted and valued by the group can become motivators in and
of themselves.
3. Don’t be afraid to offer a second chance. Inevitably, mistakes
will happen. Maintaining high standards doesn’t imply that
leaders have to be completely rigid. Accept the reality that
some mistakes will be made and use this as an opportunity to
allow people a chance to grow and improve. Leaders that
demand high performance but also allow group members to
learn from their mistakes will create a culture of inspiration.
4. Create a meritocracy. Create a reward-based system that com-
pensates individuals based on their performance. Not everyone
deserves to be compensated equally, and rewards can take many
forms. If people expect to be rewarded according to their per-
formance, the higher they will perform.
5. Set the example and protect your people. People will naturally
look to their leaders to determine the “right” way to act. Always
lead by example and don’t expect others to do what you will
not do. Protect your people from internal and external forces.
Do not coddle the members of your team, but take accountabil-
ity for their actions and never shift blame.
6. Create and communicate short-term and long-term goals.
People will naturally gravitate toward a clear goal or objective
set in front of them. Develop short-term, or interim goals and
celebrate small victories to build momentum toward
long-term goals.
NOTES
1. Gerry Callahan, “A True Survival Test,” Sports Illustrated, January 27,
1997, http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG11
42708/2/index.htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
players/G/GlenTe00.htm?redir (accessed March 14, 2009).
players/R/RichCu00.htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
4. ESPN Web site, http://m.espn.go.com/general/page2/story?storyId=

3593759&pg=2 (accessed March 14, 2009).
players/W/WordBa00.htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
6. ESPN Web site, http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp08/news/story?
id=3546615 (accessed March 14, 2009).
7. Charles Nobles, “Tennessee Braces Itself as Osborne Prepares for Final
Bowl,” New York Times, January 2, 1998. For a complete account of
Nebraska football history, please see Steve Richardson, Then Osborne Said
to Rozier (Chicago: Triumph Books, 2008).
8. For more research on mentoring, see Kathy E. Kram, Mentoring at Work:
Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 1988).
9. ESPN Web site, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=282500349.
10. Roscoe Nance, “Legendary Grambling Coach Eddie Robinson Dies,” USA
Today, April 4, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/
2007-04-04-eddie-robinson-obit_N.htm (accessed January 28, 2009).
11. “Ex-Grambling Coach Robinson Dead at 88,” Associated Press, April 4,
2007, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2825016. (accessed
January 28, 2009).
12. Roscoe Nance, “Legendary Grambling Coach Eddie Robinson Dies,” USA
Today, April 4, 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/
2007-04-04-eddie-robinson-obit_N.htm (accessed January 28, 2009). For a
complete account of Coach Eddie Robinson’s life and career, please see
Eddie Robinson, Never Before, Never Again: The Autobiography of Eddie
Robinson (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 1999).
13. John P. Kotter, What Leaders Really Do (Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 1999), 87.
2
POWER RANKINGS
I will pound you and pound you until you quit.

—Woody Hayes
What makes football great is also what separates it from other sports
and pastimes. The truth is that if we were to bottle up football and
send it to the Los Alamos labs for scientific study, we would only get
scientific evidence confirming what we already know. The atomic unit,
the DNA, of football (and maybe life) is power. Football, in many
ways, is about accumulating and spending power. Power is used in so
many overt and subtle ways within the locker room, in the front office,
and, ultimately, on the gridiron. Coaches exercise power over their
players. And, in turn, these players try to exert their will, their power,
over their competition. Without question, champions tend to have
more power and are able to use that power better than rivals. In this
chapter, we closely examine this notion of power and how to get it and
how to spend it to cross the goal line and guarantee victory.
OLD SCHOOL
The opening quote comes from one of the true, bona fide coaching
legends in all of sports, Woody Hayes. In the same spirit of basketball
coach Bobby Knight, field General George S. Patton, football peer Paul
“Bear” Bryant, and capitalist Andrew Carnegie, Woody Hayes was, if
nothing else, old school. Especially when it came to this leadership tool
we call power.
Hayes racked up a 205-68-10 career while at Ohio State. Two times
he earned College Football Coach of the Year honors. During his
28-year career, he directed and led the Buckeyes to five national titles
cementing Ohio State as one of the most storied football programs in
19
all NCAA history. Along the way, he coached and mentored the likes
of Bo Schembechler, who would later serve as a chief rival while
coaching at Michigan.1
Woody Hayes was a tough coach and an even tougher man. In mid-
summer 1974, Woody suffered a severe heart attack. Not serious
enough to stop him from coaching the home opener, though. It was
this toughness that helped build a power base that would carry Woody
Hayes, and by extension the Ohio State football team, far.
As the Web site www.buckeyesfansoly.com reports, Woody’s style
was strength-on-strength, will-on-will, toughness-on-toughness, and
Woody’s philosophy mirrors the opening quote—“I will pound you and
pound you until you quit.” It shouldn’t be surprising then that Woody,
in classic old-style fashion, was a yeller and screamer. With a legendary
temper, Woody bent and, literally, forced people to his will. His verbal
explosions were known throughout the sports world. When these out-
bursts occurred, it was not uncommon for Coach Hayes to destroy a
few things along the way. Whether it was a film projector, his glasses,
water jugs, or his watch, his emotions were certainly displayed in over-
whelming fashion.
His old-school way of doing things, however, would ultimately cost
Woody Hayes his job and a bit of his legendary reputation as a winner.
Trailing by two to the Clemson Tigers in the 1978 Gator Bowl, fresh-
man Ohio State quarterback Art Schlichter tossed a short pass that
was intercepted as Ohio State was driving for the win late in the fourth
quarter. The ball fell into the hands of Clemson noseguard, Charlie
Bauman. Racing up the sideline for a possible Clemson score, Woody
Hayes apparently had enough. After being tackled and forced out of
bounds, Bauman was punched in the throat by a furious Woody Hayes.
Of course, Ohio State lost 17-15. But this incident brought an immedi-
ate end to the career of one of the most successful and storied coaches
of all time. He would never coach again, and in true Woody Hayes
style, he never apologized for taking Bauman out.
MIX IT UP
Wrapped up in the life and the story of Woody Hayes are many les-
sons about power and the sources, uses, advantages, and disadvantages
associated with being a power broker. And as the heading above sug-
gests, best results almost always occur when we have the insight and
opportunity to build and use a variety of different sources of power.
Let’s begin with the core definition of power. At its center, power is
about the ability, capability, or potential to control and influence the
Power Rankings 21
behavior of others. In gridiron terms, it is about controlling the man

lined up in front of you and, subsequently, the line of scrimmage. It is
about subjecting and projecting your will unto another. Much like a
law of Newtonian physics, power is absolutely essential to get things
done. A car without power does not go. A drill without torque, without
power, has no function. This same principle applies to leadership—
without power, leaders cannot get things done. As a result, the elemen-
tal leadership lesson is rather straightforward—leaders must create,
build, and foster their own power and build power pockets or power
stores within their team to beat rivals and surpass the competition.
The creation and use of power may include motivation, but it
doesn’t necessarily have to. And, herein, rests the true value of power.
Power can get people to exert effort and act in accordance even if they
don’t want to. Surely, the players at Ohio State didn’t always want to
do extra practice drills. But they did so anyway. How do you explain
this? The bottom line is that power gets action when action seems
untenable, impossible.
This principle is not foreign; ultimately, leaders cannot control fol-
lower beliefs, attitudes, personalities, or, even opinions. Sure, they can
influence and shape them. But not control them. A leader almost
always, however, can exert some control and direct influence on behav-
ior. And they do this through power.
What gives power its juice or kick is the concept of reciprocity and
dependence. A leader or coach can either give or withhold something that
a follower wants in the shape of rewards that include money, information,
prestige, pride, praise, and/or time. For instance, a coach controls playing
time and scheduling and can use that to reward or punish followers, but
only to the degree that followers want, desire, or are dependent on what
the coach has or controls. Using the scheduling example, a coach or man-
ager can give time off for great performance to include scheduling shorter
practice sessions or, in the case of the manager, give free paid time off. In
this example, both reciprocity and dependence are at work. The coach can
reciprocate good performance with time off and the teammates or employ-
ees likely desire, value, and may even depend, on that reward.
It can be argued that Woody Hayes relied on a single source of
power—a mistake that is very difficult to pull off today. Conversely,
coaches that have continued success like Virginia Tech’s Frank
Beamer, Florida’s Urban Meyer, Chicago’s Lovie Smith, and former
Indianapolis coach Tony Dungy all “mix it up” when it comes to their
sources and uses of power. Make no mistake, though. While football
(and life) is much ado about power, it is not about being old school.
The days of relying on the brute force of yelling and screaming are long
over. Indeed, there is some finesse and artistry to building and using
power, and we’ll explore and explain more below.
Moving the Chains

Effective leaders use diverse sources of power.
BOTTOM OF THE POWER RANKINGS

The power rankings are used by several media sources to assess where
and how NFL and collegiate teams rank. ESPN famously publishes the
top 10 and the bottom 10 in power rankings every week. We use the
power ranking format and formula now to better understand the sources
of power available to leaders of all organizations (See Figure 2.1 on p. 32).
At the bottom of the power rankings is the source of legitimacy, or
legitimate power. This source of power gets its strength from such
things as position, rank, or conventional authority. In the military, a
colonel outranks a major. In the corporate world, a vice president out-
ranks a manager. Because of this structure, the colonel or vice president
enjoys a legitimate power advantage over the major or the manager.
On the gridiron, the coach can get players to act largely on the basis of
his formal position title and rank—a coach always outranks the players.
In today’s world, legitimate power provides a start. But it is difficult
to build a sustained competitive advantage only using legitimate power.
While some coaches may rely solely on legitimate power, it is difficult
to do for an extended period of time. When this occurs, especially with
disciplinarians, the coach is said to have lost the team. A recent exam-
ple may have been the firing of Bill Callahan, the former Raiders
coach, who was relieved of his duties only one year after taking his
team to the Super Bowl. Callahan was openly criticized by his players,
some of them Pro Bowl regulars such as Tim Brown, Jerry Rice, and
Rich Gannon. Noted in this example is that although the players may
have recognized him as the coach, his ability to lead and use power,
more than likely, stopped with his job title. Judging from news reports
and sports affiliates, it appeared that some players had little respect for
their coach. If this was the case, Callahan’s lone source of power, legiti-
mate power, wasn’t enough to get the Raiders to perform consistently
during his tenure and wasn’t enough for him to keep his job.
One of the largest drawbacks of legitimate power is that the leader
doesn’t own the source of power; the organization does. With legiti-
mate power, the leader is the one that is truly dependent—dependent
Power Rankings 23
on the organization to confer rank, position, and title. As soon as those

things go away, which did in coach Callahan’s case, the leader loses his
or her legitimate power base. Effective leaders know that consistent
performance cannot be obtained through a lone source of power. They
must reach out for different, and more potent, sources of power that
apply to the situation and the individual.
Moving the Chains

Legitimate power is the property of the organization—not the leader.
And, therein, rests a critical drawback of over-relying on rank and
position.
PRESS
Similar to pressing the defense, “press” means to force and coerce
others to achieve a desired outcome. This is next to the bottom on the
power ranking scale, just slightly above legitimate power mentioned ear-
lier. Pressing or coercive power refers to a leader’s ability or capacity to
influence behaviors largely through punishing undesirable behavior.
This moves beyond positional or legitimate power that is really a passive
display of power. Rank is a passive indicator of power—not really a
full-fledged source of power. But coercive power is an active source.
It involves fear, some bullying, and the use of punishment. By its very
nature, coercive power is an active power process—never a passive one.
For instance, Eric Mangini has effectively used punishment and coer-
cive power to change undesired behaviors. Early on in his tenure as the
head coach of the New York Jets, Eric Mangini instituted a policy in
which players and squads would be punished by running extra laps at
practice for general mental sloppiness that lead to things like turnovers
and penalties. His threats and actual use of punishment seemed to
work; in Mangini’s first couple of years with the Jets, his teams were in
the top five in the league for fewest penalties and fewest penalty yards.2
Of course, this also relates to our previous discussion about maintaining
and enforcing high standards. But notice that Mangini did so through
coercive power, through punishment.
Both coercive and legitimate power sources are usually found together
at the bottom of the power rankings because they naturally fit alongside
each other. It is usually the leader or coach who has the authority and
the legitimacy to confer and levy punishments. And as we can see from
the Mangini case, there’s clearly a time and place for coercive power.
It is, after all, an effective way to reinforce high standards. But, like legit-
imate power, coercive power has both limits and pitfalls.
First, and similar to legitimate power, the organization confers the
capacity to punish to the leader or coach. When the position or title is
removed, so too is the ability to punish. Most important, though, is
that the very act of punishing followers or teammates (not rivals!) can
have some serious unintended consequences. Remember, the gridiron
shouldn’t be that different from organizational life. Ideally, work can
and should be fun. We just spend too much time doing it to be misera-
ble. Sadly, an overreliance on coercive power and punishment breeds a
culture of fear and intimidation. Work no longer is a game, nor is it
fun. Instead, it’s a chore. Leading scholarly research indicates that pun-
ishment creates deep-seated emotional feelings toward the leader and
breeds, among other things, sabotage, avoidance, and resentment.3
If it is hard to picture a mutiny brewing within cubicle walls, recognize
that negative behavior manifests itself in many forms. Leaders in business
environments are fairly restricted when it comes to the types of punish-
ment they can administer. Business leaders, for example, can’t legally
force hourly paid workers to work overtime without compensation. Many
business leaders may be reluctant to give a poor performer additional
responsibility to compel the worker to perform better. Therefore, some
business leaders reserve the ultimate punishment to deal with bottom per-
formers—terminating the employee. Used too often, this form of punish-
ment creates a culture of fear leading to a variety of unwanted outcomes.
Workers may lie, cover up, or blame others for mistakes. Process or prod-
uct problems may go unaddressed because employees are scared to raise
issues. In addition, top performers may voluntarily leave the organization.
Predictably, no organization can perform to a high standard over the
long haul with these types of pervasive feelings among and between fol-
lowers. The truth behind coercive power then is that there’s a time and
place for it, but it should never be every time and every place. We even
suggest that it should probably never be the first course of action for
the leader. This is easier said than done. Just ask any parent. It almost
always seems easier, more expedient, to punish as opposed to taking
the time to develop and mentor.
Moving the Chains

Coercive power is among the easiest sources of power to tap into. But
easy doesn’t equal effective. Instead of making it the first source of
power, make it the source of last resort.
Power Rankings 25
POWER SURGE AT THE LINE

Next on the evolutionary power scale is that of reward power.
Reward power is definitely a progressive step forward from coercive
power. We, personally, believe that reward power should become stand-
ard in any and all discussions of power. We argue this based on several
reasons.
The most notable reason is that reward power, unlike the other
two, reflects the current of leadership. By current, we mean
“current” as the heading above suggests—a current of electricity.
The steady and onward movement that can cause a surge in
momentum.
At its most elemental level, power is fluid, not static, like an electri-
cal current. It’s always moving. But also like money or currency, power
is about an exchange. Above all else, it’s about reciprocity. The
Gridiron Leader has something that the follower wants. It doesn’t
always have to be money, but it could be. Followers, oftentimes, want
more than money. They seek resources, assistance, information, co-
operation and support, a chance for promotion, time off, or fame
and recognition.4
Whereas coercive power really trades and markets in the currency of
fear, reward power is a bit more potent because it trades and markets in
the currency of wants, needs, and desires. Reward power, then, is the
leader’s ability, capacity, and willingness to dangle carrots or rewards to
drive performance. Interestingly, having the capability to dole out
rewards isn’t quite enough. To cement the deal, a leader must also be
perceptive. In other words, they must know what type of resources (i.e.,
money, recognition, or promotion) a follower desires. The very best
Gridiron Leaders are able to fit the reward to meet the individual or
team desires. If leaders can’t do that, they waste precious rewards and
resources on people and followers who don’t even want or desire them.
Bottom line—rewards must address a need, want, or desire to be
effective.
The lineage of reward power, though, is closely linked to coercive
power. Without question, these two sources of power share more simi-
larities than differences. The most striking similarity is that the leader,
again, is largely handcuffed and constrained by the organization. If the
organization chooses to withhold resources from the leader, the leader
loses a great source of reward power. The best way to think about this
is a line of dependence. The organization bestows rewards upon the
leader in the form of information, scheduling discretion, or money, and
leaders, in turn, dispense these rewards as they see fit. But if the
organization is low on resources or just refuses to give leaders this

source of power, the leader is descending to weakness, not rising to
power. Moreover, something as simple as organizational policies may
prevent the leader from exercising personal, creative, or innovative
uses of rewards. In fact, we know one manager at a distribution center
who couldn’t approve any free time or vacation or offer small bonuses/
financial rewards. For instance, the manager once asked for $40 to host
a luncheon for his shift that broke production records. The organiza-
tion refused as it wasn’t company policy.
In general, you’ll find these two truths on the gridiron as it relates
to reward power. First, the greater the centralization tendencies of a
given organization, the less likely leaders will be able to rely on
reward power. Instead, reward power is centralized in the hands of a
few, much higher in the organization. Second, and as you can prob-
ably predict from our discussion, the leader never really completely
owns the source of reward power. The organization does. Finally, and
maybe most important, reward power is heavily context- and time-
dependent. Said differently, it’s easy to give rewards, particularly
financial ones, when times are good. When times aren’t as good, it’s
difficult or even impossible to dole out rewards. And watch out if
those rewards become an expectation! To put this in perspective, con-
sider one popular reward mechanism in many companies—stock and
stock options. A CEO could decide to give stock or stock options as a
reward for superior performance, but the value of those rewards would
be heavily context-dependent. When the company is performing well,
the CEO could give stock options and the options would have value.
But what happens when the company is not performing well? The
CEO can’t give those same rewards with the same frequency or with
the same potency because the company no longer has the resources to
do so. For these reasons, the leader is always giving up some level of
leverage here to the organization. The lesson should be clear—
although we encourage the use of reward power if you’ve got the lib-
erty to do so, never rely on it exclusively. It is a fragile source of
power.
A student of both reward and coercive power is Lane Kiffin, the
onetime coach of the Oakland Raiders. Lane Kiffin was on the receiv-
ing end of coercive power as he was fired for cause by longtime owner,
Al Davis. But Lane Kiffin also understood reward power. Kiffin’s
remarks to NBCSports.com demonstrate a rather sophisticated under-
standing of both the dynamic (as opposed to static) and currency
aspects of power.
Power Rankings 27
You see a lot less old-school, hardnosed “my way or the highway” coaching
because players now are just different than they were when my father started
out. That’s what [Monte Kiffin] says. Coaching back then, players just wanted
to play. They just loved playing football. Now so much more goes into it and
they make so much money that you have to find different ways to motivate
them. The two things that motivate them are playing time and money. If you
can get them better they’re gonna listen because that gets them to play more
so they can make more money on the next contract. . . . The love of the
game . . . they’re playing as much for the money and that’s where you have to
interact so much with your players and understand them and see what moti-
vates them.5
Moving the Chains

Many think using reward power is easy. It hardly ever is. It requires
perceptions of fit and tends to be a fragile source of leader power.
ON THE SHOULDERS OF GREATNESS

One of the great moments of the NFL was when Bill Walsh won his
first Super Bowl as the leader and coach of the San Francisco 49ers. At
the end of the game, the players hoisted Walsh onto their shoulders
and paraded him around the stadium. What kind of leader gets hoisted
onto the shoulders of great individuals and even greater teams? A spe-
cial leader. A powerful leader.
The use of legitimate, coercive, and reward power is enough to get
you to midfield. In today’s world, that’s about all the farther you’ll get.
To get into the Red Zone, a leader must develop and tap into the most
potent sources of power—expert and referent power. We discuss these
two sources of power because they’re so damn hard to tease apart.
Expert power is a power source that is derived from the real and per-
ceived knowledge, expertise, talents, skills, abilities, and talents of the
leader. A major critique of expert power is that it’s a narrow source of
power. We’re not sure we agree; expertise and “genius” status often
bleeds into other areas.
There are no shortage of examples, past and present, which bear wit-
ness to the value and efficacy of expert power. Historians tend to agree
that General Robert E. Lee derived much of his power and influence
not from legitimacy, coercion, or reward sources of power. Rather, he
was viewed by his followers (and enemies!) as one of the greatest
strategists and tacticians of all times. People followed Robert E. Lee
because they knew that he knew what he was doing. Michael Dell, Bill
Gates, Warren Buffett, and Steve Jobs all wield tremendous power.
Some may say that their power comes from their position. We believe
otherwise. Their expertise, knowledge, imagination, talents, and com-
petencies are their true sources of power, and it is those attributes that
cause so many people to stop and listen when they talk. Bill Walsh,
the founder and father of the West Coast Offense, and Dick LeBeau,
one of the innovators of the zone blitz scheme and one of the NFL’s
all-time best defensive coordinators, are powerful because of their
minds. Because of their genius.
Unlike the previously discussed sources of power, expert power is an
especially attractive source of power because the individual owns it—
not the organization. Since it’s your property, you take it with you,
wherever you go. Here, the tables are turned. Instead of relying on the
organization for power, the organization is in debt and is dependent on
the leader to share and use their expertise and knowledge. If the lesson
doesn’t jump right out, it should. Educate yourself. Get smarter.
Develop a unique skill set and learn it better than anyone else. Sharpen
a skill into a competency that few have. Grow your talents! The one
drawback, if any, of investing in expert power is just that—it’s an
investment and usually takes some time to develop a specialized and
deep knowledge base, skill set, or competency. Some people think that
you have to be old to accumulate expert power. But this is hardly the
case. The founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, were young
guns when they started Google. Jon Gruden was in his 30s when he
won the Super Bowl with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, while Mike
Tomlin, the head coach of the 2009 Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh
Steelers, was only 36 at the time.
As good as expert power is, it’s amplified when it’s partnered with
referent power. Together, victory is all but guaranteed. Referent power
is a source of power that influences others’ behavior and decisions as a
result of the respect, admiration, or popularity directed at the leader. A
correlate to referent power is reputation. Those with sterling reputa-
tions tend to have large stores of referent power to draw on and from.
Referent power is notable because it’s not unidirectional, meaning that
it doesn’t just flow from the leader to the follower. Instead, referent
power is multidirectional. Referent power is felt by followers, peers, and
even superiors. Sometimes, simultaneously. A hallmark or strong sign
of referent power is the concurrent rise in role modeling behaviors.
Subordinates and followers like to role model those that they respect.
The genius status of Bill Walsh probably led to his source of referent
power. Regardless, Bill Walsh launched a literal field army of role
Power Rankings 29
models who respected him so much they tried to model their behavior
and career after Walsh. Mike Holmgren, Jim Fassel, and Mike Shana-
han are just a few that modeled their career after Walsh and all have
either participated in or won a Super Bowl.
Referent power is also rooted in a leader’s personality and interperso-
nal skills. People will follow these types of leaders because they can
communicate attractive visions of the future, demonstrate desirable
personal traits, take personal risks, energize others, use unconventional
tactics, or can effectively engage members of the organization. Pete
Carroll, head coach of the University of Southern California (USC)
Trojans football team, effectively uses referent power to build a win-
ning team. Since taking over the program in 2001, Carroll has pro-
pelled the Trojans to two national championships and five Pac-10
conference titles. Carroll took over a program that was in a 20-year
slump and now he has the highest winning percentage among active
coaches in Division I football.6 Many credit Carroll’s leadership style
for reviving the USC football program. Although rivals may know Car-
roll for his team’s aggressive style of play, many more at USC know
Carroll for his gregarious personality, his youthful enthusiasm, and his
willingness to try non-traditional approaches. During practice, Carroll
can be found running sprints or participating in drills with the team.
Also, unlike traditional practices, Carroll has opened practices to the
public to help motivate players. He spends time explaining the team’s
legacy and past playing greats so the current team members feel a con-
nection and a sense of history or tradition.7 Once regarded as too soft
on NFL players when he coached the New England Patriots, Carroll’s
style has resonated with younger players. No question, Carroll’s cha-
risma is embedded in his strongest source of power.
On the power genome, expert and referent power are more alike
than different. Referent power shares the same benefits as expertise
power. Actually, referent power may be longer lasting as the knowledge
and skills associated with expert power may become more obsolete at a
quicker pace in our fast changing, technology rich world. Make no mis-
take; referent power lasts a long time. And like expert power, the indi-
vidual owns it, builds, and guards it. It is the property of the individual,
not the organization. Although this is a gridiron book, the best illustra-
tion of the characteristics of referent power may just be in baseball with
Joe Torre. Hank Steinbrenner took away Torre’s legitimate, coercive,
and reward power when he essentially dismissed and disrespected the
former Yankee skipper. But Torre had both expert and referent power
and he took that with him to the Dodgers where he immediately lever-
aged both to get Los Angeles to the playoffs.
An example of a leader outside of the sports world who has mixed it

up and used all sources of power would be General (retired) Jack Keane.
In over 30 years of public service, General Jack Keane amassed all
sources of power during a career that included service in Vietnam,
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. On his way to four stars and the
post of Vice Chief of Staff, Keane would command the tradition-rich
101st Airborne Division and the XVIII Airborne Corps.
Interestingly, the nation needed and called upon him the most not
during his career, but in his retirement. And this call reflects the true
and exceptional value of the last two sources of power—expert and
referent power. Matthew Kaminski describes and chronicles the leader-
ship abilities of Jack Keane in an exceptional article in the Wall Street
Journal entitled “Why the Surge Worked.”
Keane was one of the leading advocates of the surge strategy in Iraq,
and one of the first voices in the woods to call for it. His international
relations expertise was so strong and his reputation so well regarded
that many, including President Bush, turned to and listened to Keane.
President Bush took Keane’s counsel over Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfield. Rumsfield’s power base, rooted in legitimate, coercive, and
reward power, was not enough to win the president over to Rumsfield’s
viewpoint. This is a classic case where referent power followed and
accompanied Jack Keane out of his Army career. The staying and po-
tency of that referent and expert power was strong enough to push
through the objections of both houses of Congress, the Iraq study com-
mission, and the very opinions of the Secretary of Defense.8
Moving the Chains

When combined, expert and referent power offer two of the strongest
sources of power for Gridiron Leaders.
THE POWER OF THE NETWORK

What do Dennis Green, Mike Holmgren, Norv Turner, Dick Jauron,
Steve Mariucci, Marty Schottenheimer, and Dennis Erickson all have
in common? Just like the famous Verizon commercial, it appears that
all have the power of the network behind them. And this is important.
Up to this point, we’ve described power going primarily from leader to
subordinate in a traditional, vertical relationship. Harking back to our
Woody Hayes example, though, vertical relationships are more old
school than they are about the future.
Power Rankings 31
Network power is a rising, fast-growing source of power, and it affords

those that invest in this source of power many advantages. The coaches
above are all coaches who’ve either resigned or been fired only to coach
again, sometimes multiple times. Sure, their rehiring, no doubt, is
directly related to their reputation and previous track record of winning.
A more nuanced understanding, however, would likely show that these
people were well connected and enjoyed some degree of network power.
Invest in network power. It affords several leadership and organiza-
tional benefits. Globally, networks of peers and superiors provide both
personal and professional support. On a more micro level, network posi-
tion and network power increase information and knowledge transfer.
Think about it. Those within the network often get the best informa-
tion sooner. In a knowledge-based environment, the importance of in-
formation speed and quality cannot be overstated. Those left out of the
network are often left guessing and without a clue. A strong, diverse,
and growing network can provide high-quality advice when you need it
most. It can also provide social support as a leader approaches a difficult
decision. Lastly, and maybe with a touch of self-interest, a network that
is alive can protect a leader and offer them early insight to network
opportunities like job openings or coaching vacancies.
We offer one particular piece of advice in regard to network power.
There are two kinds of networks—internal and external. Internal net-
work power is within the organization. As long as you are part of the
organization, internal network power has benefits. External network
power reaches beyond the confines of the organization to other compa-
nies, industries, units, or locales. A competitive advantage will go to
the leader who invests in both. Interestingly, of all the coaches on the
list above, Dennis Erickson may just be the network master. Unlike the
other coaches mentioned, Erickson seemed to have strong support net-
works both in the collegiate and professional ranks. After all, he’s
coached six different college football programs (Idaho, Wyoming,
Washington State, Miami, Oregon State, Arizona State) and two NFL
franchises (Seattle and San Francisco).
The case of Dennis Erickson illustrates several key points relating to
network power. First, and similar to referent and expert power, the
leader—not the organization—owns this source of power. Second,
investing and tapping into this source of power provides the leader some
mobility. In today’s world, leaders need to be mobile, not confined to a
singular organization. That’s why conference and industry event partici-
pation is so important; it allows and encourages the very practice of net-
working. Internal to an organization, leaders need to cross department
and functional boundaries to establish new relationships. Having
Legitimacy Reward Referent

Source Network
Coercion Expert
Effectiveness
Least Most
Effective Effective
Ownership Organization Individual
Figure 2.1 Sources of Power and Their Effectiveness
relationships and networks that span beyond the leader’s immediate

team may provide additional access to resources as well as information.
Finally, this source of power is special because it transcends the individ-
ual. Referent and expert power lie in the knowledge, skills, abilities,
competencies, popularity, and reputation of a single leader. Not so with
network power. This source of power offers more talents, more knowl-
edge, more skills, and more competencies just by the very fact that a
network is plural—it involves many leaders, not a singular one. Do your-
self a favor, then, and invest in the power of the network.
Moving the Chains

Invest and tap into network power. Network power is fueled by the
talents of many as opposed to one. For that reason alone, it is a special
source of leader power.
STAYING POWER
Remember, the entire premise and objective of this book is that
great leaders leave legacies and special organizations create dynasties. It
is impossible to achieve either without fuel, without power. One of the
major strategic objectives that we’ll touch upon later is the kinetic and
real energy associated with momentum. At its most simplistic level,
leaders and organizations in motion tend to stay in motion. Hopefully,
we are focused on the motion and momentum of winning. Don’t ever
forget, though, that all momentum begins with a push and that push is
only possible through a power boost. A steady and constant application
of power helps momentum continue.
Power Rankings 33
To reach legendary status as a leader or to achieve dynastic charac-

teristics for the organization requires staying power. Staying power is
nothing more than a commitment to constant improvement and steady
and high performance. Staying power is never a luxury of circumstance.
Instead, it demands planning and preparation and commitment. No
single leader can build referent or expert or network power overnight.
It is the long war—not the short battle—that separates Gridiron
Champions from all others.
The best way to achieve this staying power is to reflect upon and
evaluate the sources of power that we mentioned earlier. While tempt-
ing, try not to overinvest in any one power source. Instead, try to mix
it up and diversify your sources of power. When this is done, one source
can compensate for another if it is running low.
Given the level of competition, it always amazed us how good the
49ers, the Steelers, the Cowboys, the Packers, and the Patriots were for
so long. Equally amazing is how long-tenured coaches such as Tom
Landry, Bill Cowher, Joe Paterno, Frank Beamer, and Jeff Fisher stayed
good for so long. Sure, there were ups and downs. But all had some-
thing special that enabled them to survive and thrive while others
didn’t—they had staying power.
TIP DRILL
1. Recognize and use a variety of power. All leaders exercise some
form of power to get things done. Power, the ability to influence
the behavior of others, can come from many sources. Use a vari-
ety of methods, techniques, or strategies to influence others.
Never rely on a single source of power or any one approach.
2. Leverage what comes from the organization, but not too much.
Legitimate power is derived from the leader’s position in the
organization. Coercive power stems from punishing undesired
behavior. Reward power draws from the leader’s ability to pro-
vide something followers want. All three of these power sources
are owned by the organization but can be used as effective tools
by the leader to influence behavior. Recognize that this power is
on loan from the organization. Exceptional leaders will not rely
on these sources alone.
3. Build your power. Expert and referent power are key sources of
power for the leader. Build your base in these areas by seeking
self-development. Invest in new skills, education, or sharpen
your talents. Protect and manage your reputation as a leader to

build referent power. Be a role model for others to follow.
4. Get connected. Create a network of professionals, peers, superi-
ors, and subject matter experts to provide personal and profes-
sional support. Increase your access to knowledge and
information. Invest time and effort to create a network both
internally and externally to the organization.
5. Create staying power. Have a commitment to constant
improvement and high performance. Conduct frequent self-eval-
uations to understand your strengths and development needs as
a leader. Learn what’s making you an effective (or ineffective)
leader. Plan and prepare to strengthen your sources of expert,
referent, and network power.
NOTES
1. ESPN Web site, http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Hayes_Woody.html
2. Karen Crouse, “Punishment Laps Help Jets Kick Penalty Habit,” New York
Times, January 5, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/sports/football/
05jets.html?fta=y (accessed February 13, 2009).
3. K. D. Butterfield, L. K. Trevion, and G. A. Ball, “Punishment from the
Manager’s Perspective: A Grounded Investigation and Inductive Model,”
Academy of Management Journal 39 (1996), 479–512; K. J. Dunegan, “Fines,
Frames, and Images: Examining Formulation Effects on Punishment Deci-
sions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68 (1996),
58–68; D. Grote, Discipline Without Punishment (New York: Amacom, 1995).
4. K. D. Butterfield, L. K. Trevion, and G. A. Ball, “Punishment from the Man-
ager’s Perspective: A Grounded Investigation and Inductive Model,” Academy
of Management Journal 39 (1996), 479–512; K. J. Dunegan, “Fines, Frames,
and Images: Examining Formulation Effects on Punishment Decisions,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68 (1996), 58–68.
5. NBC Sports Web site, http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/26365992/wid/
11915829/ (accessed March 14, 2009).
6. USC football Web site, http://www.trojanfootballanalysis.com/top_10_active_
2006.html and http://usctrojans.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/carroll_pete00
.html (accessed March 14, 2009).
7. Michael Sokolove, “Happiness Is a Warm Football Coach,” New York Times,
November 2, 2008.
8. Matthew Kaminski, “Why the Surge Worked.” Wall Street Journal, September
20, 2008.
3
FRANCHISE PLAYERS
You can learn more character on the two-yard line than anywhere
else in life.
—Paul Dietzel, coach of the 1958 National Champion
Louisiana State University Tigers
How many franchise players are suited up on your team now? Do you
know what makes a franchise player a franchise player (See Figure 4.1
on p. 63)?
Whether in the profit or nonprofit sector, such as the military or law
enforcement, these questions are important ones for leaders to ponder.
The rationale is rather simple; organizations today don’t rely on ma-
chinery as the primary force to get the job done. Just like football,
today’s technology-rich, complex organizations place their bets on peo-
ple to get the ball moving. For precisely that reason, we all need to ask
ourselves who exactly our franchise players are, what makes a franchise
player such a valuable asset, and how we develop a team of franchise
players. We can think of franchise players as not just the best members of
the team, but the best when compared to anyone else that has a similar
job. They are the players you wouldn’t want to lose for fear of losing a
competitive advantage. But make no mistake, due diligence is needed
here. All too often, coaches and leaders think they’re getting a franchise
player only to learn later that the player almost cost the franchise.
SKILLED POSITION?
Organizations, whether in football or not, begin by looking at skill
sets. For instance, most football teams dream of a special type of run-
ning back. One that has excellent size and impressive running skills.
One that runs with strength, power, and balance. A running back that
35
likes to run over people but who can also run around people. A dream
back would also possess great vision and know how to drive through a
hole with a burst that can transform a four-yard gain into a 40-yard
touchdown run. An ideal back would demonstrate patience to allow
blockers to open up lanes and would tend to get better and stronger as
the game wore on.
No doubt about it, these types of skills are in high demand, and
today’s leaders must ensure that their players have the educational,
technical, interpersonal, and technological skills to be successful within
their organization. Skill sets in and of themselves, however, are never
enough to reach the pylon. Skill sets are necessary, but never sufficient,
characteristics of franchise players. How do we know? Because the
above-mentioned skill requirements of this “dream back” reflect almost
verbatim the scouting report of Maurice Clarett—one of Ohio State’s
most notable and controversial running backs. Unfortunately for Mau-
rice, his franchise potential was never quite realized. Clarett, who once
set the Ohio State University rushing record for a freshman and helped
the Buckeyes win the 2002 BCS National Championship, is, at the time
of this writing, serving a prison term for armed robbery and other charges.
Before we exit this argument, we must acknowledge that skill develop-
ment is a crucial part of any team—on or off the gridiron. Football is
about moving the ball down field using every opportunity to make things
happen. Whether making big plays, or more likely, consistently gaining
a few yards at a time, teams must execute over and over again. The con-
stant push to make it repeatedly to the end zone is an easy concept to
relate to any organization. It is this ability to execute that is one of the
most important building blocks of successful organizations. Larry Bossidy,
former CEO of Honeywell, stated in his book Execution: The Discipline of
Getting Things Done that “no company can deliver on its commitments
or adapt well to change unless all leaders practice the discipline of exe-
cution. . . . [I]t is the missing link between aspirations and results.”1
If execution is the name of the game, skilled players and skilled
employees are a must—a true necessity. As a first step, leaders should
take an inventory of the skills needed to perform the job and current
skills needed by the organization. In Chapter 5, we will revisit this con-
cept in great detail and identify how to select, recruit, and develop peo-
ple with skills needed by an organization. An initial examination to
identify the skills found within the existing players of the organization
will help leaders recognize the potential franchise players already on
the team. However, skill by itself is not enough. When skill is com-
bined with the additional characteristics we mention below, teams take
a step closer to building a winning franchise.
Franchise Players 37
Moving the Chains

Build a franchise of highly skilled personnel; they will forever be a source
of competitive advantage.
QUICK READS
Peyton Manning and Matt Leinart, the former USC star and 2004
Heisman trophy winner, share some common characteristics found in
franchise players. They are both highly intelligent people. Their natu-
ral and learned intelligence have enabled them both to develop a
highly refined and sophisticated understanding of both tactics (the
game) and the strategy (the game plan). That is really the key differ-
ence between intelligence and knowledge. Intelligence applies to a
point in space, whereas knowledge is more integrative and more con-
textual. Usually, for leaders to develop knowledge, they must first pos-
sess intelligence.
Both are important. Without intelligence and knowledge, skill sets
are often deployed improperly, inefficiently, or not at all. If a skill is a
tool, such as a hammer, then intelligence and knowledge tell us exactly
how to use that hammer to get the job done.
Matt Leinart perfectly illustrated the intersection of all three in one
of the more memorable college games ever played—when USC played
Notre Dame in South Bend in 2005. Losing to Notre Dame late in the
fourth quarter, Leinart found himself and the USC Trojans at risk of
blowing a perfect season and a chance for the National Championship.
Reduced to what seemed to be their last down of the game after an
incomplete pass and a sack, Leinart’s options appeared limited. What
options are there when it’s fourth and nine, there’s only 1:36 left on
the clock, and you’re back on your own 26-yard line? Out of nothing
came something due to Leinart’s intelligence, knowledge, and skills.
Leinart saw that the Notre Dame defensive back was playing close
to the line, in almost a bump-and-run style, against a heralded receiver,
Dwayne Jarrett. Knowing that the defense was playing Jarrett tight,
without a cushion, meant that if Jarrett could get behind the defensive
back, a big gain would follow. So, Leinart disregarded the call from the
sidelines when he saw the defensive formation. Instead, Leinart called
an audible fade route at the line of scrimmage. Jarrett ran the fade
route to perfection and Leinart dropped the ball in perfectly. A fourth-
and-nine turned into a 61-yard gain, and the Trojans would go on to
win the game. The ability to read, understand, comprehend, and make
a decision requires a level of analysis that only knowledge and intelli-

gence can provide. Having the requisite skills help too. Again, without
skills, there’s no execution.
While we will continue to explore the true “X” factor that makes
the franchise player a true franchise player, consider the role of knowl-
edge and intelligence as critical franchise variables.
Moving the Chains

The enzyme or lever that makes skills work at their best is always
knowledge and intelligence. Build a roster of smart people.
LINE JUDGE
Most, but not all of the time, Peyton Manning has shown two re-
markable qualities that have earned him a franchise tag that will prob-
ably be redeemed one day at the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton,
Ohio. Draft scouts often talk about the intangibles. With Manning,
one of his intangibles has been his judgment and exercising that good
judgment during and after the game.
People often forget that it was a two-horse race coming out of col-
lege for the number one pick in the 1998 NFL draft. Bill Polian, the
gifted general manager of the Indianapolis Colts, was trying to decide
between Peyton Manning and the strong-armed, NFL-prototype Ryan
Leaf out of Washington State University. In what may be considered
one of his greatest draft decisions, Polian went with Manning despite a
notable, but forgettable, lapse of judgment by Manning. Ironically and
because of this one incident, it was rumored that some draft experts
wondered if Leaf wasn’t the more mature and grounded player. In
1996, Manning dropped his pants in an apparent “mooning” prank in
front of a female athletic trainer at the University of Tennessee. The
trainer sued the university and the school chose to settle the claim out
of court for $300,000. Interestingly, that may have been Manning’s
only lapse of judgment and as truly great franchise players are apt to
do, he seemed to learn from this event. Upon his signing with the
Colts, Manning donated $300,000 to the University of Tennessee to
cover the costs of his prank gone awry.2
Ever since, Manning’s judgment on and off the field has been hard
to bet against. His clean, honest, upfront, and down-home reputation
has been a boon for the Colts, the NFL, and for Peyton himself.
Indeed, Manning is one of the NFL’s all-time most marketable

players, showing up in a variety of ads and media, including Saturday
Night Live.
As good as his off-field persona is, his on-field judgment may be even
better. From an early stage in his career, the Colts entrusted and
empowered Manning to engage in a long pre-snap routine where Man-
ning would call the plays at the line of scrimmage through verbal and
visual (hand routine) audibles.
On and off the gridiron, it is difficult to overstate the importance of
this trait of judgment. And it’s directly related and linked to the char-
acteristics of knowledge and intelligence. The critical learning point,
though, is that judgment makes knowledge and intelligence better and
more usable to the masses.
To use a current day example, both Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of
Enron possessed both knowledge and intelligence. As for intelligence,
Lay had a PhD in economics, and Skilling earned a Harvard MBA. As
for the knowledge side of the equation, both men were revered early
for their incredible knowledge as both were considered the earliest
thought-leaders and pioneers on the issue of energy deregulation.
However, unlike Peyton Manning, they never really leveraged their
intelligence or knowledge for a common good of the broader team.
They lacked what Peyton Manning had in large abundance—
judgment.
We’re getting a bit closer to understanding exactly what a franchise
player looks like. So far, the franchise leadership equation looks some-
thing like this: skill + knowledge + intelligence + judgment = franchise
player.
Moving the Chains

Knowledge, skill, and intelligence are not always used responsibly or for
the greater good. Building a roster of individuals with sound judgment
ensures that the individual makes decisions that will reflect favorably on
him/her and the franchise.
WINNING DESIRE
Phil Simms and Peyton Manning are exemplars of another impor-
tant franchise tag. That tag is desire. Phil Simms made the 1986 all-
Madden team for toughness and desire because he often played his
most inspired football when he was injured and hurt. If we were build-
ing a quarterback from scratch, we’d want Marino’s arm, Randall Cun-
ningham’s legs, Joe Montana’s brain, and Phil Simms’s heart.
A close, modern-day approximation of Phil Simms is Peyton Man-
ning. While Phil Simms best displayed his desire and courage on the
field, Peyton is known for his dedication, work ethic, and desire off the
field. Manning’s legendary preparation is his almost fanatical study of
game tape both before and after the game. Inherent in his film watch-
ing is more than just learning about the opposition or about attention
to detail. Rather, the atomic unit or the DNA that drives this prepara-
tion is his purposeful and deliberate mindset to get better, to improve.
It is, more than anything else, about his desire to be the best. Besides
film, Manning also emphasizes drill work—doing a play over and over
again until excellence and just maybe, perfection, is achieved. Manning
once remarked, “There have been plenty of games where I have said
that I wish that I could have this throw back or I wish that I would
have seen that linebacker, but it just didn’t happen. But I have never
left the field saying I could have done more to get ready for that
game.”3 The leadership imperative is to add another variable to the
franchise mix—desire.
During Jack Welch’s tenure as CEO of General Electric (GE),
Welch introduced what was known as the “vitality curve,” a bell-
shaped curve where employees would be assigned as A, B, or C
performers. Top performers, A-rated individuals, were the top 20 per-
cent compared to the rest of the organization, while B-rated performers
occupied the middle 70 percent, and C performers were the bottom
10 percent. Top performers were rewarded with stock options, promo-
tions, raises, or bonuses while the bottom 10% were managed out of
the organization.4 Although this model has become popular in the
business world, what many don’t realize is how GE leaders assigned the
grading to their employees. In many cases, a matrix was used where an
employee would be rated on one axis according to their results, the
black-and-white metrics they were personally accountable for. In other
words, their ability to execute. The other axis rated their potential, the
passion they displayed for the job, and their ability to energize others
to meet goals. In effect, these intangibles equated to the employee’s
desire. GE, a corporate dynasty of the 1980s, 1990s, and the beginning
of this millennium, valued desire as much as it did results. Successful
leaders know that having organizational members that simply deliver
results is not enough to create a winning team over the long haul.
Desire is needed to go beyond set goals and to continue winning over
and over again.
Moving the Chains

In keeping with the spirit of this book, desire and effort can fill the void
and, even, compensate for lack of skill and intelligence. There’s no
substitute for effort and desire. Build a roster marked by desire, grit, and
work ethic.
Clearly, we’ve all known from his college days that skills, knowledge,
and intelligence are in the company of Matt Leinart. But Leinart also
had a momentary lapse of judgment as he entered the NFL when pic-
tures surfaced involving Leinart assisting several young coeds drink
from a beer bong. Although it may be easy to write off this incident as
a minor mistake that did not injure anyone and pales in comparison to
other headline scandals created by other athletes, the pictures raised
issues regarding Leinart’s judgment. As successful people are apt to do,
Leinart appeared to learn from this event, and it hasn’t happened since.
Clearly, without the two critical variables of judgment and desire a per-
son invariably handicaps their chances of becoming a franchise player
for a franchise team. A person’s game performance also enters into this
equation and Leinart hasn’t yet met the same success as Manning. For
now, we shall let history be the judge regarding the efficacy of Matt
Leinart’s career. What we know for sure is that for his potential to be
realized, judgment and desire need to work in harmony.
COMMIT TO STOPPING THE RUN

Franchise players don’t always stick with the franchise. In business as
in sports, the idea of free agency is the dominant logic. As players and
employees build their skills, their knowledge, their intelligence, and
their judgment, they make themselves more valuable. Knowing that,
many franchise players like to test the market to see if there’s a suitor
that’ll pay more for their services. To be frank, there’s no foolproof way
for a leader or coach to prevent that. It is, after all, Economics 101.
Every now and then, however, leaders and coaches find somebody
special—somebody that is actually committed to the organization.
Someone that is committed to stopping and stemming the run of losses
and of human capital outside the organization. We highlight two spe-
cial Gridiron Warriors below.
Pat Tillman is known for so many things, most of which now tran-
scends the gridiron and touches a deeper nerve, like patriotism. But
one of the lesser-known stories about Pat Tillman was a decision he
made early on in his NFL career.
Pat Tillman was always a bit of an outlier. Certainly, many top Divi-
sion I coaches felt that Tillman was too small to play in a top-tier con-
ference. In 1994, he got a shot at playing competitive football by
securing the very last scholarship for the Arizona State Sun Devils.
Without question, he made his coaches look brilliant for extending
that last scholarship. In his senior season, he would win the Pac-10
Defensive Player of the Year while holding a 3.84 GPA in marketing.5
Like his early college experience, many pro scouts thought that Till-
man was just too small at 5 feet, 11 inches and 195 pounds to do dam-
age as a NFL linebacker. Again, he would prove his critics wrong.
Almost as an afterthought, the Arizona Cardinals took a chance on the
backyard boy in Tempe by selecting Tillman with the 226th pick in
the seventh round of the 1998 NFL draft. It was one of the few times
in the last 15 years that an Arizona Cardinals draft pick performed bet-
ter than expected. Indeed, Tillman would guarantee a nice reward for
the risk that Arizona took to draft him.
In 2000, respected Sports Illustrated writer Paul Zimmerman named
Tillman to his 2000 NFL All-Pro team after Tillman finished that sea-
son with 144 tackles, 1.5 sacks, 2 forced fumbles, 2 fumble recoveries,
9 pass deflections, and 1 interception.6 Skill, knowledge, intelligence,
and desire, aside, though, Tillman displayed a trait that has been out of
favor lately—loyalty and commitment. In what is almost forgotten in
the story of Tillman’s character is the fact that he turned down a much
more lucrative, five-year, $9 million contract offer from the St. Louis
Rams out of loyalty to the Cardinals. In Tillman’s mind, it seemed that
he wanted to reciprocate the risk and chance that the Cardinals took
on him by staying loyal and committed to the organization.
Leaders and coaches should try to find teammates and employees that are
naturally committed to the organization. Of course, coaches and leaders
must also try to instill and inspire that level of commitment. Although Till-
man won’t ever go down in history as one of the greatest linebackers, he will
always be recognized as a franchise player for the Arizona Cardinals. Before
moving on to the next player, take a minute to ask yourself, as a coach or a
leader, how it would feel to have a team of Pat Tillmans behind you.
Moving the Chains

Consider building your roster with players and employees who are
committed to the organization—even at their own expense. Those types
wear the franchise tag.
SCORE A LOTT
Admittedly, it is tougher and tougher to find people who are com-
mitted to the organization through thick and thin. Given the economic
and competitive realities that surround us today, it may be difficult to
find and retain personnel who are organizationally committed. The
very next best thing, though, is to find and instill a sense of commit-
ment to the mission—if not to the organization.
Perhaps no other NFL player epitomizes this mission-first mentality
as Ronnie Lott. As a Hall of Fame strong safety, Ronnie Lott ruthlessly
punished opposing offenses wearing four different uniforms—the San
Francisco 49ers, the Los Angeles Raiders, the New York Jets, and the
Kansas City Chiefs.
Toward the end of the 1985 season, Ronnie Lott delivered a brutal
hit on Cowboys running back Timmy Newsome. According to a Sport-
ing News article, bone fragments and parts of Ronnie’s finger sprayed to
the turf.7 Lott later taped his fingers together so he could play the next
game in a NFC Wild Card playoff match against the Giants. During
the off-season, he was presented with a choice. The first choice, and
the one that many expected him to take, was to go for surgery that
involved a skin graft and pins in the bone. For Lott, though, this was
unacceptable as it would mean missing playing time during training
camp and during the first couple games of the season. Instead, he opted
for amputation of the top of his finger. True to form, he would lead
the 49ers back to the playoffs that season while earning his third Pro
Bowl nod.
We know that the organizational commitment would later erode
between Ronnie Lott and the 49ers. To this day, it is unclear whether
it was Ronnie Lott or 49ers’ management that decided to part ways.
Regardless, this example illustrates not so much commitment to an
organization. Rather, it shows what it really means to be committed
to the mission. In this case, the mission was playing and winning foot-
ball games.
Ever been to a Costco? Chances are, if you’ve been, that your experi-
ence was something special. Maybe something different. Costco is a
good example of what happens when commitment goes both ways.
From leader to follower, from follower to leader, and to organization,
and to a mission.
Jim Sinegal is the founder and is also the long-serving CEO of pub-
licly traded Costco. In an era where CEOs of Fortune 500 companies
demand and receive multimillion pay packages, Jim Sinegal has earned
around $350,000 for a good portion of his tenure. That, by itself, is
notable. But Sinegal has also stood up and refused overtures by Wall
Street analysts to pay his employees less and to cut back on health in-
surance. The average Costco worker earns about $17 an hour and pays
only about 9% of that in health insurance premiums—both bench-
marks are considerably more employee-friendly than rival Wal-Mart.8
We can’t just attribute Costco’s “specialness” to pay and benefit
packages. No doubt, there are other variables at work. The outcomes
are compelling, and they speak to employee commitment to the organi-
zation and to its mission of being a retail leader. Costco has the lowest
employee turnover in retailing, and its turnover is five times lower than
the above-mentioned Wal-Mart.9 Gridiron aside, the inherent value of
commitment and loyalty to organization and mission allows for fran-
chise players to make franchise winners whether on the battlefield, the
law enforcement arena, or, as we can see from Costco, the corporate
world.
Moving the Chains

Almost as important as commitment to the organization, is commitment
to the mission. Having both is what we call a franchise player.
GAME FACE
There are two other notable psychological characteristics that we’ve
seen time and again, both on and off the gridiron, which contribute to
the franchise tag. Maybe a bit abstract and complex, we’ll try to reduce
these psychological dimensions to its core. Together, these last two
traits just may add up to complete the Game Face—a spirit or attitude
common in franchise players that can lift a team and organization to
victory. Maybe more important, these two psychological factors often
appear missing or absent in losing teams and defeated players.
In general, people tend to fall in one of two categories when it
comes to a psychological trait referred to by experts as locus of control.
We refer to locus of control as either the victim or victor mentality.
Reduced to its most basic form, locus of control refers to the degree to
which individuals believe that they personally can control events and
situations surrounding them. Drawing a further distinction, most people
tend to either embrace either an external locus of control or, con-
versely, an internal locus of control. People that embrace an external
locus of control often feel that there’s little that they can directly do to
affect and alter outcomes. Rather, they believe that the environment,
chance, fate, or, just other people, directly and strongly affect their
chances for success or failure. In other words, this external orientation
believes that the outside environment in the form of fate, luck, chance,
or circumstance will always trump the efforts and actions of any single
individual. In externally oriented people, the prevailing sentiment is
that things happen to them instead of them causing things to happen.
An internal locus of control speaks to the other end of the spectrum.
People with an internal locus of control believe that their efforts, deci-
sions, and actions can override and, even influence the environment.
Whereas the environment or fate or chance reign supreme in those
with external orientations, those with internal orientations place con-
siderably more value in the efforts of the individual. The environment
always comes as a secondary or ancillary factor for leaders and followers
with an internal locus of control. More telling is that an internal locus
of control essentially says that individual will can wield tremendous
power to change circumstances. Reduced to its atomic unit, externally
oriented people declare fate and chance the victor over individual will.
In contrast, people with an internal locus of control believe that indi-
vidual will and desire trump situational and environmental forces.
In our experience, the greatest employees, leaders, followers, and
teammates almost invariably demonstrate high levels of internal locus
of control. It was a sense that they could take over a game and, because
of that, would demand the ball or would try to put the team on their
shoulders during difficult circumstances. When others fail to act, those
with high levels of internal locus of control would act decisively and,
indeed, often take control of the game. Interestingly, people with this
internal orientation almost always fail to blame others when perform-
ance doesn’t meet expectations. This is particularly important as it
applies to the franchise tag. We can best see this internal orientation
with true franchise players, leaders, and individuals when they (or the
team) fall short.
Next time in a postgame interview, listen to the quarterback, run-
ning back, or better yet, coach after a loss. Are they blaming others?
Are they blaming the referees? Are they blaming the play calling? The
weather? Are there tons of excuses?
In the corporate world, it is almost expected nowadays that a leader
will blame the market, competitors, or even employees and customers
for falling short of expectations or established goals. Phillip Schoon-
over, former CEO of the now-bankrupt electronics retailer Circuit City,
was heavily criticized for laying off over 3,000 of the firm’s most skilled
and experienced employees in 2007 in a failed cost-cutting scheme.
The move helped earn him the distinction of being named the worst
CEO of the year by the Wall Street Journal. Still, Schoonover blamed
the bad economy for Circuit City’s plummeting performance.10
True franchise players are likely to possess a firm internal orientation
and, because of that, tend to embrace responsibility and accountability
when the team doesn’t perform. There are no excuses. Instead, they say
that they didn’t perform and will do better in the future.
Blamers and those playing the victim tend to embrace an external
locus of control. For that reason, it is harder for them to take responsi-
bility. Without a leader taking responsibility for when things go good,
but more important, when things go bad, the leader is not a leader.
Instead, they are much worse. They are a victim.
A great example of this internal and external orientation in public
life was the Hurricane Katrina incident. Involved were three leaders:
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco,
and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Mike
Brown. After the Katrina disaster, all three leaders demonstrated a re-
markable willingness to abdicate responsibility for emergency and crisis
response. In several well-publicized articles, all three leaders, at one
time or another, blamed someone or something other than themselves.
In keeping with the external locus of control theme, these leaders
avoided placing blame on themselves. Instead, they opted to blame
others. There is something deeply disconcerting when leaders don’t
seek out and embrace responsibility and the accountability that accom-
panies it.
Contrast these leaders with Major General George Weightman, who
also encountered failure. General Weightman was the commanding
general of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center when poor and di-
lapidated facilities and services for veterans, many injured in Afghani-
stan and Iraq, were exposed and brought to light by a variety of media.
When questioned during a Congressional hearing and afterwards,
Weightman quickly took responsibility for the failure, offered apologies,
and would declare that there was “no excuse” and that he felt saddened
that he wouldn’t be able to oversee and deliver a solution.11
These two anecdotes offer compelling lessons especially relevant af-
ter losses. And dealing with and responding to losses are supremely im-
portant as no team goes undefeated forever. There will always, always
be some loss. The trick, however, is to deal with that loss in a way and
manner that allows the individual and team to get better and move on.
In Weightman’s case, we see a temporary failure in leadership as no
veteran should have to endure substandard and, downright dangerous,
medical care. Weightman, however, displayed grace and poise and,
really, a strong internal locus of control when he took responsibility
and was, consequently, held accountable for poor results. That is the
true mark of a franchise player. You see, it’s easy to take responsibility
when things go good. Both internal and external individuals can col-
lect the praise when things go well and as planned. However, in our
experience, the real degree of separation is how leaders respond when
things don’t go well and the stress is piling on. Those with an internal
locus of control seem more prepared and willing to shoulder the blame
when things go awry. That’s important and that’s what franchise play-
ers, leaders, and coaches are supposed to do.
Moving the Chains

Build a roster of franchise players who seek out and embrace responsibility
and wish to be held accountable—both when winning and losing. These
people have an internal locus of control orientation. Focus on this locus
when building your roster!
There are two sides to the Game Face. We’ve just covered locus of
control. The other side is what experts describe as learning orientation.
When it comes to game day performance, individuals tend to fall along
two disparate lines, just as with locus of control. The first dimension of
learning orientation is termed performance-goal orientation. This ori-
entation places considerable weight on winning and performance above
all else. Indeed, this is important and it’s downright tough to argue
against. Individuals with high performance-goal orientations are the
types of kids in high school who were driven by the grade, by the A.
Opposite performance-goal orientation are individuals with a learning-
goal orientation. Sticking with our classroom metaphor, these types of
students were more interested in learning and less concerned about a
grade or percentage ranking.
For learning-goal oriented players and people, learning new skills,
competencies, and mastering certain situations will likely result in
higher grades, promotions, and rewards. But that’s never the driving
force. First, and foremost, is the desire to learn new skills and gain new
knowledge. It is the process of learning, not the outcome of perform-
ance, which drives these types of individuals.
In our experiences, franchise players split these differences down the
middle. This is surprising, because most individuals tend to weigh
decidedly in one direction or the other. Franchise players, though, are
a true study in duality. They tend to be strong in the dual areas of
performance and learning. To them, they can’t be separated. Winning

is important and essential. However, franchise leaders understand that
winning consistently and over time really can’t be achieved without
a thirst to learn, innovate, and change. In fact, they’re both equally
important. You can’t have one without the other.
One easy way to spot these types of franchise players, leaders, and
coaches is by the mere fact that they tend to get better over time.
Through incremental learning and adjustment, they apply a learning
orientation to achieve a performance outcome. Tom Coughlin, the
Super Bowl–winning coach of the Giants, may be one such example.
For several years, Coughlin had the Jacksonville Jaguars knocking on
the door of the AFC Championship. However, Coughlin had rubbed
some of the Jaguars the wrong way with his tough leadership style and
blowups with some of the players. After some adjustments and some
slight changes to his approach to interpersonal relationships and soft
skills, Coughlin was able to win a Super Bowl with the Giants. With-
out question, the willingness to make adjustments—to try, experiment,
and learn new things both technically and interpersonally—is an essen-
tial ingredient if performance outcomes are to be achieved. It is the
ability to reinvent that really drives performance over time. We all
know that a performance-only orientation may serve to get As within
the classroom or during the short term, but without real learning taking
place, ignorance and poor performance in the real world are all but
guaranteed.
The best military forces, the most effective law enforcement groups,
and the most competitive of organizations all seem to do both in per-
fect harmony—winning while learning. Deep down, there is a certain
fear that as soon as the learning stops, winning will too.
3M is a living, breathing example of how both forces work to the
benefit of all. Remember, though, that it’s the people, the franchise
players, who make the franchise win.
3M is a multinational conglomerate with over 75,000 employees
who produce thousands of products to include adhesives, abrasives,
laminates, passive fire protection, and optical films. 3M has built a rep-
utation on performance through learning and innovation. Specifically,
it was the first to invent waterproof sandpaper, masking tape, and
scotch tape. It is probably most famous for its Post-It notes. The best
indicator of this duality, though, is in its competitive imperative to
generate up to 25% of sales each year from new products.12 Addition-
ally, management allows employees to spend up to 15% of their time
on independent projects. The innovation engine at 3M is responsible
for its market share and revenue growth. Without the ability
and capacity to learn, the organization would no longer be able to

progress.
Moving the Chains

Whereas most people either have a learning- or a performance-goal
orientation, franchise players add tremendous value by having both.
FINAL ROSTER CUTS

In this chapter, we outlined how important it is to identify and de-
velop franchise players. While many think that there can only be one
franchise player per team, per organization, we couldn’t disagree more.
The Gridiron imperative is to build a roster full of franchise players.
Up until this point, it is unlikely you truly knew what factors made up
a franchise player. We highlighted many and, quite possibly, left some
factors out. We feel, however, that what we’ve outlined is non-negotiable.
Without these factors, it’s hard to really be a full-fledged franchise player.
This chapter should resonate with both leader and follower. For the
leader, the task is straightforward. Build and develop a Gridiron roster
with the characteristics mentioned in this chapter. And as the heading
suggests, if the roster isn’t full of franchise players, difficult decisions
regarding whether to keep or cut need to be made. This is never pleas-
ant, but great leaders and great organizations do it. For the follower,
the lessons are equally important. To increase your own value, your
own effectiveness, you must invest in developing the skills and abilities
mentioned here.
There’s one last factor that is found in all true franchise players who
serve in honorable organizations in both the public and private sector.
It is such an important characteristic that there’s no real way to do jus-
tice by devoting a paragraph or two towards it. In the following chapter
we’ll examine together the common denominator of Gridiron Leader-
ship and franchise potential.
TIP DRILL
1. Identify your potential franchise players. Take inventory of the
current skill sets needed by the organization and those possessed
by the organization’s members. Look for skills that will help exe-
cute the organization’s objectives. The ability to execute is fun-
damental to a strong organization. Develop the mission-critical
skills that are needed or lacking.
2. Elevate players that possess intelligence, knowledge, and sound
judgment. Beyond the ability to “get the job done,” team mem-
bers must have the ability to grasp the organization’s tactics and
strategy. Provide team members the opportunity to increase
their knowledge, either through training or experience. Recog-
nize and reward those that not only display their intelligence
and knowledge but also exercise good judgment. Do not pro-
mote junior leaders that display poor judgment regardless of
abilities, skills, intelligence, or experience.
3. Ensure that commitment and desire are valued in leader selec-
tion. Leaders must possess a strong commitment to the organiza-
tion, the other members of the team, their own self-development,
and most importantly, the mission of the organization. A leader’s
desire or commitment can come in many forms—work ethic, dedi-
cation, and continuous effort to improve. Commitment and loy-
alty to the organization’s mission will help ensure the right (and
sometimes, tough) decisions are made for the benefit of all and for
the future success of the team.
4. Take accountability for all that you control and even that
which you don’t. Leaders must accept responsibility for both
the successes and failures of their team or organization. If goals
are not met or problems occur, take personal accountability and
understand what you, as a leader or follower, could do differ-
ently in the future to ensure success. Never place blame.
5. Weigh winning and learning equally. Executing and meeting
goals will always be an essential focus for leaders; however, lead-
ers must constantly learn new skills, increase their knowledge,
and innovate. Be open to new experiences or learning opportu-
nities. Be flexible and willing to try new approaches to solving
problems. Experiment with new ideas. And always recognize
that personal incremental improvements must be made through-
out your career.
NOTES
1. Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things
Done (New York: Crown Business, 2002): 19.
2. ESPN Web site, http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1694048

3. Peter King, “Monday Morning Quarterback,” Sports Illustrated Web site,
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/02/05/super.bowl/
1.html (accessed March 14, 2009).
4. Jack Welch and John A. Byrne, Jack: Straight from the Gut (New York:
Warner Books, 2001).
5. MSNBC Web site, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4815441 (accessed March
14, 2009). For a complete and detailed account of Pat Tillman’s life,
see Jonathan Rand’s Fields of Honor: The Pat Tillman Story (New York:
Chamberlain Bros., 2004).
6. ESPN Web site, http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=1605
7. David Falkner, “Passion Play,” The Sporting News, October 24, 1994.
8. Daren Fonda, “Jim Sinegal,” Time, April 30, 2006, http://www.time.com/
time/magazine/article/0,9171,1186981,00.html (accessed March 14, 2009).
9. Alan B. Goldberg and Bill Ritter, “Costco CEO Finds Pro-Worker Means
Profitability,” ABC News Web site, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/business/
story?id=1362779 (accessed March 14, 2009).
10. “Circuit City Braces for Continued Losses.” Washington Post, April 10, 2008.
11. Tom Philpott, “Exclusive Interview: Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman,”
Military.com Web site, http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,128647,
00.html (accessed March 14, 2009).
12. Informational Web site, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/3M
and http://www.wirtschaftschemie.de/journal/2008_iss2_70-78.pdf (accessed
March 14, 2009).
4
BIG UPSET
Show class, have pride, and display character. If you do, winning takes
care of itself.
—Paul “Bear” Bryant
Keeping track, we now know that skill, intelligence, knowledge, desire,

and judgment is needed. There is one add-on, though, that cements
the deal. And this is character. Character is related to judgment, but
goes a step farther. Character is doing what is right; judgment is doing
what is reasonable and responsible. Many times these two characteris-
tics are highly related, but, at times, they’re not. For one, we’ve seen
highly honorable men and women who didn’t always exercise sound
judgment. Conversely, we’ve been in the presence of leaders who in
certain situations acted with clear and strong judgment, but weren’t
guided by a moral compass. Using the moniker from Chapter 2, charac-
ter and integrity have staying power and, in a way, transcend time and
place. Tony Dungy, for instance, is a man of integrity whether or not
he exercises sound judgment on the football field. Again, character and
honor are time independent. Judgment is more tightly linked with
time, with context, and with situations. Clearly, character and integrity
help shape judgment but they aren’t the same and judgment never
shapes character. If anything, character shapes judgment. The essence
of this chapter, though, is that character and honor are non-negotiable.
Character is old school. It is the words of Vince Lombardi and Bear
Bryant who taught athletes that it was possible to be tough, competi-
tive, even mean, but still maintain one’s character and sense of right
and wrong. It is staying competitive and winning, but it also means
winning the right way and upholding principles of sportsmanship.
Admittedly, some of that of recent has been lost. But the integrity of
the game, the leveling of the playing field, is so important that it is one
53
of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s top priorities. We offer below

some insights regarding the importance of character and whether its
absence can ever be found in franchise players.
OFF THE ROSTER

What do Lawrence Phillips, Michael Vick, and R.J. Soward all have in
common? All had incredible skills and talents, the likes of which only
come around so often. Phillips was a bruising running back for the
Nebraska Cornhuskers. He possessed the rare combination of strength
and speed, and some consider him one of the top five collegiate running
backs of all time. After all, it was Phillips that powered the Cornhuskers
to two National Championships in the mid-1990s. Michael Vick had
speed, but also had quickness and a slingshot for an arm. His moves in the
open field are rivaled by only the moves of Gale Sayers and Barry Sanders.
Lost in the Michael Vick story is that he’s the only player in NFL history
to rush for 1,000 yards and throw for a 1,000 yards in the same season. R.J.
Soward had flat out speed. To be precise, 4.27-type linear speed in the 40-
yard dash. The Jacksonville Jaguars were so enamored by his speed that
they spent a first round pick (29th overall) on him in 2000.
While they all shared incredible skills, they also shared some severe
judgment problems at best, and character and integrity flaws at the
worst. The critical question that all three coaches, general managers,
and owners had to make when building their rosters with these individ-
uals was—do their incredible skill sets outweigh or overcompensate for
some red flags in the character department? All three teams, at one
time, thought that it was worth the risk.
After careful consultation, our own experiences, and interviews with
leaders in the military, corporate, and law enforcement world, we
believe that it’s almost impossible to draft and then develop a franchise
player with severe character issues. Herein lie several lessons related to
general leadership and core human resource management policy.
Coaches often think that they can develop anybody, anywhere. And
there’s little question that the very best coaches are particularly good
at transforming and developing skills, knowledge, intelligence, and,
maybe even effort or desire. However, when it comes to character, it is
very difficult to do—especially when there are 52 other players on the
team and a rival team ready for battle on a weekly basis. That’s not to
say it can’t be done, but it’s extremely hard to do and requires effort
and time that a coach or leader may or may not have.
Dick Vermeil, head coach of the Rams from 1997 to 1999, probably
thought that he could influence Lawrence Phillips from a moral,
Big Upset 55
character standpoint even to the point of driving him home from

prison. Phillips would commit multiple crimes and ultimately get a
multiyear sentence for driving a stolen car into a crowd of young men.1
As successful and talented a coach as Dick Vermeil was, he was still
unable to turn around Lawrence Phillips.
Arthur Blank, owner of the Atlanta Falcons, probably saw warning
signs with Michael Vick in the form of an obscene gesture to some fans
and a mysterious marijuana tainted water bottle. But to Blank and
many others, the talents and skill sets must have outweighed the little
character flaws that apparently could be overlooked. Or so Atlanta Fal-
cons management thought. Vick would later lie to Roger Goodell, the
NFL Commissioner, and shortly thereafter be arrested and criminally
prosecuted for his involvement in a dog-fighting ring.
Tom Coughlin drafted Soward and probably thought that his disci-
plinarian approach would get Soward on track. Soward’s belligerence
and drug use were too much, however, and his NFL career would last
months—not years.
It is tempting to get blinded by skills, knowledge, or intelligence.
But when hidden in the blind spots are character issues, the entire
team can suffer. And make no mistake, while ethical and moral behav-
ior can be taught, it is much more difficult to do so especially when
compared to developing a person’s skills. Some characteristics are more
adaptable and amenable to coaching, other traits are not. Character
building falls into the latter category.
The moral of the story is that morals matter. And a leader needs
franchise players that have both—not just one or the other—in terms
of character and skills. In very few cases can skills, alone, carry the day.
There are exceptions and we acknowledge that. Michael Irvin, the
perennial All Pro receiver for the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990s, is one
such contradiction. Irvin finished his 12-year career as the Cowboys’
leader with 750 catches and 11,904 yards. Despite modest size (6-foot,
2-inch, 205 pounds) and speed (4.7 in the 40), he went to five consec-
utive Pro Bowls, won three Super Bowl rings, and was named to the
All-Decade Team of the 1990s before being carried off the field with a
career-ending neck injury in Philadelphia in 1999. He was later
inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2008.
Contrast the above information with a news story reported by the
Dallas Observer, which stated that in 1996 Irvin was found in a hotel
room with topless dancers, plates of cocaine, and marijuana. Shortly
after his probation expired in 2000, Irvin was found in the apartment
of a woman who federal agents were searching for in connection with
the heroin overdose death of former Cowboys lineman, Mark Tuinei.
In between, there was a Dallas cop who tried to hire a hit man to kill
Irvin and, most recently, the November 2005 arrest for the infamous
drug pipe found in his car.2
Despite these integrity issues, Michael Irvin was granted his pass to
Canton and inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Even he
knew he beat the odds. During his memorable and humble inductee
speech he acknowledged that, at times, he lacked both character and
judgment. Remember, though, that skills can always be refined, reha-
bilitated. But a track record of character misconduct will always be
more difficult to fix and require more cognitive and physical energies.
Most rational leaders should consider other alternatives.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders have more immediate impact on knowledge, skill, and
desire. Character is more difficult and time consuming to build. It requires
commitment of time and energy that few leaders have.
FANTASY FOOTBALL
Back in 1990, the Colorado Buffaloes were the undisputed NCAA
football champions. Or were they?
On October 6th, the heavily favored Buffaloes found themselves
down to Missouri, 31-27 with less than three minutes left. Playing
away, at Missouri, they were also playing without their star quarterback,
Darian Hagan. Deep in their own territory, backup quarterback Charles
Johnson engineered one of the great drives in Colorado football his-
tory. Leading the team almost the entire length of the football field,
Johnson hit tight end, John Bowman, who slipped and fell just feet
from the goal line. There were less than 40 seconds left on the clock.
On first down, Johnson spiked the ball. On second down, they
handed the ball to star running back, Eric Bieniemy, who was stood up
short of the goal line. Colorado called their third, and final, time out.
It was supposed to be third down, but the officiating crew forgot to flip
the down marker during the time out; the down marker still read sec-
ond down. After the time out, controversial coach Bill McCartney
again put faith in Heisman hopeful, Bieniemy. In what should’ve been
third down, and not second, Bieniemy was again stood up just inches
from the goal line. Johnson rushed the team up to the line of scrim-
mage and spiked the ball, in what should’ve been fourth down, to stop
Big Upset 57
the clock with two seconds left. Here, the game should’ve stopped with
the Missouri Tigers victorious, 31-27. Instead, the Buffaloes were given
another down, a fifth down, and Johnson called his own number, a
quarterback sneak, for a touchdown. To this day, it is still unclear
whether Johnson broke the plane to score.3
Interestingly, Bill McCartney, himself a former Missouri Tiger foot-
ball player, was asked if he’d forfeit the game knowing that they had
won with a fifth down. He declined. Missouri petitioned the Big Eight
football commissioner who allowed the score to stand. Colorado would
run the table from there and win the National Championship although
Georgia Tech would claim a portion of that National Title based on
the Fifth-Down controversy.
There are several character lessons contained in that story. And a
deeper, and more thorough analysis of the Colorado Buffalo football
team, and its controversial coach, suggests that the Fifth-Down game
was really a microcosm of a team and coach that had lost its moral
compass.
Many thought the Colorado football team was more of a criminal
gang than a football team. According to the New York Times, there
were at least two dozen player arrests between 1986 and 1989—all dur-
ing McCartney’s tenure.4 There were accusations and arrests surround-
ing rape, drug dealing, and extortion. Some of his problems would later
be chronicled in his autobiographical memoir, Sold Out.
What is all the more interesting and intriguing about this case, this
football team, and its coach, is that Bill McCartney was the founder,
organizer, and leader of Promise Keepers—a wildly successful conserva-
tive Christian organization directed exclusively at men. Indeed, Prom-
ise Keepers packed stadiums and supposedly holds the record for the
single greatest gathering of males during a rally at the mall in Washington
D.C. in 1997.5
Taking off the pads, let’s examine the critical and key lessons sur-
rounding this case. Maybe the most important lesson is that integrity
and character begin at the top. Gridiron Leaders seem to inherently
and intuitively understand the value (and the danger) of role modeling.
Teammates and followers, alike, take cues from their leader on how to
think, and even more important, how to act and behave. Make no mis-
take, it’s the leader’s sole responsibility to set the context or to set the
stage for ethical and honorable decorum, sportsmanship, and
competitiveness.
The ties to organizational life are equally compelling and even more
damning. In our research and in our own personal experiences, we’ve
seen that in cases of severe and systemic corruption and ethical
transgressions, poor leaders acting as poor role models were a driving

and contributing force of such behavior. One of the most infamous
examples is Enron, where corruption and dishonor began at the top
with CEOs Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, and CFO, Andrew Fastow.
They set the tone for the entire organization. Energy traders who, by
many accounts, were good people got involved in doing bad things.
While we can blame them directly, we look to the leader who is ulti-
mately responsible for setting the tone within the organization. More
recent examples can be found in the U.S. financial industry. Former
chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange Bernie Madoff is an
obvious example. Convicted of running one of the largest Ponzi
schemes ever, it’s estimated that Madoff costs clients a total of $65 bil-
lion. There are some special coaches out there. And these coaches
know that they will (at one time or another) have to contend with
problem teammates. When those situations begin to develop, those spe-
cial leaders will not allow, nor tolerate a culture of corruption or dis-
honor to take root and grow.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders know that the best way to influence a spirit of team
integrity is to set the example on and off the gridiron. Honorable and
ethical behavior is driven by proper role models.
UNDER REVIEW
Another notable learning outcome from the Colorado case is equally
important because it focuses on one of the most important aspects of
any sport—winning. When leaders encourage playing dirty, lying, and
cheating, there may be a short-term win, but the ultimate legacy, and
the ultimate outcome of victory, will forever come into question. We
see it here in the Colorado case. As long as records are kept, an asterisk
will follow the 1990 National Champion Colorado Buffaloes. Later,
McCartney, himself, would regret the circumstance. Ask any sport his-
torian and they’ll tell you that the 1990 NCAA football championship
means a little bit less compared to the others that preceded and fol-
lowed the Fifth-Down champions.
In the heat of the moment and in the heated battle of competition,
the temptation is to compromise on the processes, on the means, to
achieve the ends or to get good outcomes. Barry Bonds will forever be
Big Upset 59
clouded in suspicion and his career outcome of most home runs means
a little less because the processes used to get there will always be
questioned.
Bill Romanowski is another great football example of trying to win
but doing so the wrong way. Romanowski was a highly skilled line-
backer with a 16-year career in the NFL that spanned several organiza-
tions, including the San Francisco 49ers, the Philadelphia Eagles, the
Denver Broncos, and the Oakland Raiders. Romanowski accumulated
1,115 tackles, 39.5 sacks, 18 fumbles recovered, 18 interceptions, and
started in five Super Bowl games. No doubt, Romanowski made a big
impact in the organizations he played for.6
But, Romanowski was both a dirty player and a law breaker. During
his career, Romanowski was fined $4,500 for kicking former Arizona
Cardinals running back Larry Centers in the head. A couple years later,
he was fined $20,000 for a helmet-to-helmet hit that broke Kerry
Collins’s jaw. He would also spit in the face of 49ers receiver J.J. Stokes
during a Monday Night football game and would throw a ball that hit
Jets linebacker, Brian Cox, in the crotch. Towards the end of his
career, Romanowski attacked and seriously injured one of his Raider
teammates, Marcus Williams, who was forced into injury retirement
from a broken eye socket. Romanowski was also implicated in the
BALCO steroid scandal, one of the biggest steroid scandals in the his-
tory of sports. Just as in the case above and as is likely will be the case
with Bonds, Romanowski wanted to win at all costs—irrespective of
the processes or means to get there. Romanowski, himself, shared these
sentiments with CBS’s 60 Minutes.7
All too often, this scenario plays out in organizational life. A recent,
and particularly salient, case is the now-infamous Fannie Mae ordeal.
In an expose by the Washington Post and supported by regulators at
both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Fed-
eral Housing Enterprise Oversight, massive fraud was uncovered at the
once-proud mortgage giant. Specifically, chief executive Franklin
Raines and chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard committed large-
scale fraud over a six-year time frame that involved doctoring earnings
so executives could collect and cash in on hundreds of millions of dol-
lars in bonuses and pay-outs. Fannie Mae and its shareholders would
foot the bill of a $400 million settlement with the SEC.8
The important lesson to learn here is the same force that arose in
the Fifth-Down game and also in the other sports related stories
above—weak leaders will sacrifice the means to achieve the ends.
Don’t be fooled into believing that this only happens to the leaders at
the top of the organization. Working with many leaders in a variety of
organizations, we witnessed a number of senior and junior leaders who

value winning or a short-term gain over the methods of how to achieve
those goals. Many times we heard leaders tell their subordinates
“I don’t care how you do it, just make it happen.” This philosophy is
very dangerous to the organization, and it’s the farthest thing from
what Gridiron Leadership is all about. It is winning, but doing so with-
out compromising integrity, character, and honor. It is about winning
the Lombardi way. On a level playing field. Can you win with honor
and integrity? We think you can. Gridiron Leaders find a way to per-
form at high levels with their integrity in tact.
Moving the Chains

Never tarnish the luster of a win by cheating to get there. Gridiron
Leaders will always win with integrity.
POSTGAME INTERVIEW
Harry Stonecipher’s postgame interview wasn’t very good. In fact, it
just wasn’t appropriate. And he’s not a football player. Stonecipher was
the former president and CEO of Boeing. On March 6, 2005, Stoneci-
pher tendered his forced resignation to the Board of Directors at
Boeing. The crime for such penalty? Stonecipher, a grandfather and
husband of 50 years, had an extramarital, consensual affair with
another Boeing executive.9 This case was notable because it served for-
mal notice to a truth that many have known for years. For true
Gridiron Leaders, you are always on the field of play, and what we do
in our private lives has a direct and indisputable affect on our profes-
sional lives. Put plainly, it’s just too difficult to have separate lives—a
personal and a professional one. They are entangled, intertwined, and
integrated. What we do at work affects our home life. And what we do
after duty, after practice, affects performance on the field. Boeing
seemed to understand that and realized that poor ethical conduct and
judgment outside of the boardroom was indicative, and maybe even a
predictor, of poor performance and decision-making within the
boardroom.
It’s hard to imagine two different personas of Tony Dungy, Bill
Cowher, or Dick Vermeil—an on-the-field version and an off-the-field
version. A team, a group, a follower looks at their leaders carefully,
through a microscope, if you will. They are searching for something
Big Upset 61
worse than a virus. They are looking for the smell of or evidence of hy-
pocrisy or of inconsistency. When a leader preaches integrity on the
field but fails to demonstrate that conduct off the field, hypocrisy, the
great silver bullet of leadership, is born.
Coaches and Gridiron Leaders rely on the currency of legitimacy to
motivate and to power their team forward. Few things sap or drain that
currency of legitimacy faster than hypocrisy and inconsistency. When a
leader acts with integrity, honor, and character off, as well as on the
field, he or she prevents the tentacle of hypocrisy from ever taking
hold. Time and again, we’ve found that is a key to a special leader.
Moving the Chains

Especially for leaders, conduct off the gridiron is as important or maybe
more so than conduct on the field.
CLEARED TO PLAY
Arguably, one of the greatest linebackers for the Pittsburgh Steelers
was Greg Lloyd. Lloyd gained notoriety for not just being a talented
player, but for his clashes with the media. Most famously, Lloyd
dropped an F-bomb in a postgame interview with Jim Gray after an
exciting 1995 AFC Championship win over the Indianapolis Colts.
Many would consider Greg Lloyd a precursor to Ray Lewis of the Balti-
more Ravens. Greg Lloyd was a physical and imposing figure both on
and off the field. In many Steelers circles, some consider him the equal
or even the better of some great Steelers linebackers, including Jack
Lambert and Jack Ham. While many may have forgotten Greg Lloyd,
he can make a convincing case as one of the better linebackers of the
1990s. Lloyd was named to five consecutive Pro Bowls from 1991
through 1995 and was also voted by Steelers fans to the 75th Anniver-
sary Team—a team that included only four other linebackers.10
There is little doubt that Lloyd would’ve gone on to several more
Pro Bowls and, eventually, to the Hall of Fame if it weren’t for the
smallest of problems. A small problem that became a big problem for
Lloyd and the Steelers.
Greg Lloyd’s promising career ended prematurely. Interestingly,
though, it wasn’t a brutal hit, a cheap shot, or the wear and tear of
Sunday afternoons that neutralized Greg Lloyd. No, it wasn’t any
of those. It was a tiny bacteria that brought down the 6-foot, 2-inch,
235-pound frame of Greg Lloyd. Specifically, Lloyd missed the entire
1996 season due to a staph infection. He would miss several games in
the 1997 season before trying one last time with the Carolina Panthers
in 1998. Never underestimate the power of a staph infection—both
medically and organizationally.
What happened to Lloyd is a metaphor to what can happen to an
organization. There are many types of bacteria that can cause staph
infections in different parts of the body. They are tough to treat and
many are resistant to most commonly used antibiotics. Infections can
be as trivial as mild rashes on the skin to more life-threatening scenar-
ios that affect the bloodstream or lungs. Many public health agencies,
including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are con-
cerned over the Staph Super Bug because once it’s in a locker room,
it’s difficult to eradicate. Similar to what happened to Lloyd, it can
start small, but once it has taken hold, the infected person can have a
difficult time beating or escaping it.
In the 2008 season, the Cleveland Browns and tight end Kellen
Winslow feuded over the frequency of staph infections in and around
the Cleveland Browns organization and locker room. Within a rela-
tively short period of time, the Cleveland Browns had at least six
known cases of staph. The point is, once present, it is difficult to stop
and can spread quickly, easily, and quietly.
This metaphor holds as we examine honor, character, and integrity.
Or, the lack thereof. And, again, the Colorado Buffaloes football pro-
gram is a prime example of a team that contracted the organizational
form of staph—poor ethical behavior and leadership.
The character version of staph infection probably first arrived in
Boulder during McCartney’s tenure as at least two dozen players were
arrested between 1986 and 1989. His successor, Rick Neuheisel, would
experience similar problems while accumulating more than 50 NCAA
rules violations within a four-year span.11 Gary Barnett, the successor
to Neuheisel, was brought in to restore integrity to the program.
Instead, things appeared to get worse. Under his tenure, Colorado was
caught up in a recruiting scandal in which it was reported that high
school recruits were offered sex and taken to sex shows during on-site
visits. Even worse, there were allegations of rape from a female place-
kicker, Katie Hnida, by a Colorado Buffaloes teammate.
That incident, along with other allegations, sparked an investigation
by University President Elizabeth Hoffman, and Barnett was placed on
administrative leave pending the outcome. Although Coach Barnett
was reinstated, and the report did not lay blame directly on Barnett or
Big Upset 63
In
te
le &
e
llig
dg
ow lls
en
Kn Ski
ce
Character
itm &
Ju
t
en
m sire
dg
m
Co De
en
m
t
Figure 4.1 Components of a Franchise Player
athletic director Richard Tharp, it did say Tharp created an atmosphere of

“plausible deniability,” while Barnett was resistant to calls for change.12
The point of this argument is that somewhere along the way, the
Colorado Buffaloes team contracted the staph infection of misconduct
and rule breaking. And just like the medical version, it was difficult to
shake despite a change in coaches and increased media scrutiny. Fifteen
years from the first known infection, the bug was still breathing, spread-
ing in Boulder.
Gridiron Leaders need to understand the importance of ethics, integ-
rity, and character within an organization and, more important, how it
influences not only the present, but also the long-term reputation of an
organization. The most effective prevention of this ethical staph infec-
tion is to make sure the bug never bites in the first place. And, if it
does, Gridiron Leaders must eradicate it immediately before it ever gets
the chance to grow and spread.
Moving the Chains

A lack of character and ethical misconduct is akin to a staph infection;
once it enters the organization and is given the opportunity to breathe,
it can spread with dangerous speed and lethality. Never let it take hold
in your organization.
BEATEN DEEP
We’re not completely done with Gary Barnett.
Prior to taking the helm of Colorado in 1999, Barnett could’ve
claimed a legitimate stake as one of the top 10 coaches of the 1990s.
At the very least, his stock was never higher as he entered the Colo-
rado program in 1999. The reason is that Barnett had built a resume of
repeated success in a fiercely competitive environment.
In 1991, Barnett became the head coach of Northwestern, a school
known as an academic juggernaut but an athletic pushover. That would
change quickly under Barnett. In 1995, Barnett would lead Northwest-
ern to the Big Ten Title and the 1996 Rose Bowl. A year later, he
would take his team to the Florida Citrus Bowl. In many regards, Bar-
nett had done the impossible. He had turned around a program that
holds the record for the longest losing streak in Division I-A into a
perennial Big Ten powerhouse.13 We know there was something special
with Barnett because as soon as he left, so too did the fortunes of the
Northwestern Wildcat football team. Up until 1999, Barnett enjoyed a
tremendous reputation as a winner at one of the most academically
challenging schools within one of the most competitive football confer-
ences, the Big Ten, in the nation. Unfortunately, a decade of great
work at Northwestern seemed to be wiped out in a single year at Colo-
rado. Sadly, many may not remember Barnett for those prior accom-
plishments, but, rather, for the embarrassing incidents that took place
at Colorado while he was at the helm. Even after Colorado, Barnett
has done some noteworthy endeavors to include establishing the Gary
Barnett Foundation that aims to give educational support and opportu-
nities to disadvantaged youth. As we reflect on the value and fragility
of this thing we call reputation, we should be struck by the fact that
one or two incidents can permanently affect a person’s or organization’s
reputation.
If you need further evidence, look no farther than Firestone. Fire-
stone is one of the oldest and was one of the most celebrated tire firms
in the world. Going back generations and over 100 years, Firestone
would, for the longest time, be known as a quality tire manufacturer.
That would all change in May 2000 when the National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration contacted Ford and Firestone about the high
frequency of tire failures, particularly on Ford Explorers and Mercury
Mountaineers.14 Ford investigated and found that 15-inch Firestone
tires had high failure rates, particularly those manufactured at Fire-
stone’s Decatur, Illinois, plant. This was a pivotal factor in closing the
long-running Decatur plant.15
Big Upset 65
A year of accusations, lawsuits, finger-pointing, and blaming would

affect Ford, but would permanently alter the identity and reputation of
Firestone. A company that had built a reputation of safety and quality
over a hundred-plus years could never make those same claims with
such confidence again. Like Barnett, it had taken Firestone over a hun-
dred years to build this reputation only to watch what it had built van-
ish over the course of a couple of months.
Herein lies some important lessons regarding ethics, integrity, char-
acter and their impact on a person’s, team’s, or organization’s reputa-
tion. First, reputations are valuable. People make major decisions and
make major purchases on reputation alone. Just ask Rolex, Mercedes,
and Ben and Jerry’s. A reputation is not soft and airy. There are real
dollars and cents built into this asset we call reputation. Marketing per-
sonnel often speak about a company’s brand. That is, the collection of
symbols, images, or experiences associated with a product or organiza-
tion. Every year, BusinessWeek publishes a ranking of the top 100 global
brands. Companies spend millions of dollars to climb to the top of the
list because they know the power of having a highly recognizable and
respectable brand. No question, branding is important to any organiza-
tion, profit or nonprofit. As an example, BusinessWeek estimates that
Coca-Cola’s brand is worth almost $67 billion, while Microsoft’s brand
is $59 billion.16 Closely intertwined with a brand is its reputation.
What good is it for consumers to recognize a brand when their percep-
tion of the product or organization is low? Brand recognition and repu-
tation are assets that have a direct impact on a company’s bottom line.
Nonprofits, military, and law enforcement organizations also benefit as
well. A strong, positive reputation has many benefits, such as higher
recruiting and more productive relationships with the public.
Second, reputations are fragile. Unlike other assets, such as a secu-
rity plant or local area network, reputations are more difficult to pro-
tect. They are under siege from forces both within and outside the
organization. In the infamous Spygate incident during the 2007 season,
the New England Patriots were caught videotaping the signals of the
New York Jets’s defensive coaches. The act was a violation of league
rules and the Patriots, and Coach Bill Belichick, were fined and lost a
first round draft pick.17 The Patriots would go on to win all the games
in the regular and postseason, finishing with a record of 18-0. However,
the Spygate incident tainted the Patriots’ almost-perfect season. Many
in the public would not only question their 2007 season record but also
their winning record in previous years. Regardless that other teams
were engaging in the same practice (ironically, the Jets were caught
videotaping the Patriots a few months later),18 and the advantage it
really provided the team is arguable, the incident dented the reputation
of the Patriots. Gridiron Leaders should understand this and devote
some command emphasis on protecting and preserving a reputation.
Third, reputations are equal part reality and equal part perception.
A leader must ensure that character, honor, and integrity exist
throughout the organization to keep, maintain, and build a strong repu-
tation. It shouldn’t stop there, though. There’s more. The leader must
affect perception. They must communicate this reputation to internal
and external stakeholders. Remember, a reputation only exists in the
eyes and hearts of the fans or the consumers. It is their impression that
matters above all else. A Gridiron Leader sometimes speaks directly to
the fan base to ensure that the reputation is solid and not shaken.
Finally, reputations are inherently unfair. We see that in a piercingly
clear way when we examine both Barnett and Firestone. It took years
and years for each to develop a strong reputation only to watch it evap-
orate over the course of seconds, minutes, and days. For that reason,
alone, Gridiron Leaders must always be alert and on-guard. More
importantly, Gridiron Leaders must recognize that short-term decisions,
particularly bad short-term decisions, can affect the much longer term
reputation of the team or organization. While convenient and tempting
to give into short-term pressures, one must remember that if it goes
astray, the larger reputation hangs in the balance.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders create ethical, moral, and honorable climates that
impact the value of the team and organization’s reputation. One of the
greatest assets that people or organizations can ever have is their
reputation.
KEEPING IT SIMPLE
According to legend, Vince Lomabrdi used to kick off training camp
for the Green Bay Packers by holding up a football and stating,
“Gentlemen, this is a football.” He would then speak about the funda-
mentals, such as the importance of blocking and tackling. We also
believe in sticking to the basics and keeping it simple. In fact, we think
that keeping it simple is the key to building a climate and culture based
on character and integrity. Let’s go over what we mean here.
Big Upset 67
Throughout this chapter we discussed the importance of character in

selecting franchise players to build out your roster. We cautioned
against accepting players with severe character flaws and attempting to
rehabilitate them after they’ve made the team. We have also gone into
great detail about the important role the leader plays in setting the
tone for the organization and enforcing standards that will protect the
reputation of the organization. What else can a leader do?
In addition to selecting players with good character, setting the
example, and enforcing standards, leaders should clearly establish
expectations. One tool for the leader is to publish ethical standards or
an honor code to ground all members of the organization. Over the last
10 years, we’ve seen the explosion of corporate ethics and honor codes.
On first blush, this may appear to be a good thing. We’re not so sure,
though. One would think that an explosion of ethical codes of conduct
would correspond to a higher level of ethical and honorable behavior.
But it hasn’t. Arguably, there’s been an inverse relationship. As the
sheer number of ethical codes of conduct rise, the quality of ethical
decision-making seems to have gotten worse, not better. How can one
explain that?
We explain that by looking at an organization’s codes. The most
striking characteristic of most codes that we’ve seen is their sheer
length. For instance, computer giant, Dell, has a preamble to their
Code of Conduct that is 371 words. Honeywell’s Code of Conduct
takes up 32 pages and is entitled, “Code of Business Conduct: Your
Everyday Guide to Business Conduct.” We’re not picking on these two
organizations, per se, because most firms, agencies, and organizations
have similarly worded, titled, and lengthy codes. Possibly written by
attorneys, it is unreasonable and, just plain unrealistic, to ever believe
that a 32-page Code of Conduct can meaningfully impact a person’s
ethics and character. It’s just too long. Furthermore, the sheer detail of
these documents creates a perception that it exists only to protect the
organization from liability.
Never forget that ethics and honor codes are meant to shape
thoughts and impact decisions. They are not meant and created to pro-
vide a legal backdrop or defense against lawsuits. That may be an ancil-
lary or secondary benefit, but it should never be the driving force
behind a code. If ever the spirit of legal protection trumps the true goal
of a code to create an ethical culture and to spur honorable decision-
making, cynicism will result. And, ironically, you’ll have more viola-
tions of the code, not less.
We’ve found that the best ethics and honor codes to shape and
influence everyday decisions are the simplest ones. The ones that are
easy to remember, hard to forget. Many colleges and universities have

honor codes, such as Penn State, Stanford, Connecticut, and many
others. Some are fairly simple while others may require students to sift
through backup documents to understand it all. One of the more fa-
mous honor codes that have been subjected to Congressional scrutiny
for the better part of two centuries is the West Point Honor Code. It
reads, “A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.” Its
beauty is its simplicity. At 13 words, it can be easily committed to
memory. Isn’t it easier to remember and be impacted by 13 words as
opposed to 13 paragraphs or 13 pages? At 13 words, it is so elegant
because it says it all. Its brevity is also the power of the code. It serves
as the foundation for how cadets are supposed to act and every cadet
can easily memorize or internalize it.
Notre Dame has something similar that speaks to honor, commit-
ment, tradition, and a culture of high expectations. Lou Holtz placed a
sign in the corridor from the locker room into Notre Dame stadium
that reads, “Play Like a Champion Today.” At five words, it says it all.
Lou Holtz thought that this code was so important, he often took the
poster with the team on road games to remind them of their
responsibilities.
For years, General Electric (GE) employed a simple, informal litmus
test known internally as the “newspaper test.” The intent was for
employees at all levels to imagine if their actions, decisions, or behav-
iors made the front-page news of a national newspaper. If they would
be embarrassed, ashamed, or have regret, then the employee knew he
was potentially about to act in an improper manner.19
We get the point. Shorter may be better as Gridiron Leaders use
codes as a tool to build a spirit of honor and ethics within their team
or organization. Simple, however, isn’t enough. Gridiron Leaders must
bombard and, through repetition, ensure that the code becomes part
of a person’s mental DNA. Succinctness is involved, though, as it is
easier to commit to memory and easier to repeat and learn a message
that is five or thirteen words as opposed to 13 pages. At West Point,
the Honor Code is written and spoken everywhere one turns. At
Notre Dame, the football players have to touch or tap the metal sign
every time they leave the tunnel and enter the stadium. Lou Holtz
made it difficult to forget as he got two senses involves—sight and
touch.
Keep in mind that we are not suggesting that an organization aban-
don the compulsory policies recommended by the corporate legal
department. However, don’t expect people in the organization to act in
an honorable or ethical manner because a 50-page document is posted
Big Upset 69
to the company Web site and every employee completes a mandatory

two-hour training session every year. Our best advice to leaders is to
set clear expectations of how to act, and keep it short and simple. If
you want to impact thought, deed, and practice, then it must be memo-
rable, communicated frequently, and it must be repeated. By providing
easy to understand guidelines or expectations, a leader creates powerful
tools to preserve and foster a reputation of integrity and high
performance.
TIP DRILL
1. Character is the essential element in any franchise player. Do
not be impressed with skills alone. True franchise players will
have both skills and character. Skills will never compensate for
character flaws. Be very wary of selecting and hiring individuals
with known character issues—developing character is extremely
difficult and requires great effort and time.
2. Organizations will mimic the behavior of their leaders. Integ-
rity and character begin with the leader. Leaders must set the
stage for ethical and honorable conduct. If you want the mem-
bers of an organization to act in an honorable manner, then you
must lead by example. Behavior, good or bad, is contagious.
The rest of the organization will follow your example as to how
to act.
3. Never compromise integrity for short-term gain. Beware of the
“win at all costs” attitude. Resist the temptation to compromise
ethics, even when internal or external pressure is extreme. In
the long run, it is better to fall short of an objective, target,
or goal than to achieve a short-term win through poor ethics
or illegal means. Never sacrifice the means to achieve the ends.
4. There is no off-season. More and more, we see the blurring line
between our personal and professional lives. The two are almost
inseparable. As a result, what you do in your personal life has a
direct impact on your professional life. Leaders can’t have char-
acter while at work and leave it behind at the end of the day.
Hypocrisy and inconsistency will quickly erode trust and com-
mitment. Act in the same ethical manner at work as you would
in your home and vice versa.
5. Reputation is an invaluable asset. Character, good or bad, is

contagious. A leader’s character doesn’t just impact the present;
it extends well into the future. Reputation is an important, but
fragile, asset that can easily be compromised by poor ethics and
dishonor. An organization can stand out among its competitors
on reputation alone and how the organization is perceived.
Eliminate ethical problems immediately to prevent the spread to
the rest of the organization. Become the guardian and protector
of your team or organization’s reputation.
6. Set and communicate clear expectations. Provide simple and
easy to understand expectations for how people should act.
Communicate expectations frequently and repeatedly. One tool
in the leader’s toolbox is to create an honor code or litmus test
that is brief and easy to use so that it may be memorized and
become part of that person’s subconscious decision-making.
NOTES
1. Peter King, “The Party’s Over,” Sports Illustrated, December 12, 1997, http://
vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1011665/index.
htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
2. Richie Whitt, “Busted,” Dallas Observer, January 17, 2007, http://www.
dallasobserver.com/2007-01-18/news/busted/2 (accessed March 14, 2009).
3. Stuart Whitehair, “Colorado Football: CU vs. Missouri 1990 (The Fifth
Down Game),” The Bleacher Report Web site, http://bleacherreport.com/
articles/31980-colorado-football-cu-vs-missouri-1990-the-fifth-down-game
4. Harvey Araton, “‘Team Player’ Prolongs Colorado’s Woes,” New York
Times, February 20, 2004.
5. James Risen, “Christian Men Hold Huge Rally on D.C. Mall,” Los Angeles
Times, October 5, 1997, http://articles.latimes.com/p/1997/oct/05/news/
mn-39657 (accessed March 14, 2009).
players/R/RomaBi00.htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
7. Daniel Schorn, “Romo Comes Clean,” September 17, 2006, CBS Web
site, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/13/60minutes/main941102.shtml
8. “Fannie Mae Settlement Proves Anticlimactic,” Wall Street Journal, April
21, 2008.
Big Upset 71
9. Rick Anderson, “A New Ethical Era for the Sleazy B?” Seattle Weekly,
December 3, 2003, http://www.seattleweekly.com/2003-12-03/news/a-new-
ethical-era-for-the-sleazy-b/ (accessed March 14, 2009).
players/L/LloyGr00.htm (accessed March 1, 2009).
11. “Inadvertent Errors,” Sports Illustrated, July 20, 2002, http://sportsillustrated.
cnn.com/football/college/news/2002/07/20/cu_neuheisel_ap/ (accessed
March 14, 2009).
12. Ron Borges, “Colorado Blew Chance to Take Stand,” NBC Web site,
May 28, 2004, http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/5069858/ (accessed March
14, 2009).
13. Tim Hyland, “The Longest Losing Streaks in College Football History,”
College Football reference Web site, http://collegefootball.about.com/od/
history/a/history-lstreak.htm; Teddy Greenstein, “The 1995 Northwestern
Wildcats Go to the Rose Bowl,” http://www.courant.com/topic/chi-chicago
days-1995wildcats-story,0,4988072.story (accessed March 14, 2009).
14. St. Petersburg Times Web site, http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/
firestone/timeline.shtml (accessed March 14, 2009).
15. St. Petersburg Times Web site, http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/
firestone/timeline.shtml (accessed March 14, 2009).
16. “The 100 Best Global Brands,” BusinessWeek, September 18, 2008.
17. SportsBusiness Daily Web site, http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/
118608 (accessed March 14, 2009).
18. Rich Cimini, “Spy for a Spy: Jets Started Video Battle,” Daily News,
December 12, 2007, http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/
2007/12/12/2007-12-12_spy_for_a_spy_jets_started_video_battle-1.html
19. Jack Welch and John A. Byrne, Jack: Straight from the Gut (New York:
Warner Books, 2001).
5
FINALIZE THE ROSTER
The secret is to work less as individuals and more as a team. As a

coach, I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven.
—Knute Rockne
Jim Druckenmiller didn’t fit in. Not that it was his fault. He was just
the wrong guy, at the wrong time, at the wrong place. And as it is in
sports as it is in life, it is hard to overstate the importance of fit. So,
stay fit.
Jim Druckenmiller was a phenom at the quarterback position at
Virginia Tech in the mid-1990s. Often lost behind Virginia Tech’s
most famous (or infamous) quarterback, Michael Vick, stands Jim
Druckenmiller—an impressive physical specimen and a truly gifted
quarterback. At 6-feet, 4-inches tall and weighing close to 250 pounds,
many pro scouts counted Druckenmiller as a prototypical NFL quarter-
back. Legendary for his arm strength, urban legend had it that Druck-
enmiller could throw the entire length of the football field—a full 100
yards. Selected with the 26th overall pick in the first round of the 1997
NFL draft, hopes were high that Druckenmiller would deliver.
In previous chapters, we discussed the importance of selecting fran-
chise players, those with great talent, skills, competencies, or other
attributes that will help make the team successful. We also mentioned
the importance of going the extra step and finding franchise players
with character to help build the team’s legacy. However, having the
right raw ingredients doesn’t necessarily mean a leader will have the
recipe for success. There are other, essential concepts for leaders to
understand if they want to build the roster of a winning team. Druck-
enmiller’s case illustrates the first of these important lessons. The 49ers
did not benefit from the talents of Jim Druckenmiller, nor was he as
successful as anticipated because he wasn’t a good fit. And this level of
73
misfit can be viewed along three separate, but equally important,

dimensions (See Figure 5.1).
There are three different types of “fit.” The first type of fit is called
Person-Job fit, or PJ fit. Ideally, the knowledge, skills, and abilities of a
given person should fit nicely with the knowledge, skills, and abilities
demanded of the job. The next type of fit is called Person-Organization
fit, or just PO fit. Here, the person’s personality and attitudes and motiva-
tions should fit, support, and even build upon an organization’s culture.
Finally, there is Person-Strategy fit, or PS fit. The notion of PS fit is quite
simple—the person should fit with and help execute a given organization’s
strategy. For all of Jim Druckenmiller’s talents and the 49ers’ organiza-
tional gifts, what we see when we peel back this case is a violation of the
Fit Law on all three levels. The Fit Law is simple: a given person should
always fit with, complement, and improve upon the job, the organizational
culture, and that organization’s strategy. What transpired between this
person and this franchise in that spring, summer, and fall of 1997 holds
lessons for all organizational leaders and managers. To better explore this
idea, we need to first visit PJ and PS fit because they are highly related.
The San Francisco 49ers offensive strategy was known as the West
Coast Offense. This strategy was groundbreaking in that it rebelled
against the typical vertical offensive attack. In a vertical passing
offense, the goal is to run the ball first and frequently to draw the line-
backers and safeties closer to the line of scrimmage. As they creep up,
the quarterback will launch a vertical (airborne) attack, trying to get
behind the safeties. In the traditional vertical scheme, teams will run
more times than they throw the ball. When they do throw the ball,
they will use a strong-armed quarterback to go deep.
The West Coast Offense is just the opposite. Instead of a vertical
game, the West Coast Offense is noted for being a passing strategy
marked by almost horizontal, shorter, and well-timed and accurate
Skills, knowledge, Job

abilities
Personality, attitudes,
Organization
motivations
Mindset, strategic Strategy

disposition, risk orientation
Figure 5.1 “Fit” Elements

Finalize the Roster 75
passes. And in a true West Coast Offense, the team tries to spread the
field with a burst of short passes to many different receivers, which
helps open up running lanes and the running game. Quarterbacks in
this system throw the ball more but for shorter distances. Unlike the
vertical game mentioned earlier where the run opens up the pass, the
West Coast Offense uses the pass to open up the run game.
Looking back, almost any other team in that given year could’ve
made better use of Jim Druckenmiller’s talents and abilities. For starters,
Druckenmiller came from Frank Beamer’s traditional, vertical offensive
strategy at Virginia Tech. Tech’s success during the 1990s and through
this decade has been to run first, pass second. With his cannon arm,
Druckenmiller was a perfect fit for a more traditional passing offense.
Anything but the West Coast Offense, which rarely called for the quar-
terback to throw the ball deep downfield. Druckenmiller had no real ex-
posure in college to the West Coast Offense and probably did not train
physically for those types of specific skills. His most obvious talent, the
cannon arm, was not nearly as important or valued in a West Coast
Offense that valued accuracy over distance. Druckenmiller didn’t really
fit with the job because he didn’t mesh well with the strategy. A West
Coast Offense quarterback is mobile, accurate, and possesses quick
decision-making skills. Druckenmiller didn’t look like that. Instead, he
was very strong, but not overly mobile. Here, we have a violation of the
PJ and PS components of the Fit Law; he didn’t fit with the strategy, and
he didn’t fit with the job of a West Coast Offense quarterback. Drucken-
miller’s career was over before it began. Unfortunately, this case has all
the hallmarks of a lose-lose situation considering that the 49ers used a
first round draft pick to obtain Druckenmiller.
While the violation of PJ and PS fit are clear to see, there probably
was a lack of PO fit as well. The 49ers prided themselves, especially
under the management and leadership of coaches Bill Walsh and George
Seifert, as a character- and integrity-based organization. Previous quar-
terbacks like Joe Montana and Steve Young led credibility to the maxim
that nice guys could lead teams and win under pressure. During his early
years with the 49ers, rape accusations plagued Druckenmiller for an inci-
dent that occurred in Blacksburg, Virginia. The New York Times
reported that Druckenmiller admitted to having sex with a drunken stu-
dent, although Druckenmiller claimed that the sex was consensual.
Although acquitted of charges, Druckenmiller’s actions and decisions
didn’t mesh with the organizational culture nourished by his predeces-
sors, Montana and Young. While this incident played out in court,
Druckenmiller lost his backup job to Ty Detmer. His actions didn’t fit
with the organizational culture. His days with the 49ers were numbered.
CULTURE CLASH
Violations of the Fit Law are clearly not restricted to the realm of foot-
ball. The corporate world is notorious for making similar mistakes. Manag-
ers, impressed with the laundry list of accomplishments on a candidate’s
resume, hire new employees that don’t fit the organization’s culture or
don’t have the specific skill set needed to perform the job. Many human
resource departments regard selecting and hiring talent as a vital, but rare,
skill among hiring managers. Third-party placement agencies, corporate
recruiters, and headhunters are all part of a growing multimillion dollar
industry, and this growth may be viewed as a sort of admission from organ-
izational leaders that complying with the Fit Law is easier said than done.
Even leaders within the best organizations make mistakes.
Like the 49ers, the nation’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, violated the
Fit Law when it hired an edgy, aggressive, young executive to shake
up the company’s marketing department. Julie Roehm, a newly hired
36-year-old marketing executive, simply did not fit in. Perhaps the first
clue was when Roehm painted her office a bright chartreuse that con-
trasted with the bland gray office walls that were standard in Wal-Mart
headquarters.1 Or maybe it was when she raised eyebrows at the ultra-
conservative company by selecting an ad agency that had recently run
an advertisement displaying a male lion mounting a female lion. Perhaps
it was the introduction of racier ads, such as one commercial with a cou-
ple discussing underwear in front of their relatives. Or possibly it was
when she showed up at a dinner party in a trendy Manhattan restaurant,
thrown by an ad agency, and enjoyed Kobe beef and lychee martinis.
Approximately two months after the dinner, Roehm was terminated for
violation of company policies, a charge that Roehm denied. Almost
from the beginning it appeared that her personal style was almost a
direct contradiction of Wal-Mart’s buttoned-up, conventional culture.
For Wal-Mart’s CEO at the time, H. Lee Scott, Jr., hiring Roehm
must have appeared to be a good move for the company. As sales
slowed at the retailer giant, the new goal was to attract upper- and
middle-income customers. Wal-Mart wanted these customers to view
the retail chain as a place that sold high-end products for low prices.
This change in customer perception required a radical change in
approach. And Roehm seemed like just the person to lead that change.
Roehm, a Purdue University grad, quickly rose through the ranks in
the automotive industry before joining Wal-Mart. First, at Ford Motor
Company, Roehm was successful at attracting younger buyers to the
Ford Focus compact against the stiffer Japanese competition. Within
only a few years, her work was enough to land her a job heading
marketing communications for all Ford vehicles. A year later she

moved to Chrysler and began resuscitating the Dodge brand, a distant
third place in the market. Under her leadership, the marketing team
developed successful advertising campaigns around the slogan “Grab
Life by the Horns” and by marketing Dodge’s “Hemi” engine.
Despite Roehm’s successes, Scott and others at Wal-Mart headquar-
ters should have recognized the mismatch prior to her employment. It’s
possible that Scott or others at Wal-Mart only considered the PJ fit.
Obviously, Roehm was talented, intelligent, and had a track record of suc-
cess. She had the skills and abilities needed to perform the job. However,
her personality and attitudes were far different from the organizational
culture. Additionally, her approach to executing the company’s strategy
may have been too aggressive or risky than what Wal-Mart leadership
could handle. Simply stated, she failed the PO and PS fit criteria, and
Wal-Mart should have seen this coming.
While at Chrysler, Roehm caught more than a few people’s atten-
tion when her team developed a commercial for the Dodge Durango
that showed two men at a urinal making comments such as “it’s big,”
and “seven inches longer.” Only in the last frames of the commercial
does the camera pan back to reveal the men staring at a poster of the
truck. A year later during the Super Bowl, Roehm tried to get Dodge
to sponsor a pay-per-view event called the “Lingerie Bowl,” showing
women playing football in lingerie. The event was later pulled, proving
too much for even the risk-seeking automotive crowd.
Soon after Roehm departed the company, Wal-Mart returned to
its advertisements focused on low prices. Wal-Mart denies that it
fired Roehm over her approach and is currently involved in a lawsuit with
Roehm over such claims.2 However, one can only speculate how long
Roehm would have lasted in the company if she weren’t fired. With such
an obvious misfit, the outcome was certain regardless.
It is important to note that potential candidates for any given role
should pass all three areas of the Fit Law. Whereas Roehm was a PO
and PS mismatch for Wal-Mart, it is possible for an organization to set-
tle on someone with two out of three areas of fit only to find the result
disastrous. In 2000, Bob Nardelli took over as CEO of home improve-
ment retail giant, Home Depot. Six years later, shares for the company
had declined by 6%, while arch rival Lowes had increased by 200%.
Moreover, customer satisfaction was down, and turnover was high.
Nardelli, under pressure, resigned.3
At the onset, Nardelli appeared to be a good fit. Nardelli, the former
leader of General Electric (GE) Power systems, was once a top prospect
to succeed Jack Welch to run GE. He was known for his financial
acumen and keen focus on operations. When Nardelli’s appointment

was announced, Home Depot cofounder Bernie Marcus remarked,
“Bob’s experience at GE speaks for itself in terms of the talent, vision
and expertise. . . . [H]e compiled an impressive track record of deliver-
ing superior sales and profit growth in all of the GE business units he
ran. . . .”4 Nardelli clearly had the skills to do the job (a PJ fit) and was
committed to grow the retail giant (a PS fit), but most seem to over-
look the obvious difference in his leadership style and the organiza-
tional culture (a PO mismatch).
Nardelli’s autocratic, command-and-control style of leadership was at
odds with Home Depot’s decentralized, entrepreneurial style in which
store managers were expected to act independently. Company founders
Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank had stressed a pro-customer, employee-
centric approach to the business, whereas Nardelli focused on data, cost
cutting, and holding everyone strictly accountable to meeting targets.
Marcus and Blank used to preach “make love to the customer,” while
Nardelli would say “facts are friendly.”5 Nardelli quickly alienated both
employees and customers. He replaced thousands of full-time store work-
ers with part-time help in an effort to reduce costs. Store staff reductions
led to customer complaints. In the University of Michigan’s annual
American Consumer Satisfaction Index, Home Depot was rated last
among major retailers in the United States during 2005.6 The laidback
culture that once defined the retail giant gradually turned into a culture
of fear. Turnover increased. By the time Nardelli left, almost all of
Home Depot’s top 170 executives came into their positions after 2001
and over half came from outside the company. In GE fashion, Nardelli
began to purge the company of bottom performers. As a result of this
policy, store managers that made the cut were often seen nervously
checking to see whether they made their weekly targets.7
In the end, it wasn’t his personality or leadership that forced Nardelli
out. Nardelli’s tactics did not ultimately create shareholder value. Share-
holders, and eventually the board, began to question whether Nardelli
was a fit for their company. Nardelli would walk away with a $210 mil-
lion golden parachute while the company tried to get back on track.8
In retrospect, the PO mismatch couldn’t have been more apparent.
Despite Nardelli’s success at GE, he had absolutely no retail experi-
ence. Several years into his tenure, Nardelli still believed his plan
would work.9 He had seen the business model work in the past;
unfortunately, his experience had only proven that the model worked
in a manufacturing environment. Nardelli was not wired for a business
that was supposed to care more about treating customers well than
slashing costs. Marcus and Blank were likely impressed with Nardelli’s
track record without truly understanding where Nardelli achieved such

a record. He was a franchise player back at GE but couldn’t adapt to
the culture of a new team. Although his skills and his vision for the
company’s future demonstrated that he was a fit for the job and the
strategy, he could not overcome the incongruence to the organization.
And in such a case, the employees, shareholders, and customers ulti-
mately paid the price.
Moving the Chains

Violations of the Fit Law can have a devastating impact to the organization.
Make sure incoming members match all three areas of fit.
READY . . . SET . . . NO!

Ever hear of Rashaan Salaam? Whereas Druckenmiller never fit,
Salaam was just never ready. Leaders assess fit and then they ask: Is
that person ready for the job, ready for the responsibility? In Rashaan
Salaam’s case, the answer to both questions was no.
Rashaan Salaam literally burst onto the college scene. With little to
no playing time during his first two seasons with the Colorado Buffa-
loes, expectations were muted as he assumed the starting running back
position. He blew away and just flat out outran both expectations and
competition in the 1994 college football season and went on to win
the Heisman Trophy.
In that special season, Salaam became one of four college players to
run for more than 2,000 yards in a single season.10 Averaging a stagger-
ing 187 yards per game, he had great speed and was known for some
across-the-grain cuts that would leave linebackers flat-footed. In one
memorable span, Salaam ran for more than 200 yards—in four consecu-
tive games! In one of the most exciting individual performances by a
college football running back, Salaam racked up 362 yards in a 34-31
win over the Texas Longhorns despite flu-like and heat stroke-type
symptoms. After his junior season, Rashaan Salaam believed he was
ready for the pros.
The Chicago Bears were not that far removed from the Walter
Payton years and were hoping for the second coming when they took
Salaam with the 21st pick in the 1995 NFL draft. Unfortunately,
the excitement and human highlight film never materialized. During
Salaam’s four-year career in the NFL, he gained 1,684 yards. How-
ever, 1,074 of those yards were in his rookie year, and he would fumble
11 times during that same season. Granted, 1,074 yards in a single sea-
son is pretty good, and he did rank 13th in the league. But in that same
year, Emmitt Smith gained 1,773 yards and notched 25 touchdowns.
After some careful examination, we would argue that Rashaan
Salaam left school too early. He wasn’t ready personally, and he wasn’t
ready professionally.
Let’s begin with the professional readiness. Rashaan Salaam was on a
truly loaded team in the Big XII that had one other notable team that
year in Nebraska. On that 1994 Colorado Buffaloes team was the Hail
Mary Tandem of Michael Westbrook and Kordell Stewart. Opposite
Westbrook was another talented and speedy receiver, Charles Johnson,
who was drafted early in the first round by the Pittsburgh Steelers. Kor-
dell Stewart was a particularly dangerous weapon because he could kill
you with the run or the pass. Some argue that this talent made it very
difficult for teams to concentrate on stopping the run in general, and
Salaam in particular.
What’s more is that some analysts predicted early on that Salaam’s
upright running style would expose him to vicious hits in the NFL.
They were right. His short-lived career was marred by several nagging
injuries. During his four years in the NFL, he played in only 33 games
out of a possible 64.11
Maybe even more, and what few people realize, is that Rashaan
Salaam only had one full season of traditional 11-man football before
joining the Bears. And that was his junior season at Colorado. At his
high school, La Jolla Country Day School, there were only enough
players and other competing high schools to play 8-man football. Only
once in his high school career did he play and run in a traditional
11-man game. During that game, he was held for under 100 yards for
the first and only time in his high school career. Why is this important?
It’s important because he only played a total of 13 high school or colle-
giate games with the mandatory 11 players before entering the
National Football League. Don’t get us wrong. Rashaan Salaam had
one of the best seasons ever for a collegiate running back. The problem
is that it was only one. A great deal of decisions and emphasis were
placed on that single season. One makes for a great season, but one
doesn’t necessarily mean you’re ready to join the NFL, and one doesn’t
spell a successful career. Rashaan Salaam wasn’t quite ready to play in
the NFL, and it showed. How both he and the Bears missed the signs
that he wasn’t ready, we’ll never fully know.
Leaders know there’s more than a professional commitment to a job
or to an organization. There’s also a personal commitment, and it’s
likely that Rashaan Salaam wasn’t ready here either. While his injuries
were a roadblock in his quest for a successful career, an even bigger

problem was his self-admitted “addiction” to marijuana. To play and
succeed at the highest level of competition requires more than profes-
sional readiness. It also requires personal readiness. Here, Rashaan
Salaam came up a couple yards short. The lesson for all of us is simple
and straightforward—leaders and coaches need to make sure their peo-
ple are ready both professionally and personally. If they’re not, wait
until they are and help them get there. In general, we don’t think we
do a good enough job as leaders at answering the very basic question—
is he or she ready to play today?
Moving the Chains

Not only do people need to fit in, they need to be professionally and
personally ready to contribute.
IDENTIFYING THE STARTING LINEUP

If you find potential franchise players, and the players pass the Fit
Law, how do you know they’re really ready? We spoke with many organi-
zational leaders and managers that often complained about the difficulty
of assessing readiness. In many organizations, if a person did a good job
in an individual contributor role, he was promoted to management. In
some cases, these newly promoted managers failed and quickly exited
the organization. Organizational leaders would agree that when a person
performed well in one role, that success didn’t always guarantee the per-
son would perform well in another role. Yet, these same leaders would
continue to select managers based on their most recent performance
appraisal in a trial-and-error approach to determine who would work out.
Many organizations have addressed this problem with a number of
different approaches. However, the first step in this process is to ensure
that a job analysis has been done before a leader starts reviewing poten-
tial candidates. A job analysis is a detailed description of the work
required; tasks or responsibilities; and the necessary skills, knowledge,
abilities, or attributes required to successfully perform the role. Like a
good football coach, a leader should have an in-depth understanding of
every position on the team and what’s needed for someone to be a suc-
cess in that spot. Once the job analysis is complete, the leader can
begin the selection process.
Interviews may be the most common selection tool in corporate
America, but there are other approaches to select the right candidate.
One of the most controversial, but most widely used, draft tools for
quarterbacks is the Wonderlic test. The Wonderlic test is a 12-minute,
50-question test that taps into a person’s general mental ability. It is
the football version of an intelligence or IQ test. A score of 50 is the
maximum possible score, while a score of 20 indicates average intelli-
gence. Akili Smith, former Cincinnati Bengal bust at quarterback,
scored a 15. Jeff George, one of the great journeymen in NFL history
despite incredible physical gifts, scored a 10. Heath Shuler, a quarter-
back out of Tennessee that the Washington Redskins pinned their
future on, scored a 16. Compare that with Eli Manning (39), Troy
Aikman (29), or Steve Young (33). There’s more than coincidence at
work here. Intelligence is a factor in all winning—in and away from the
arena. The three quarterbacks just mentioned all won Super Bowls. To
the best of our knowledge, in the modern Wonderlic era, there’s been no
Super Bowl-winning quarterback who scored less than 20. If intelligence
is a factor in winning, then coaches need to target players with the right
mental aptitude and testing is one method to measure it.12
In the same manner, organizations can use assessment testing to
gauge a candidate’s potential success in a new role. An organization
may rely on the Myers-Briggs test to identify personality types that will
match certain job functions, whereas a manufacturing company may
use a hands-on simulation to test mechanical skills, and another orga-
nization may use a written ethical assessment to predict how someone
will act in certain job-related scenarios. Regardless of the specific type
of test used, pre-employment assessment testing can be a useful tool for
leaders to build their teams.
Note that we don’t advocate 100 percent reliance on assessment test-
ing. It is one tool among many. Reflecting on the case with Rashaan
Salaam, it’s possible for a candidate to score highly during a pre-
employment screening test and still not perform to expectations.
Another evaluation method for leaders is through observation. By
observing how candidates perform in different situations, a leader can
better assess how that person will perform in a desired role. Great leaders
know that a person has to be viewed from many different angles to truly
assess potential. A coach with this mindset would have been hesitant to
select Rashaan Salaam until he had been through several seasons.
By understanding the requirements from the job analysis, leaders can
closely review a candidate’s past experiences, ensuring the candidate
has demonstrated proficiency in a variety of environments. We are, of
course, not referring to the simple resume check that most employers
do, checking for key words or phrases before bringing a candidate in for
an interview. We are suggesting an intense review of the candidate’s
background to understand the alignment between the candidate’s pre-

vious roles and the job analysis. However, the background examina-
tion, coupled with the interview process, can be an effective means to
determine whether a candidate is ready.
Moving the Chains

Leaders have many tools to evaluate whether a person is ready to take on
a new role. Use multiple methods to make the best possible choice.
READY AND WILLING?

Some may contend that Scott Frost and Eric Crouch were the same
person. As we look at these two storied Nebraska quarterbacks, we
couldn’t disagree more. Both were ready, but only one was willing.
Leaders need people and players that are both. Let us explain.
Frost was one smart guy. He started at Stanford University before
transferring to Nebraska after only two years. Frost was a winner at
Nebraska, racking up a record of 24-2 during his two years as a starter.
In his final year as a starter, 1997, he led the Nebraska Cornhuskers to
victory for Tom Osborne’s final National Championship ring. Skilled
at leading the option attack, which emphasizes running and decision-
making from the quarterback position, Scott Frost proved that he was
good in that position and in that scheme. However, Eric Crouch was
even better.
In 2001, Eric Crouch recorded one of the best seasons ever by a col-
legiate quarterback. In that 2001 season, Crouch surpassed Tommie
Frazier as Nebraska’s all-time total offensive leader. A couple of weeks
later, he became the Big XII’s all-time career rushing quarterback. That
same season, Crouch broke the record for career touchdowns by a quar-
terback and became only the fourth player in Division I history to both
pass and rush for 3,000 yards in a career. Shortly before winning the
2001 Heisman trophy, Crouch became only the ninth quarterback to
win 35 games as a starter. Sadly, however, Crouch, who also won the 2001
Walter Camp Award, would not have the NFL career that Scott Frost
had. And the reason may have been that he was ready, but not willing.
Crouch and Frost were both exceptional option quarterbacks. In
NFL speak this meant discipline, strong decision-making abilities, fast
legs, ability to take a hit, but less-than-average arm strength. In line
with the Law of Fit, option quarterbacks very rarely make good NFL
quarterbacks regardless of the system (vertical or horizontal game).
The Saint Louis Rams understood this and took Crouch with the 95th
pick in the third round of the 2002 draft in the hope of converting the
quarterback to a wide-receiver position. For whatever reason, he
resisted. Only too late in his career did he grudgingly convert to the
strong safety position (with the 2005 Hamburg Sea Devils of NFL
Europe). Many might think Crouch was too stubborn. If only he was
willing to convert, he may have had a more successful career.
Scott Frost, on the other hand, was obviously willing to make some
changes and understood early on that he’d have to be willing to adjust
as there were no NFL teams willing to take him as a quarterback. He
made it known early that he was willing to play any position given the
opportunity. So, in the third round (66th pick), Bill Parcells drafted
Frost to play defensive back for the New York Jets. He would finish his
career as a special teams/defensive back sub for the Tampa Bay Bucca-
neers after six seasons.
Of course, leaders need people that are ready. But, maybe even more
important, leaders want a team of people with Scott Frost’s mentality;
people who are not only ready, but who are willing to fill in at any
position to make the team better. When leaders build teams with per-
sonnel who possess that same type of thought process, both the individ-
ual and team benefit. The task then for leaders is to find people and
players who are both ready and willing to contribute.
Moving the Chains

Ready isn’t good enough; leaders find people and players who are both
ready and willing to contribute.
FLEX THAT MUSCLE

Deion Sanders was as dangerous a weapon on the football field as
any that have ever suited up. If we were to survey 100 football fans on
what made Deion so dangerous, we’d likely hear things such as speed,
quickness, field vision, low center of gravity, intelligence, and a natural
football instinct that seemed to blend and balance risk and reward to
perfection. On closer examination, however, we don’t think there was
a single factor that made Deion such a valuable component of a team’s
Human Capital strategy. Rather, the reason teams coveted Deion Sanders
to such a degree was that he could do it all (and did).
Few players disrupted the competition like Deion Sanders. And
when we say that Deion could do it all, we mean ALL. There were few
positions, or sports for that matter, that Deion couldn’t step into and
contribute. In the NFL, he excelled in several positions on both offense
and defense for teams such as the Falcons, 49ers, Cowboys, Redskins,
and Ravens. Deion also had several productive seasons for the Atlanta
Braves and the Cincinnati Reds, where in 1997 he finished second in
the National League with 56 stolen bases in 115 games. How flexible a
resource was Deion Sanders? He is the only athlete ever to play in both
a Super Bowl and World Series. Many forget that in the 1992 World
Series, Sanders batted over .500 with four runs, eight hits, two doubles,
and one RBI—all while playing with a broken bone in his foot. He’s
also the only player in sports history to hit a home run and score a
touchdown in the same week.
Because Deion could adapt and was flexible, he gave his teams a
powerful competitive advantage. One of the greatest cases where this
flexibility was exploited for competitive advantage was Super Bowl
XXX. To spark the Dallas Cowboys in the early going of the first quar-
ter, coach Barry Switzer lined Deion Sanders up as a wide receiver. It
was a good call as Deion blazed by Steelers cornerback Willie Williams
for a 47-yard gain that brought him to the Steelers’ 14-yard line. Three
plays later, Troy Aikman hit Jay Novacek in the end zone to put the
Cowboys up 10-0 in the first quarter. The Cowboys would trump the
Pittsburgh Steelers to win their fifth Super Bowl.
Embedded in this case are several leadership and management les-
sons. As leaders, we want to build teams with at least a couple of peo-
ple and players that can do it all. The reasons are many. In the NFL,
players go down to injury and coaches need players that can fill in and
adapt. Leaders see this in organizations. Sometimes people move on in
a moment’s notice through promotions, layoffs, or resignations. When
that happens, leaders need people who can step up and fill in. More
important, and as we can see from the Deion case, is that flexible peo-
ple make organizations more flexible and adaptable. This, in turn, puts
rivals off their game, off their toes, and in backpedal mode. Leadership
and organizational success is rooted in creating opportunities that rival
organizations cannot easily respond to. If you can build an organization
that is more flexible and adaptable than others, competitive advantage
will be yours.
Deion’s case is not the lone example. Ten years after the Super
Bowl, another flexible player would turn the tide. And this time, it was
the Steelers who would gain the advantage. Seemingly learning their
lesson directly from Deion and the Dallas Cowboys, the Steelers
decided to turn Antwaan Randle El loose. A former record-setting
quarterback at Indiana University, the Steelers had converted Randle
El to a punt/kick return specialist with wide-out duties. Using a trick

play based on his earlier talent as a quarterback, Randle El sealed the
game on a fake reverse, 43-yard bomb to receiver Hines Ward to put
the Steelers up 21-10 over the Seattle Seahawks.
The Patriots used players like Mike Vrabel, a linebacker by training,
in other positions, like tight end and fullback. This mixes it up and
puts defenders on their heels. Patriots coach Bill Belichick has used
receiver Troy Brown as a defensive back on occasion due to injuries.
Kordell Stewart’s best years for the Steelers was when he was nick-
named Slash, returning kicks, throwing passes, and receiving. Ironi-
cally, Kordell Stewart maintained his flexibility later in his career, but
lacked the willingness. He wanted to be the Steelers full-time starting
quarterback. This lack of willingness shelved his greatest assets: flexibil-
ity and adaptability. Both the Steelers and Kordell would lose under
this arrangement.
How valuable was Deion’s flexibility and adaptability? Keep in mind,
in the prior year, the San Francisco 49ers won the Super Bowl with
Deion Sanders. Realizing the value of such an asset, the Dallas Cow-
boys got Deion and won the Super Bowl the very next year. The com-
mon denominator in both Super Bowl victories was Deion Sanders.
When Deion “Prime Time” Sanders was, indeed, in his prime, he gave
the organization unparalleled flexibility.
Strive to find some players or employees that move beyond the fran-
chise label. Look for individuals that are more than just extremely profi-
cient in their current position but can quickly adapt to new roles and
excel regardless. Of course, this places an added burden as it relates to PJ
fit. For most situations and according to the PJ model, the leader
attempts to match a single individual with a single job. But with special
people and under unique situations, like the Deion case above, the
leader can gain added value by finding a single person who could be
successful in a multiple of positions—or PJs fit (Person-Jobs fit).
Again, this means that the leader must fully understand the talents
and abilities of the individual along with a nuanced understanding of
all the jobs under his command. Put plainly, to put Deion to use, the
coaches in San Francisco and Dallas had to first and fully understand
and appreciate Deion’s talents and how those talents translate to suc-
cess in not just one job, but multiple ones. No doubt, this places a bit
more of a burden on the coach, but, then again, it can pay enormous
dividends by increasing the flexibility of the entire team. In any
regard, build the team with flexibility in mind and reward that flexi-
bility. And being flexible is a step towards winning and a step towards
competitive advantage.
Moving the Chains

Flexible people are those that can help an organization adapt and survive.
How flexible is your human capital?
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

The themes contained in this chapter can be applied to almost any
organization. GE provides an excellent example of an organization that
was able to put it all together—the readiness, the fit, the willingness,
and the flexibility—to go all the way.
GE, in the latter half of the twentieth century, was a famed com-
pany and a firm that equaled the dynastic teams like the 49ers, Patriots,
Cowboys, or Steelers. Not all parts of GE came to life, however. One
division in Erie, Pennsylvania, GE Locomotive, was facing human capi-
tal problems.
As Jack Welch puts it, GE Locomotive was behind the caboose for
something that was almost beyond their control—location. GE Loco-
motive had a rough time attracting top-shelf human capital to Erie.
Consequently, without the best people, Jack Welch and others feared
that GE Locomotive would be an also-ran.
Erie had some big problems in the 1980s through the early to mid-
1990s. First, it was cold. If it wasn’t the cold, the lake effect snowstorms
made Erie a tough place to live. Second, it was isolated. Erie was about
two hours equidistant from the closest points of civilization (Pittsburgh,
Cleveland, and Buffalo). Third, Erie was depressed. Erie was dying a slow
death with more people leaving or dying than being born or coming in.
Erie was losing population at a rate far faster than most cities their size.
The leaders at GE faced a difficult situation—how to get talented people
to move to Erie to contribute to the success of GE Locomotive.
Their answer was the junior military officer or JMO. In short, GE
needed people who were a good fit for the locomotive business, who were
ready to lead but who were also willing and flexible. In JMOs, they found
young officers that were all of the above. GE is largely credited with
upping the market value of JMOs after the Erie experiment paid off.
Most junior officers were a good fit for the blue-collar aspect of the
locomotive business. Many were ready to lead, having led men and
women into and through difficult situations in places like Grenada,
Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, etc. Furthermore, many of the officers were
highly educated graduates of our nation’s top universities: West Point,
the Naval Academy, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania, Ohio State,
and Auburn University, to name just a few. Finally, the JMO was both
willing and flexible. Accustomed to living in not-so-great areas such as
Killeen, Texas (Fort Hood), Fayetteville, North Carolina (Fort Bragg), or
Jacksonville, North Carolina (Camp Lejeune), most JMOs didn’t think
twice about Erie. Further supporting the concept of flexibility and willing-
ness, many of the spouses of JMOs were accustomed to moving and thought
little of the move to Erie as well. Incidentally, spouse resistance is a major
contributor to job dissatisfaction and placement failure. With JMOs, GE
found human capital that addressed all major learning points above.
TIP DRILL
1. Move beyond the individual. Individual talent is never enough.
That talent must always fit. Make sure people fit the job. Recruit
and select people that fit nicely with your strategy. Hire people
that fit with the team and organizational culture. If they don’t,
get rid of them and find somebody that does. Consider the Fit
Law in all staffing decisions.
2. Get ready. Many people aren’t ready for the promotion or the
job. As leaders, you need to assess the readiness of your people.
Evaluate the potential of your human capital. If your people aren’t
ready, don’t place them in a position where they’re set up for
failure. Instead, groom and mentor talent to ensure readiness.
3. Reward willingness. There are plenty of talented people out
there who could fit in if they wanted to. The problem is that
too many people are ready, they just aren’t willing. As a leader,
reward and retain those teammates who are willing to do the
hard jobs. The difficult job. Build a team around the ready and
the willing.
4. Create a living, breathing organization. Living and breathing
means change. Leaders want organizations that can change and
adapt. To build teams and organizations that can do that, lead-
ers need multitalented, flexible people. When Human Capital is
flexible, an organization can adapt and survive.
5. Put it all together. Taken by themselves, the ideas of fit, readi-
ness, willingness, and flexibility will never lead to winning.
Winning requires that leaders demand all of the dimensions
above.
NOTES
1. Gary McWilliams, Suzanne Vranica, and Neal E. Boudette, “How a High-
flier in Marketing Fell at Wal-Mart,” Wall Street Journal, December 11,
2006.
2. Michael Barbard, “Official Fired by Wal-Mart Fights Back,” New York
Times, May 26, 2007.
3. Brian Grow, “Out at Home Depot.” BusinessWeek, January 9, 2007, http://
www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2007/db20070103_
456441.htm (accessed February 28, 2009).
4. “The Home Depot Names Robert L. Nardelli President & CEO,”
December 6, 2000, http://www.appliancedesign.com/Articles/Breaking_
News/359d3b0b96938010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0 (accessed March 1,
2009).
5. Brian Grow, “Out at Home Depot,” BusinessWeek, January 9, 2007, http://
6. Brian Grow, “Out at Home Depot,” BusinessWeek, January 9, 2007, http://
7. “Renovating Home Depot,” BusinessWeek, March 6, 2006, http://www.
businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_10/b3974001.htm (accessed March
9, 2009).
8. Brian Grow, “Out at Home Depot.” BusinessWeek, January 9, 2007, http://
9. “Renovating Home Depot,” BusinessWeek, March 6, 2006, http://www.
businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_10/b3974001.htm (accessed March
9, 2009).
10. At time of publication.
11. NFL Web site, http://www.nfl.com/players/rashaansalaam/profile?id=
SAL066622.
12. Quarterback Wonderlic scores and information can be found at http://
www.unc.edu/~mirabile/Wonderlic.htm. More Wonderlic scores can be
found at http://www.ducksportsnews.com/blog/2008/04/lets-compare-dixons-
wonderlic-to-past-qbs-scores. It is important to note that Akili Smith scored
a 15 on his first try. They averaged his first 15 + 37 to get his average of 26.
6
THE CALL ON THE FIELD STANDS
I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was
yesterday.
—Abraham Lincoln
“Please tell me he just didn’t do that.”

That must’ve been the thought of citizens of Detroit and the thou-
sands of Detroit Lions fans around the world in late November 2002
as the Lions won the coin toss in overtime against their nemesis, the
Chicago Bears, and elected not to receive the ball.
In the NFL, unlike NCAA football, overtime is played in sudden
death, meaning that the first team that scores, wins. This policy has
been the topic of continued and spirited controversy since too much
luck and not enough skill is at play. Very simply, the team that gets
the ball first in overtime has a much, much greater chance of winning.
For that reason, almost always, the team that wins the toss elects to
receive the kick. In fact, up until 2002, there was no conclusive evi-
dence that a team chose otherwise. It seemed to be a NFL law; if you
win the coin toss in overtime, you automatically elect to receive and
start off with the ball. That automatic decision, alone, ups the chances
of winning dramatically. Until November 24, 2002, there had been no
exception.
Unfortunately, one-time Detroit Lions coach Marty Mornhinweg
may be forever known as the lone exception. In a hard fought game at
Soldier Field against the Chicago Bears, the Lions found themselves
tied at the end of regulation. Fighting 17 mph winds blowing off Lake
Michigan, Mornhinweg elected to kick with the wind—and not receive
the ball—in overtime. On several levels, this was a significant decision
gone wrong. First, regardless of the wind, statistics were on his side if
he chose to receive. There’s some debate to the exact number, but the
91
advantage is probably around 65-35, meaning that 65% of the teams

that win the coin toss, and elect to receive, win the game. Second,
there is that recurring theme and problem of knowing your people and
their talents, which directly parlay into operational decision-making.
Besides Barry Sanders, Billy Simms, and Herman Moore, one of the Lions’
best players of all time was their kicker, Jason Hansen. Known both in col-
lege and in Detroit as “Thunderfoot,” he was known for both accuracy
and leg strength. At Washington State, he earned school and PAC 10
records for his 57.1 accuracy rating for field goals of over 50 yards that
stand to this day.1 He also kicked a 62-yard field goal in college that stood
as an NCAA record for years. At the end of the 2007 season, Hansen
ranked ninth as the all-time leading scorer in NFL history with 1,705
points. Even accounting for Kentucky windage—manually adjusting for
the wind off the lake—and the laws of physics on that particular day,
Mornhinweg’s task was rather straightforward—get the Lions between
the 30- and 40-yard line of the end zone and let Hansen, an accurate and
strong kicker, carry the team to victory. It appeared that either Mornhin-
weg lacked faith in his offense or his kicker, because he elected to kick off
with the wind to his back.
That’s where most fan memories stop. But there’s more. Mornhinweg
almost escaped with a victory, despite the poor initial decision. To
make matters worse, his next decision appeared to contradict with the
logic of the first decision that focused almost exclusively on the wind.
In overtime, Mornhinweg ordered the Lions to accept a 10-yard pen-
alty on Chicago’s game-winning drive. If he would’ve declined the pen-
alty, the Bears would’ve faced an uncomfortable decision—go for it on
fourth-and-eight or try to kick a 52-yard field goal into a stiff wind. By
accepting the penalty, Mornhinweg gave the Bears two downs to cover
18 yards as opposed to one down to cover eight yards. The Bears would
convert. Together, these two decisions snatched defeat from the jaws of
victory and followed Mornhinweg for the next two seasons. Addition-
ally, it could be argued that this set of decisions seemed to mare the
franchise as a whole; after that game, the Lions would go on to a 3-13
record under Mornhinweg. During two seasons with the Lions, he
would compile a 5-win, 27-loss record.
AFTER FURTHER REVIEW . . .

We open with this story to emphasize the core theme of this chapter—
effective decision-making, primarily at tactical and operational levels. Up
to this point, we’ve talked about motivation, power, about building the
roster, the importance of character, honor, and judgment, and the notion
The Call on the Field Stands 93
of fit. These incredibly important themes all serve to set the stage for the
last line of defense before execution—decision-making.
To be sure, this may one of the strongest tie-ins to the gridiron
metaphor. Up until this point, it is hard to say with clarity and confi-
dence whether and to what degree the Gridiron Coach has control
over issues such as fit and building the roster. Without a doubt, their
input is significant. In the NFL, however, we’ve seen the rise of activist
owners such as Dan Snyder of the Washington Redskins and Jerry
Jones of the Cowboys. This breed of ownership is heavily involved in
strategy, recruiting, scouting, drafting, and even discipline. We recog-
nize that leaders in every organization are influenced by external forces
outside their control. It is between the hash marks, however, that the
Gridiron Coach or Leader is still ultimately responsible for the deci-
sion-making and execution of his team. As we scoped out this book
and thought about all the leadership, management, and strategy lessons
the game of football offered, we felt that decision-making, particularly
under pressure or under duress, offers some particularly relevant and
rich lessons for leaders of all levels regardless of organizational context.
Throughout this chapter, we’ll detail some decision-making tools that
you’ll want to embrace, along with some decision-making landmines that
you’ll want to avoid at any and all costs. It is our intent that, when you
get to the end of this chapter, you’ll know what to do during the overtime
coin-toss and in those critical situations when the game is on the line.
WORKOUT WARRIOR
Mike Mamula was barely on anyone’s radar prior to the 1995 NFL
Combine—where NFL hopefuls gather to be measured in myriad ways.
A smallish defensive end with a big motor, Mamula accounted for 17
sacks in his last season at Boston College. Despite a year of eligibility
remaining, Mamula tried to capitalize on his strong season by entering
the NFL draft early.
Mamula deserves a ton of credit because he did a competitive analy-
sis of the NFL combine. The NFL combine is now an event worthy of
Hollywood attention. Its original intent and purpose was for teams to
carefully screen potential NFL players on a series of strength, agility,
and speed drills. The scores on these tests are measurable, quantifiable,
and serve as benchmarks on which to judge. Many a player’s stock has
risen and fallen due to their performance during the NFL combine.
Mike Mamula’s story would be among the very first of a stock split, a
mind-baffling rise from the third or fourth rounds to among the first
picks in the 1995 NFL draft.
His analysis of the NFL combine would pay off dramatically for him;
he would be among the first ever to develop a detailed, organized, and
disciplined approach to his preparation for the NFL combine. Mamula
would train religiously with then Boston College strength coach, Jerry
Palmieri. Palmieri, too, offered a bit of genius. Palmieri demanded that
Mamula practice the same, exact combine drills hundreds and maybe
even, thousands of times prior to the actual event. Prior to Palmieri
and Mamula, players and coaches focused on football-type drills, not
strength, speed, and agility drills such as the 10-, 20-, and 40-yard
dashes; vertical jump tests; broad jump tests; 20- and 60-yard shuttles;
and bench presses. Due to his practice and repetition, Mamula would
have one of the greatest combine workouts ever. His running times
were as fast as some linebackers and he benched 225 pounds as often as
many offensive linemen, who weighed upwards of 100 pounds more.2
The Philadelphia Eagles ownership along with the coach at the
time, Ray Rhodes, may not have been wowed by Mamula’s perform-
ance in the Big East, but they were, however, blinded by Mamula’s
combine workout. After that workout, the Eagles knew they wanted
Mamula and were willing to do almost anything to get him. Remark-
ably, the Eagles and Ray Rhodes traded up with Tampa Bay from 12th
to 7th to snag Mike Mamula. Tampa Bay would use the 12th pick to
take Warren Sapp and used two other second-round picks from the
Eagles as a bargaining chip to get linebacker Derrick Brooks with the
28th overall pick in the first round. Essentially, the Eagles, based on a
series of workout performances, got Mamula in exchange for two Hall
of Fame defensive players that would solidify and guarantee the Tampa
Bay Buccaneers a 2002 Super Bowl win. Mamula would be out of the
league in five seasons with just shy of 32 total sacks.
You may think the lesson here is in the competitive analysis per-
formed by Mamula and his strength coach, Palmieri. There’s little
to dispute there; that was solid, progressive, and forward thinking
decision-making by these two men. The real lesson, though, is to tease
apart the decision-making process of the Philadelphia Eagles and, in
particular, coach Ray Rhodes, who desperately wanted Mamula. At
times, they seemed to ignore all other important variables such as size,
previous performance at Boston College, the defensive scheme used at
Boston College, the strength and nature of competition of the Big East,
and whether Mamula would be a good fit in the NFC East with teams
that had tremendously large offensive lines such as the Dallas Cowboys.
Somewhere along the way, Rhodes may have developed tunnel
vision—a myopic and focused view of a single variable in the decision-
making process—the combine workout.
Psychologists would refer to this as the Halo Effect. The Halo Effect is
potentially dangerous because it can surface as a strong cognitive bias—
essentially influencing accurate assessments of people and situations.
Researcher Edward Thorndike was among the first to uncover the power
of the Halo Effect. In a study of Army Officers and their evaluations of
their soldiers, Thorndike found that almost all positive traits were corre-
lated and all negative traits were also cross-correlated.3 What this means
is that people tend to oversimplify their evaluations of both people and
situations. In regards to people, we tend to view people as either good or
bad across all metrics or categories of measurement. In essence, the Halo
Effect is when one trait colors or contaminates our objective assessment
of all other traits and characteristics. Using Mamula as an example, his
bench press and times in the 40 became the dominant factor in his
assessment and colored all future impressions of his performance. By the
way, a follow-on study by researcher Solomon Asch seemed to verify
what we already know—attractive people get a pass due to the Halo
Effect.4 When assessing highly attractive people, we tend to think all
other traits and characteristics are as attractive as their physical appear-
ance. Clearly, this is nonsensical and even dangerous. But that’s how our
brains work. One or two traits can influence how we see an entire per-
son’s or entire organization’s repertoire.
A corporate example just may be the story of Al Dunlap. Dunlap
developed a reputation among executives and directors as a downsizer.
Like Mamula, Dunlap became particularly skilled at the same or similar
set of routines. He would lead massive downsizing efforts at Scott Paper
and at Crown Zellerbach. These dramatic downsizing efforts involved
shedding thousands of employees and shuttering factories, often with
little notice or delay. On a short-term basis, Dunlap would deliver on
stock price. As he downsized, stocks would upsize (for a short period).
His methods failed to deliver when he took over at Sunbeam, and he
would later pay $15 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit regarding a
“Bill and Hold” scheme.5
In business reports and cases published after the fact, many Wall Street
analysts and directors pointed to the Halo Effect as the reason they
recruited and then supported Al Dunlap for so long. Dunlap did one thing
particularly well—cut costs and downsize, which affected short-term
share price. Many in the business community saw Dunlap as a great execu-
tive because he could drive share price. His ethics, operational skills, and
long-term value creation plans were never fully vetted because many
stopped their assessment with share price. Al Dunlap’s “combine” per-
formance of driving up stock price is all that anyone needed to see. If he
could do that well, many reasoned, all else was good too.
If we take a step back and reflect, we know that we’re all guilty of
wearing or seeing the halo. Much of this is how we’re hardwired. Our
DNA, which has evolved from the GEICO cavemen, programs us to
think in simplistic, linear terms. However, the world around us has
advanced at a much faster rate and is ridiculously more complex than
it was 10 years ago, 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and 10,000 years
ago. The problem is that our brains just haven’t caught up. The Halo
Effect is a powerful, hardwired, cognitive bias that oversimplifies the
complex. Predictably, this creates large and dangerous blinds spots that
influence us to make bad, uninformed decisions.
SECOND GUESS THE COACH

“Please tell me he just didn’t do that.”
Dan Marino had a storied career and was a first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Marino ended his career with 420 touchdowns. Of all of those touch-
downs, one in particular stands out. In 1994, the Dolphins and Jets met
in a critical game. The Dolphins were 7-4 and the Jets were 6-5, and
both teams were fighting for first place in the division. The Jets, playing
in front of one of the largest home crowds in team history, looked to
have the game in hand, leading at one point late in the game 24-6.
Undeterred, Marino brought the Dolphins back in what has been sim-
ply known as the Clock Play.
As time was winding down in the fourth quarter, Marino and team
advanced within the 10-yard line of the Jets. With about 30 seconds
left on the clock, Marino made a spiking motion that most in the
crowd and virtually everybody watching on TV interpreted as Marino
was going to spike the ball to stop the clock. Worse, that’s what rookie
cornerback Aaron Glenn apparently thought too. When Marino
hiked the ball and made a short spiking motion, Glenn relaxed and
held up as receiver, Mark Ingram, headed for the goal line. Of
course, Marino didn’t spike, but delivered a strike to Mark Ingram in
the end zone. The Dolphins would win the game on that play and,
eventually, earn a playoff berth that year. All because nobody would
second guess.
You may think that it is Marino’s foolery and genius that is the les-
son to be learned here. Instead, we turn to Aaron Glenn, the seventy
thousand-plus in the stands, and the coaching staff of the Jets to
unravel the decision-making phenomenon that occurred here.
Dating back to the early 1980s, there’s evidence of what many cog-
nitive psychologists and management experts refer to as the prior
hypothesis bias. The thrust of the prior hypothesis bias is that leaders
and managers (and players) tend to overestimate and place more value
on information that confirms their initial hypothesis or belief set while
virtually ignoring any and all information that would argue against
prior-held beliefs. This is a particularly dangerous decision-making bias
as it can leave a Gridiron Leader flat-footed.
We see it here in the Clock Play. Aaron Glenn and most of human
civilization watching the game probably had a prior hypothesis that
involved the following inference—that when a quarterback rushes his
team up to the line of scrimmage against the pressures of time and is
making a spiking motion with his hand, then he will spike the ball to
stop the clock. We’ve seen it hundreds of times so, logically, we embrace
it as truth, as law. All of the actions leading up to the Clock Play would
do nothing but confirm the hypothesis of cornerback, Aaron Glenn. In
his mind, he might have been sure that Marino was going to spike the
ball. A closer look, however, suggests other information was available
that would contradict this hypothesis. Here, for example, are just a cou-
ple of reasons why Marino would not have spiked the ball. First, the Dol-
phins were not playing at home; they were playing in New Jersey.
Without home field advantage, the Jets should’ve known that with the
game on the line, the Dolphins were going to go for the win. They would
play aggressively. Second, first place was on the line and the stakes were
high. For both teams, it was a must win. “Must Wins” demand extraordi-
nary circumstances. Third, there was the issue of momentum. The Dol-
phins and Marino had finally seized momentum. Spiking the ball
could’ve thrown water on a team that was on fire. Finally, Marino, at
this point in his career, was a battle-tested veteran who was prone to
improvisation. Just as Brett Favre’s improvisation skills seemed to grow
with age, the same could be said for Marino. All of this seemed to wash
over Aaron Glenn and to be fair and honest, most everybody in the sta-
dium along with the television audience. And it is precisely for this rea-
son that the prior hypothesis bias is so dangerous. Essentially, it closes
the mind down and it limits the amount of alternatives that we’re will-
ing to consider. As Gridiron Leaders, we need to open our mind to all
sorts and sources of information. From here, it is important to occasion-
ally reflect on the efficacy and evidence that support our hypotheses.
The very best leaders consider multiple angles and routinely challenge
their mental models and their convictions or hypotheses between cause
and effect. If they can’t do this adequately, they are smart enough to pull
in someone to play devil’s advocate to force them to consider new ideas.
An applied, everyday example of the prior hypothesis bias phenom-
enon can be seen personally every time you drive up to your local
Starbucks.
The prior hypothesis bias was once squarely directed at what Ameri-
cans now crave, coffee. You see, the original Starbucks was not the cof-
fee shop we know today. Back in the early 1970s, three partners
(a music teacher, a history teacher, and a writer) opened a coffee-roast-
ing and coffee-equipment shop. That’s all it was until around 1983
when entrepreneur Howard Schultz came aboard. After a trip to Milan,
Italy, Schultz became convinced that coffee could be more than a com-
modity. He reasoned that a good coffee shop could be a social experi-
ence or the proverbial “third place” besides work and home. In
addition, Schultz saw coffee along the same lines as fast food. As more
and more Americans worked, especially dual career couples, there
would be less time to brew and enjoy coffee at home. With that limita-
tion, an opportunity arose to provide coffee on the go. However, the
partners resisted seeing coffee as a romantic, social product due to their
prior hypothesis bias as something only described in an old Folger’s
commercial—a commodity that is consumed (not really enjoyed) in
one’s home. Years and years of consumption habits, thousands of Folger
and Maxwell House commercials, and just the traditional way of drink-
ing coffee seemed to confirm their hypothesis while they simultane-
ously disregarded Schultz’s message and information. Around 1987, the
partners sold their interest to Schultz, who quickly rebranded his fran-
chise outlets as Starbucks. We would know how this story ends up.
Starbucks is now part of our nation’s DNA. Remember, though, that
the compelling piece of this story is that Starbucks (as we know it
today) could’ve started almost five years earlier with at least three more
major partners, but the original founding partners held on and con-
firmed their hypothesis at the expense of a great and novel idea.
There are some tools that we, as leaders, can adopt to help us in our
decision-making, especially as it relates to the prior hypothesis bias. By
far, the best we can do is keep an open mind. When we are open to learn-
ing, we allow our hypotheses and beliefs to be challenged and refined. We
can increase our openness to learning by reading more, listening better,
and actively reflecting on our belief systems. That takes practice, we
know, but that’s something Gridiron Leaders know how to do well.
Moving the Chains

Entertain diverse viewpoints and allow your beliefs to be challenged. If
you dismiss all disconfirming information out of hand, you’ll end up
flat-footed and surprised.
GRIDIRON COMMITMENT TO THE EXTREME

Clearly, a major theme in sports and in this book is the value of
commitment and loyalty. However, commitment to a goal like making
the playoffs is much different than commitment to a failed strategy like
running the ball 40 times a game when the opposing team is putting
eight or nine in the box—moving players close to the line of scrim-
mage to stop the run. Actually, a blind commitment to a failed strategy
detracts from the greater mission of commitment to a valued goal (i.e.,
winning the Super Bowl).
Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, and Ryan Leaf were picked high in
the draft and many predicted that each would have a successful career.
Unfortunately, none of them seemed to meet those early predictions or
expectations as successful quarterbacks in the NFL.
Let’s begin with the second player taken in the 1997 NFL draft, after
Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf. Leaf retired with a 4-17 record as a starter
and a passer rating of 50.0, one of the all-time worst. Akili Smith, with
one really good season at Oregon, catapulted himself to the third pick in
the 1999 NFL draft. Chosen by the Cincinnati Bengals, Smith won just
three of his 17 starts as a NFL quarterback. His 52.8 passer rating is slightly
above Leaf’s. Joey Harrington, like Smith, was selected with the third pick
in the NFL draft. Also like Smith, this Oregon Duck was selected in the
2002 NFL draft to resurrect a franchise, the Detroit Lions. While his
passer rating of almost 70.0 is significantly better than both Leaf and
Smith, his winning percentage is not. Chosen to start in almost 70 games,
Harrington would lose almost 70% of the games he started.
In examining all three quarterbacks, a subtle difference emerges that
helps explain why Cincinnati to some degree and San Diego to a much
larger extent improved in the 21st century while Detroit failed to pro-
gress. To be clear, Harrington started almost double the combined starts
of both Leaf and Smith. What this tells us is that San Diego and the
Bengals were quick to realize their folly and quickly abandoned their
course of action. Not so with Harrington. Here, the Lions demonstrated
an escalated commitment to a failed course of action and were unwilling
to break from it even as data and poor outcomes continued to pile in.
In every case of systemic operational and organizational breakdown,
we’ve seen some evidence of this phenomenon, which cognitive psy-
chologists refer to as escalation of commitment. Brought to prominence
by the famed behavioralist, Barry Staw, escalation of commitment is a
dangerous decision-making bias that causes people to continue to com-
mit and support and devote resources to a flawed and failed strategy.6
As it goes, the more pronounced the failure, the more committed the
decision-maker is to supporting it. Research has conclusively demon-

strated that leaders bit by the escalation of commitment bug will allo-
cate even more resources to a project (or person) even after receiving
feedback that the project is failing. Ironically, the leader is more apt to
devote resources to the project when the feedback is negative as
opposed to more favorable feedback. The counterintuitive twist is that
rather than seeing the feedback as evidence of project failure and a
need to change strategy, they take the feedback as a signal to spend
more on the project in an effort to save it. Of course, more resources to
a failed strategy just aggravate and expand the demise. Saving a bad
strategy is a losing strategy.
The truly great Gridiron Leaders seem to know, understand, and rec-
oncile the tension between an incubation period that allows for some
failure and a longer commitment to a flawed strategy. The difficult
question, then, is when to hold on and support a given process or
person versus cutting losses and moving on. Armed with this ques-
tion, it becomes even more difficult when the leader had some stake
in the initial decision. By cutting losses and moving on, the Gridiron
Leader is essentially acknowledging a failed initial decision that they
had a critical part in making. That personal attachment to the initial
course of action may explain why some leaders hold on for too long
in the hope that their initial course of action will be validated and
that their reputation as a decision-maker will be saved. The problem
is that with every additional resource that is committed, especially as
it relates to time and money, the more difficult it is to reverse
direction.
In a sense, we see this often with men who refuse to ask for direc-
tions. The best time to ask for directions is almost always at the initial
feeling of being lost. Running counter to that fact, many men (authors
included) keep driving farther and farther away from our intended tar-
get. With every minute in the car and every additional mile down the
road, it becomes harder and harder to ask for directions.
Interestingly, Staw was among the first to bring a decision-making
slant to the Vietnam conflict. Where many saw it as a policy failure,
Staw saw it more as a decision-making problem driven largely by
the escalation-of-commitment phenomenon. According to Staw’s
escalation-of-commitment framework, when the United States commit-
ted large numbers of troops and then experienced heavy casualties, it
was difficult for American presidents to reverse course. To stem the
bad news and to save face, civilian and military leaders devoted more
resources, not less, to the Vietnam conflict. Given that the Vietnam
conflict had no exit strategy nor was it a war that was deemed winnable
by many within and outside the military, the escalation of commitment

appears as a classic example of throwing good money and resources af-
ter bad.
Escalation of commitment is particularly troubling and dangerous
when some initial success is experienced followed by a slow, gradual
decline. A case in point could be Motorola. On at least two occasions,
Motorola fell into the escalation-of-commitment trap.
The first case is what we’ll call the Iridium case. Iridium was a
billion-dollar project that was notable on the scientific and research-
and-development front. In the mid- to late-1990s, after years of devel-
opment, Motorola created the first truly global communication
network. Using a set of 66 satellites that would carry and pass signals
from one to another, Motorola developed the Iridium system that
enabled communication from almost anywhere on the globe. Despite
some evidence that the market was not ready, the firm continued to
invest in the technology at a huge expense to the firm and its share-
holders. Ultimately, Motorola enjoyed a hollow victory. It created the
first global communication system that worked, but, unfortunately, had
few customers willing to buy the technology.
Next on Motorola’s escalation-of-commitment list came the RAZR
phone. Propelling Motorola to huge profits in the early part of the 21st
century, the popularity of the colorful and slim RAZR flip phone seemed
unquenchable. To no one’s real surprise, Motorola continued to escalate
in their commitment to the RAZR flip phone without adequately con-
sidering alternatives. Up through 2005, the RAZR could not be stopped.
At one time in 2005, it was estimated that over 110 million RAZRs were
sold. However, with an escalation to this one commitment, Motorola
ignored others. And as the market began to change to BlackBerry and
touchscreen phones, Motorola was left woefully behind. In the fourth
quarter of 2007, Motorola’s handset division posted a $1.2 billion loss.7
Media and review outlets called Motorola’s latest round of phones and
technology boring, repetitive, and not very innovative. Trailing by a dis-
tant margin to upstarts like Research in Motion, Nokia, and Apple,
Motorola has been trying to reverse direction. Cutting thousands and
thousands of jobs, it is still unclear how Motorola will recover. Suppos-
edly, it has seen its market share dwindle from 18.4% to 9.7% in a year’s
time.8 The undying and escalating commitment to an initially strong
strategy of RAZR phones has proven ill-advised.
The best way to deal with escalation of commitment is to remain
unemotional and rational regarding the facts, data, and feedback that
surround the decision. Of course, you want to give everybody and some
strategies a chance to succeed and, as we said earlier, a second chance
is part and parcel of leadership. However, second and third chances

should yield improvement over time. When second and third and
fourth and fifth chances yield progressively deeper losses, a leader must
carefully and unemotionally examine quantitative and qualitative feed-
back to determine whether the person or strategy deserves continued
support. Otherwise, you’ll continue to waste resources by putting pre-
cious time and hard-earned money behind a losing proposition.
Moving the Chains

A critical question all leaders must make is whether to stay the course,
even if it’s the wrong course, or cut losses and move on. Beware of
our tendency to back failed courses of action due to escalation of
commitment.
COMEBACK
Why are big comebacks so special?
Our hypothesis is that big comebacks are so special because they hap-
pen so infrequently. They are the Haley’s Comet of the football world.
To better understand why comebacks are so infrequent, we need to turn
our attention back to the art and science of decision-making. The very
first step to good decision-making is diagnosis. And diagnosis of the situa-
tion or problem must satisfy two conditions. First, the diagnosis must be
accurate. If the diagnosis of the problem isn’t accurate, it becomes diffi-
cult, if not impossible, to devise strategies and tactics to rectify the prob-
lem. Second, it must be timely. The longer it takes to diagnose a problem,
the longer it takes to devise potential solutions. It closely follows that as
the Gridiron Leader is spinning their wheels to diagnose and devise, the
competition is distancing itself from you. Put differently, with every pass-
ing minute, the competition is increasing its lead over you, making catch-
up hard, difficult, demoralizing, and, at the extremes, impossible.
How much so? Consider the evidence.
As of 2008, there have been 68 NFL teams that have started the sea-
son 0-2 since 2000. Of those, only six made the playoffs. When you
extrapolate across more years, the numbers aren’t much better. Since
adopting the 16-game format in 1978, only 27 teams that have started
0-2 went on to make the playoffs. Since 1990, only the 1998 Bills and
the 1995 Lions were able to lose their first 3 games and still make the
playoffs. Only the 1992 Chargers were able to give up their first four
games and still make the playoffs.9 As the brutal facts make clear, it is
difficult to comeback if you don’t diagnose and fix your problems early.
The later it takes, the harder it becomes.
There are plenty of practical examples that demonstrate the impor-
tance of early diagnosis in the decision-making process. Top on that list
would be Gateway. Gateway enjoyed both accolades and market share
in the early 1990s.
By the late-1990s, the legend of Gateway Computers had steadily
and permanently eroded. As is common in late diagnoses, Gateway
launched a flurry of activities to try to stop the bleeding. In 1998, it
attempted relocation. It relocated from South Dakota to San Diego.
Three years later, it moved again from San Diego to Poway, California.
About a year later, it moved again to their current headquarters of
Irvine, California. Akin to their relocation strategy, it launched a vari-
ety of desperate business model changes including withdrawal from
international markets, the opening and then rapid shut down of Gate-
way retail stores, and entry into the consumer electronic business with
a focus on cameras and flat screen televisions. None were overly suc-
cessful at returning the firm to profitability. The after-action review
expressed by Wall Street analysts and academics alike is that Gateway
just waited too long to diagnose its problems (and react to competi-
tors). As Gateway market share plummeted, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard,
IBM, Sony, and Toshiba all gained at Gateway’s expense.
This, coupled with the previous football examples, speaks quite
loudly regarding the importance of early and accurate diagnosis. The
prevailing lesson is that Gridiron Leaders must understand that their
margin for error is small and the competition strong; Gridiron Leaders
must put intellectual energy into accurate and timely diagnosis. And, if
they’re wrong, they must rediagnose quickly.
Moving the Chains

Leaders must be able to evaluate problems accurately and quickly. Failing
to correctly and quickly diagnose problems means the organization is at
risk to falling behind the competition.
SPURRED TO VICTORY
Love him or hate him, there seems little in between when it comes
to Steve Spurrier. The 1966 Heisman winner and former quarterback
for the San Francisco 49ers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers is probably bet-
ter known for his coaching.
Many forget that Duke, at one time, had a great football program.
That was when Coach Spurrier was there from 1987 to 1989. Both in
1988 and 1989, Spurrier would win ACC Coach of the Year honors.
He would immediately go on to Florida, where he coached from 1990
to 2001. During that time, Spurrier would average ten wins a season
and delivered the National Championship to Florida in 1996. After
leaving Florida, Spurrier took the top post as head coach of the Wash-
ington Redskins. While there, it appears that Spurrier fell victim to
two decision-making biases: the illusion of control and the law of small
numbers. Let’s begin with the illusion of control.
The illusion of control is when leaders and decision-makers overesti-
mate their own personal control over strategic outcomes. The illusion
of control is akin to overconfidence—a trait some use to describe Spur-
rier. When leaders fall prey to this illusion, they believe that through
their own effort and genius they can affect strategic outcomes. If noth-
ing else, we’ve come to know in this chapter that oversimplification is
a dangerous thing, and there are often multiple variables that account
for and predict both success and failure. One of the more famous
researchers on this topic of illusion of control was Ellen Langer, who
found that her subjects expressed an expectancy of personal success
much higher than the objective probability would warrant or show.10
Few would question Spurrier’s knowledge regarding the collegiate
game. His experience and knowledge of the NFL, however, was a little
more suspect. Demonstrating some illusion of control, some feel that
Spurrier tried to force the college game into the NFL.
Two respected writers at ESPN, Merril Hoge and Len Pasquarelli,
hint at this illusion of control. Both writers contend that there was too
much University of Florida, both in terms of players and coaching assis-
tants, on the Washington franchise. Hoge is a little more direct saying
that the Fun ’n Gun offense imported from Florida was doomed for fail-
ure in the NFL. Hoge argued that, “Spurrier tried to do things his
way—the college way” and “the college way doesn’t fly in the NFL.”11
Merril Hoge brings good logic to the argument. He wisely noted that
in the NFL, coaches don’t get to select their schedule, and there are no
“easy” teams to play against—especially in the NFC East. Reportedly,
Spurrier was even reluctant to bring a playbook to practice in favor of
just using Florida schemes for both practice and games. Indeed, the late
1990s and early years of the 21st century saw a flurry of college coaches
try their hand at the NFL. Besides Spurrier, they include such notable
coaches as Nick Saban, Butch Davis, Dennis Erickson, and Rich
Brooks. This list is living proof that the college game is significantly
different than the pro game. It also suggests that the control coaches
come to expect in college in a controlled, highly regulated academic/
athletic environment does not always translate well into the NFL where
control is ceded to high-paid players, high-paid staff, and activist owners.
It is important to note that there is a fine line between internal locus
of control and the illusion control. As we’ve discussed previously in
Chapter 3, locus of control refers to the degree to which individuals
believe that they can personally control events and situations surround-
ing them. Leaders, like Spurrier, with an internal orientation to locus of
control believe that their efforts, decisions, and actions supersede exter-
nal factors. Although this can-do attitude is important to possess, one
cannot ignore the other powerful influencing factors at work. Spurrier
may have believed he was making the right decisions, but, in reality, he
probably controlled much less than what he thought. Thus, while an in-
ternal locus of control is important and should be celebrated as a critical
leadership trait that leads to a CAN DO spirit, illusion of control is any-
thing but. Rather, illusion of control is about fantasy, poor judgment,
cognitive bias, and works against the realities of the situation. As a
result, we should all strive to develop an internal locus of control with-
out it bleeding into or transforming into an illusion of control.
The most glaring drawback of the illusion of control bias is that it
ignores powerful stakeholders, usually in the external environment, who
do, indeed, affect the organization and, as a result, organizational out-
comes. The imperative is straightforward. Gridiron Leaders must under-
stand what their contribution really is and how they can truly affect
organizational change. Is it through personal effort or is it through man-
agement of external stakeholders? Regardless, know that the illusion of
control gives too much credit to the coach and ignores many of the con-
textual and situational variables that impact victory and defeat.
Moving the Chains

Illusion of total and utter control by the Gridiron Leader is just that—an
illusion. The illusion of control ignores powerful stakeholders that exist
both within and outside the organization.
Stephen Davis and Danny Wuerffel were two great football players.
One was better in college and the other was better as a pro. It was
unclear whether Steve Spurrier knew the difference. When these cases
are examined together, we see the effects of mixing two dangerous
decision-making biases—the illusion of control and the law of small
numbers.
Like his mentor and coach, Danny Wuerffel was a prolific Heisman-
winning quarterback at the University of Florida. Few will ever match
the numbers that Danny Wuerffel put up week-in, week-out at the
University of Florida in the middle of the 1990s in the Swamp in Gain-
esville. His success on the college gridiron, however, did not translate
to a successful career in the NFL. Concerns regarding his arm strength
accompanied him throughout his tenure. Well-respected and well-liked
in and out of football, his biggest fan may just have been Steve Spur-
rier, who gave him repeated chances to perform as starting quarterback
for the Washington Redskins. Reportedly, Spurrier’s reluctance to
move away from Wuerffel caused riffs with the owner, Dan Snyder,
who didn’t believe Wuerffel was NFL material.12 After some analysis
and discussion with knowledgeable football scholars, the best way we
can explain this is through the law of small numbers.
The “law of small numbers” is another decision-making bias that
leaders often make. Specifically, the law of small numbers occurs when
leaders base conclusions and make sweeping generalizations off rela-
tively small samples or cases. In this case, Spurrier extrapolated Wuerf-
fel’s college career and thought that two great seasons at Florida would
translate to a great career in the NFL. Early research into this phenom-
enon suggests that the law of small numbers is more pronounced when
the leader or decision-maker is “vividly” and intimately involved in the
case. In other words, Spurrier was probably too close to Wuerffel to
accurately assess whether he could perform at a high level in the NFL.
Spurrier’s decision to marginalize Pro Bowl running back, Stephen
Davis, suggests the law of small numbers working in the opposite direction.
Despite prolific seasons running the ball for Spurrier’s predecessors, Spurrier
seemed to count Davis out without providing him much opportunity. To
this day, some question whether it was the Fun ’n Gun Florida scheme that
marginalized Stephen Davis’s role with the franchise or whether it was just
Spurrier discounting Davis out of hand. Regardless, you see the folly in
extrapolating and generalizing from a small sample size.
In general, this decision-making bias is troublesome because small,
unique cases are hardly, if ever, representative of the greater popula-
tion. Time and again, though, we all tend to make and base our deci-
sions on a relatively small set of data or experiences.
There are several tools that a decision-maker and Gridiron Leader
can use to warn against the effects of the illusion of control bias and
the law of small numbers. First, be a friend of research. The conclusions

drawn from research almost invariably get stronger when we base infer-
ences off of larger sample sizes. Second, seek out a variety of different
sources to evaluate and assess a particular individual or a specific course
of action. Adding diverse and varied views to the discussion works
against the illusion of control along with the law of small numbers.
Finally, find some trusted colleagues or staff members who feel comfort-
able providing candid advice. We’ve found that many a times, the illu-
sion of control is actually bolstered when a leader surrounds him with
“yes” men or women.
Moving the Chains

Leaders need to be cautious of making decisions or determining courses
of action based on limited information or small samples. Strive to get a
variety of views and sources of information.
FIRST PLAY OF THE GAME

One thing that always surprised us watching high school, collegiate,
and professional games was the incredible reluctance to take a gamble
or call a high-risk, high-return play to start the game. It seems that
almost without exception, the first play of the game is wasted in a
rather predictable, conservative way.
If we were Gridiron Coaches, as opposed to Gridiron Leaders, we’d
be bold on the first play knowing full well that it may be a wasted play.
Our rationale for being bold especially on the first play can be traced
back to another common, but often ignored, decision-making bias—the
primacy effect.
The primacy effect is also referred to as the law of first impressions.
What the primacy effect states is that decision-makers tend to over-
weigh the importance of initial events in analysis and observation.
Another way to think about it is that the first events tend to be
recalled, remembered, and processed more frequently than events that
occur in the middle of a sequence.
A big play at the beginning of a game, even if it has no chance of
succeeding, is advantageous to the offense and disruptive to the
defense. A gutsy first call gets burned into the memory of the opposi-
tion and keeps them guessing and defensive for a longer period of time.
That same big call in the middle of the game never packs the same
punch. The initial call, benefiting from primacy, sets the tone of
aggressiveness and risk taking that can last the entire game. If part
of beating the competition is to get inside their head, then using the
primacy effect to your advantage is one such way to do exactly that.
The primacy effect is neutral in a normative sense. It can either
work to your advantage or it can work against you. For these reasons,
planning for initial entry into a market or locale becomes even more
important.
A historical example that will be debated for years is the invasion of
Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. Despite the success of the surge strategy,
people will invariably remember the initial months and year of the war.
Without sounding too trite, there truly is only one chance to make a first
impression. Think carefully and plan accordingly for your chance at your
first impression. More is riding on it than you may think.
Moving the Chains

The primacy effect means that we pay too much attention to the first
events in a sequence and that affects how we evaluate people and
strategies. Guard yourself against the bias of first impressions.
KNEEL
If all doesn’t go well on the first down of the game or during the first
product launch or the first year of a war, there is, thankfully, one more
chance. And that’s the recency effect. The recency effect says that last-
ing impressions are often the last impression. Our minds and memory
systems are programmed to recall and process either the first (primacy)
or last events better than all the stuff in the middle. That’s why the last
down of the game or a career is so important.
Our earlier example of Woody Hayes is a case in point. Many forget
just how good a coach he was. If not for that one event, Woody Hayes
would be remembered as one of the top five college coaches ever.
Instead, his last act as a coach, the “punch,” will be remembered more
than all of the great achievements he amassed during his career.
Barry Sanders left at the high point of his career. His last impres-
sions on the gridiron will be memorable ones. While some say that
Sanders had up to three more great years left, there’s little doubt that
Sanders legacy will be secure as his last seasons were among his best
seasons. The recency effect will forever guard his legacy.
Another exciting runner, this time in the form of quarterback

Vince Young, used the recency effect to his advantage. In just three
games prior to the 2006 Rose Bowl, Vince Young’s draft status was a
probable late first round, early second round pick. His unconventional
throwing motion coupled with a tall, rigid frame that would invite
injury caused many NFL teams to question whether he was worthy of
a top pick let alone being drafted in the first round. His last college
experience, however, was so heroic and so incredible that, to this day,
this is how most people remember Vince Young. Again, we see the
power of the recency effect. One of the best performances ever seen
in college football, the 2006 Rose Bowl between Texas and USC was
the one remembered and recalled going into the 2006 NFL draft.
Notice, too, the Halo Effect and the law of small numbers at work
here. One Vince Young performance colored everything. Most forget
that he orchestrated an almost equally impressive comeback, the year
prior, in the Rose Bowl against Michigan. If you were to play word-
name association with some friends and mention Texas quarterback
Vince Young, chances are they’d recall the 2006 Rose Bowl. It
shouldn’t surprise then that many draft experts and NFL scouts pri-
marily used this one event rather than combine performances and
mechanic analysis to deduce that Young would have an equally im-
pressive career in the NFL.
Much like the primacy effect, the recency effect offers several
insights into both leadership and decision-making that we need to
heed. First, understand that this bias exists. While it may be conven-
ient to remember the most recent events, always try to consider the
full body of work. Second, try never to deduce causality from the
recency effect. For instance, we know of one college coach at the Di-
vision III level who admitted to us that the recency effect interfered
with his game preparation and, ultimately, his game planning and
execution. The year prior against a rival in the conference, his team
gave up 389 yards rushing and 49 yards passing. The opponents’ rush-
ing attack was so dominant that they rushed the ball 64 times and
only passed the ball four times. Naturally, and like many others, he
assumed causality for their next meeting. He assumed that because
they ran the ball in such a dominant fashion the year prior, they’d do
the same during the current season. He planned accordingly, devoting
schemes and plans of attack to stop the run. To his surprise and coun-
ter to the recency prediction, his rival switched gears and passed 60
percent of the snaps and ran only 40 percent of the time. The result
was the same; his team had lost. However, this time he lost through
the air, by his opponent’s passing game, as opposed to the running
game. This vivid example shows just how flat-footed and mentally off-
guard we can be when we assume that future events will mirror recent
past events.
Finally, a thorough appreciation of the recency effect should prod a
leader into always devising a graceful, purposeful, and orderly exit. In
other words, always have an exit strategy as that last down is supremely
important and may just affect how well regarded you, your team, and
the organization’s performance is remembered.
Maybe one of the best historical examples of the recency effect may
just be the Vietnam conflict. In a simple but telling field test, we asked
ten colleagues to give us one incident that best summed up how they
remembered the Vietnam War. A stunning seven out of ten told us
that they remembered the helicopters being dumped off the U.S.
Embassy in Saigon—one of the truly last events of the Vietnam con-
flict. They didn’t recall the beginning or middle. They remembered
only the end.
Moving the Chains

Exit strategies are very important because we are programmed to remember
the last event that took place at the expense of everything that came before.
This colors and works against accurate decision-making processes.
COACH’S CALL
The dominant thrust of this chapter is that it’s hard to make a good
decision. Forget about all of the environmental and external forces at
play that make a hard decision harder. Maybe most disturbing is our in-
ternal forces. We’ve got personal biases that work against making
sound, effective, and timely decisions. For successful decision-making,
we must confront these forces.
Put this into perspective. It is almost impossible to separate leader-
ship from decision-making. Reflect and ask whether you can have one
and not the other. Certainly, you can be a good decision-maker with-
out being a leader. There’s plenty of research and scientists that’ll sup-
port us on that point. But the corollary holds—it is impossible to be an
effective leader without being a good decision-maker. After all, almost
every facet of leadership from building the roster, to assessing fit, to
determining which source of power to use, to creating and devising
smart strategies and effective tactics revolves around the Gridiron

Leader’s ability to make good decisions.
This isn’t to be taken lightly. And some of the forces that we men-
tion in this chapter make it hard for leaders to decide. Those that can
figure out how to beat these biases will have a competitive advantage
over those that can’t.
TIP DRILL
1. Recognize your biases. All people have natural biases and a
tendency to over simplify people, situations, or events to under-
stand the complexity. Take a personal inventory of your own
biases and tendencies. Force yourself to look objectively at situa-
tions or evaluate people. View things from many different
angles, metrics, or other categories of measurements.
2. Keep an open mind. Routinely challenge your personal convic-
tions. Be careful of only accepting information that confirms
your personal beliefs. Be open to all sorts and sources of
information.
3. Know when it is time to switch strategies, approaches, or
stances. Don’t stick with a decision or strategy that is flawed
regardless of how much investment has already been sunk. Keep
emotions out and don’t become personally attached to decisions.
Diagnose problems accurately and quickly. Be willing to experi-
ment and accept some failure, but know when it is time to
move on.
4. Be realistic in your approach. Know the things that you directly
control versus what you can only influence and the things that
may be impossible to predict. Don’t overestimate your own per-
sonal capabilities to a point where you ignore powerful stake-
holders or others that influence outcomes.
5. Seek diversity. Seek out others or information that will chal-
lenge your assumptions. Assess and evaluate courses of action
from a variety of views. Find trusted peers or team members that
will provide candid feedback. Ask others to play devil’s advocate
to intentionally look at things from different angles.
NOTES
2. Pat Yasinskas, “Combine Star Mamula Was Burdened by High Expect-
ations,” ESPN Web site, February 19, 2008, http://sports.espn.go.com/
nfl/draft08/columns/story?columnist=yasinskas_pat&ID=3252718 (accessed
March 9, 2009).
3. Edward L. Thorndike, Educational Psychology (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger
Publishing, 2008). For a thorough discussion of cognitive bias, see
Dan Hellriegel et al., Organizational Behavior (Cincinnati: South-Western
College Publishing, 2001).
4. Informational Web site, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Halo_
effect (accessed March 14, 2009).
5. Stanford Law School Web site, http://securities.stanford.edu/news-archive/
2002/20020904_Settlement03_Roland.htm (accessed March 14, 2009).
6. Barry M. Staw, “Knee Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating
Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action,” Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 16 (1976), 27–44.
7. “Motorola Considers Spin-Off of Handset Division,” Telecommunications
Industry News Web site, http://www.teleclick.ca/2008/02/motorola-
considers-spin-off-of-handset-division (accessed March 14, 2009).
8. “Strategy Analytics: Motorola, Sony Ericsson, and Apple Lose Global
Handset Marketshare,” Reuters.com, http://www.reuters.com/article/press
Release/idUS44111+25-Apr-2008+BW20080425 (accessed March 14, 2009).
9. Information accurate at time of publication.
10. Ellen Langer, “The Illusion of Control,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 32 (1975), 311–328.
11. Merril Hoge, “More Than Money.” ESPN Web site, December 1, 2004,
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=hoge_merril&ID=
1696857 (accessed March 9, 2009).
12. “Spurrier to Ignore Critics, Open up Offense,” St. Petersburg Times,
October 24, 2003, http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/24/Sports/Spurrier_to_
ignore_cr.shtml (accessed March 14, 2009).
7
A WINNING STRATEGY
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the

results.
—Winston Churchill
Kmart and the Oakland Raiders of the last two decades share more in
common than you may think.
Before there was Wal-Mart, there was Kmart. The Kmart of the late
1970s and 1980s essentially enjoyed a monopoly in the low-cost con-
sumer retail arena. In keeping with our discussion on decision-making,
Kmart erred in several key areas and failed to adhere to a specific strat-
egy. This strategic waffling would cripple them for some time.
The critical year was probably 1994, when Kmart closed 110 stores.
Analysts concluded that Kmart was penny-wise, dollar foolish, as it
lagged both Wal-Mart and Target in technology and computer invest-
ment, particularly the technology to manage its unwieldy and ineffi-
cient supply chain.1 Over the next ten years, Kmart would flip-flop
between a low-cost and a differentiation strategy.
A low-cost strategy is indicative of Wal-Mart. Low-cost approaches
demand operational efficiency, a tendency toward commodity-type
goods, which, in turn, mean the absolute lowest cost for the consumer.
This is Wal-Mart’s core competency—what it does best. Kmart pursued
this approach, at times, with their blue-light special promotions that
ran from Kmart’s founding up through 1991. In 1991, the blue-light
program was shelved only to resurface about a decade later.
In contrast to the low-cost strategy is the differentiation strategy.
Here, you have Target. And, at times, Kmart. A differentiation strategy
avoids commoditizing products and, instead, attempts to take-in higher
margins through a real or perceived quality service or product enhance-
ment. The Michael Graves collection (Graves is a renowned architect)
113
at Target is one such example of something that is different and that sug-
gests a heightened level of quality. This is Target’s core competency—
offering higher-quality goods in exchange for a slightly higher price pre-
mium. Kmart pursued this approach too with their Martha Stewart collec-
tion, which spoke to higher quality and customer sophistication.
By now, you’ve probably realized the problem here. Kmart was a
strategic flip-flopper. It confused employees, investors, and, most impor-
tantly, their customer base by trying to be two things at once or flip-
ping between one approach and another quickly and without any
apparent resolve. All of its major stakeholders were confused as to what
exactly Kmart was and what mission it was to accomplish. In organiza-
tional speak, Kmart lacked strategic coherence and strategic focus.
Interestingly, with this lack of strategic focus, Kmart became less ef-
ficient and more prone to mistakes and errors at the operational level.
Personally, all three of us stopped visiting Kmart in the mid-1990s
because the stores were dirty, not lit well, cramped, sloppy, and some
shelves were bare. In short, and as Kmart’s decline clearly illustrates,
the shopping experience was often not a good one. Herein rests an im-
portant tactical lesson that follows a lack of strategic discipline—errors
and costs tend to rise when there is a lack of strategic coherence.
The Raiders of most of the 1990s and the better part of this millen-
nium are the NFL equivalent to Kmart. With the exception of the first
two or three years of the 21st century, the Raiders are a classic case of
strategic flip-flopping and the poor execution that usually follows this
strategic lack of discipline.
After reaching and losing the Super Bowl in 2002, the Raiders would
lose more games than any other franchise in the NFL over the next five
seasons. From 2003 to 2007, they won only 19 games, which was a hefty
seven-fewer wins than the next-worst team—the Detroit Lions.
We contend, along with several NFL pundits, that a lack of strategic
focus and strategic coherence is the main, causal variable that explains
the culture of losing that has suffocated the Oakland Raiders. Consider
these facts.
From 1989 to 2008, the Oakland Raiders had ten separate head or
interim coaches during that period. That’s a new coach every two
years. Compare that with the Pittsburgh Steelers, who had three
coaches over an almost 40-year period, or the Minnesota Vikings, who
had four coaches during the same 20-year span as the Raiders’ coaching
carousel. Since the head coach plays a large part in determining and
dictating a team’s strategy, we can easily see that the revolving coach-
ing door created a revolving strategy. This flip-flopping of strategy
meant that no one strategy could get traction, and the people who were
A Winning Strategy 115
brought in to fit with the strategy (remember Person-Strategy fit!) didn’t

quite mesh when the new leadership came in and changed strategy again.
It’s tough not to see this. Mike Shanahan, considered an offensive
genius, ended his Raider coaching assignment in 1989 after coaching
less than 21 games. The man who replaced him was Art Shell, a Hall-
of-Fame offensive tackle for the Raiders, who was known as a bit more
conservative than Shanahan. Mike White briefly succeeded Art Shell;
White was known primarily for his expertise in developing strong quar-
terbacks like Tony Eason. This back and forth continues to this day.
Lane Kiffin was fired five games into the 2008 campaign and replaced
by offensive line coach Tom Cable.
With this change at the top came a concurrent diversity in people
and strategy. For instance, Rich Gannon and Coach Jon Gruden
offered the only real bright spots over the last two decades in the
Raider Nation. Rich Gannon was an incredibly accurate passer. In fact,
Gannon won the NFL MVP award in 2002 largely due to his accuracy.
During that 2002 season, he completed an astonishing 418 passes in
just 618 attempts—a completion percentage nearing 70 percent.
Remembering our discussion on Person-Strategy fit, Gannon fit beauti-
fully within the West Coast offensive scheme demanded by coach Jon
Gruden. Three years later, both Gruden and Gannon were gone. The
team replaced Gannon and others with quarterback Kerry Collins,
wide-receiver Randy Moss, and running back LaMont Jordan. All three
players, but particularly Collins and Moss, enjoyed success both before
and after the Raiders. But not during their tenure as Raiders. The rea-
son seems to be a lack of strategic coherence emanating from turnover
at the top. All three players are really known as power players in the
traditional sense. They’re at their best playing the vertical game—not
the West Coast offense. It showed as the Raiders languished through
the 2005 and 2006 campaigns. Collins would go on to lead the Tennes-
see Titans to the playoffs and the best record in the AFC during the
2008 season. Moss would help the Patriots reach another Super Bowl.
Through it all (the turnover and lack of definitive strategy), and not
unlike Kmart, operational breakdowns quickly followed this lack of
strategic focus. Look no further than the Raiders’ history of penalties.
From 1991 to 2007, the Raiders enjoyed the honor of being the most
penalized team during the regular season a whopping eight times! Said
differently, in 16 seasons from 1991 to 2007, the Raiders were the most
penalized team in the NFL 50 percent of the time. Remember, there
are 31 other teams in the NFL. The 1994 and 1996 Raiders had a re-
markable 156 penalties during both of those seasons (second in NFL
history).
The point here is that all teams, all divisions, and all organizations
must select and follow through on a specific strategy. If an organization
goes back and forth between strategies, then it will never be able to
maximize operational efficiencies. Even organizations famous for their
differentiation strategies, such as Lexus and the Ritz-Carlton, must
exercise complete operational discipline to achieve both incredible
quality standards but also to contain costs. Again, the Raiders offer in-
credible insight into two powerful lessons that all can embrace—a lack
of strategic coherence will always show up on the field as a lack of
operational focus and such lack of discipline will always drive up costs.
As a consequence, that prevents you from winning.
RUNNING THE REVERSE

Cocktail anyone?
The world’s largest cocktail party can be found in Jacksonville,
Florida, in late October or early November every year. You can count
on it. The World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail party is the official and
unofficial name for the annual Georgia–Florida football game. Held at
a “neutral” site, some 45 miles from Gainesville, Florida, and 350 miles
from Athens, Georgia, the Georgia Bulldogs enjoy a 46-38-2 advantage
over the history of the rivalry.2 But the Georgia Bulldogs have steadily
seen their fortunes decline against their hated SEC rival. From 1990
through 2008, Florida has won 16 of the 19 meetings. Florida’s domi-
nance withstanding, we’d like to focus on one of its aberrations—a loss
to the Georgia Bulldogs in 1997. It was a loss that was never supposed
to be.
It was Jim Donnan’s second season as Georgia’s head coach, and there
was little evidence that he’d be able to reverse course against Steve
Spurrier’s Florida team. After all, Spurrier’s team had won the last seven
meetings between the storied programs. Donnan, known as an offensive
schemer, devised a plan that would cripple a talented Florida team with
a noted speed differential over Georgia. Florida was led by one of the
most prolific gunslingers in NCAA history, Rex Grossman, and many
thought this game would be a blowout favoring Florida.
Donnan did a magnificent job coaching the Bulldogs on that Satur-
day afternoon; his use of mismatches and misdirection plays would
carry the day. Donnan knew that the Florida defense was incredibly fast
and strong evidenced by the number-one rushing defense in the coun-
try at game time.3
Brilliantly, Donnan used Florida’s strengths of speed and aggressive-
ness against them by calling several misdirection and reverse plays.
Benefiting from Georgia’s “Mr. Everything,” Donnan used Hines Ward

in numerous roles including receiving, rushing, passing, and returning.
The best plays, though, were the reverses and misdirection plays. Very
simply, a reverse gets momentum moving in one direction and then
quickly shifts direction. In Florida’s case, their aggressiveness on
defense would often lead to over-pursuit. Hungry and risk-taking, they
left parts of the field uncovered and exposed as it seemed the entire
defense would swarm to the ball. Knowing that, Donnan called a cou-
ple of misdirection plays in which, as predicted, the Florida defense
overran leaving the other side of the field wide open.
Misdirection refers to changing operations (not strategy) on a dime
and hoping that the competition over-pursues. Over-pursuit means the
competition is still running in one direction, while you are off in
another, seizing an opportunity.
The recent interaction between two equally formidable rivals, Air-
bus and Boeing, showcase the dangers of over-pursuit. Additionally,
this case demonstrates the benefits of creating, and pitfalls of falling
for, misdirection.
Initially, it was Airbus that over-pursued. In the early part of this
millennium, Airbus went whole hog into a bigger-is-better strategy and
mentality. In 2007, Airbus christened the A380 or Superjumbo on its
maiden voyage from Singapore to Sydney. Built in an all-economy
style, it could transport almost 1,000 people. Boeing bet that Airbus
over-pursued with this Bigger is Better mentality. It pulled a reverse
that caught Airbus by surprise. Shortly after the launch of Airbus’s
massive Superjumbo, Boeing announced the design and projected man-
ufacturing launch of their 787 Dreamliner. The Dreamliner was, in
many regards, the opposite of the A380. It was half the size of the
A380 and boasted enormous fuel-efficiency advantages. It also promised
a smoother and lighter ride, as it was the first aircraft to be made
almost entirely of composite materials. Its mid-size status was appealing
to many cities that couldn’t offer the runway length required of the gi-
gantic A380. On its announcement, orders soared. And it looked like
Boeing had run a perfect misdirection. It would’ve scored if it weren’t
for some of the biggest manufacturing and supply and sourcing issues
ever to grip a firm. Choosing to outsource around the globe for parts,
the plan was to manufacture and partially assemble the plane in differ-
ent locales and fit the larger pieces together in Seattle. Boeing couldn’t
manage its suppliers adequately, and there was significant variance
between what Boeing wanted and what it got from its throng of global
suppliers. What will be sure to be a Harvard case study for years to
come, the execution and management of the supply chain was so
difficult and cumbersome, Boeing found itself unable to fill orders on

time, causing customer dissatisfaction and racking up financial penalties
all the while. The tides were turned once again, and now it was Airbus
that was capitalizing on the over-pursuit of Boeing.
Both the football and organizational examples offer valuable insight.
First, it is tough to get caught up in over-pursuit if the fundamental
strategy is balanced. A balanced, deliberate strategy is about taking cal-
culated risks without overexposing yourself or the organization. In our
analysis of both football and profit/nonprofit strategies, we found that
extreme strategies weren’t nearly as effective as balanced strategies—
especially over the long term. Think, for a moment, of the great NFL
dynasties. The Cowboys, Steelers, Patriots, 49ers, and, maybe, the Red-
skins all showed some semblance of strategic balance. All dynastic
teams mentioned here, for instance, had both a good offense and a
good defense—a balanced strategy. These great teams could also both
run and pass. An extreme strategy creates large gaps and holes that
make you and the team vulnerable.
Second, from an Art of War mentality, individuals, teams, and
organizations that are able to bait others into over-pursuit will enjoy
competitive advantage. Not only did Donnan do that for that 1997
game against Florida, but he did something else that deserves attention.
He took the strengths of the Florida team, speed and aggressiveness,
and turned them into weaknesses. What’s remarkable about this strate-
gic and tactical mindset is that you are using the energy of the oppo-
nent, in a sense, to secure victory. Sadly, early analysis of the War in
Iraq suggests that this is just what Al-Qaeda did to coalition
forces. They used the sheer size advantage against them by framing size
as a liability (more opportunities and places to attack) instead of
a strength.
Finally, there is an intellectual agility and awareness component to
this. The best way to avoid over-pursuit is to catch it before it goes too
far. The very best Gridiron Leaders either instinctively know or learn over
time when either they or their team is going too far, too fast in one direc-
tion. Sensing that they are becoming exposed, they make adjustments.
This requires a leader to carefully and continuously monitor and assess
both strategy and execution. Make no mistake, there is an inflection point
at which it is difficult, if not impossible, to reverse direction. Think about
it for a moment. When a company, military, or team over-pursue for a sig-
nificant amount of time, it tends to devote considerably more resources at
a considerably faster rate. In metaphorical terms, it is the equivalent of
digging a bigger ditch faster. At a certain point, it becomes hard to stand
in front of this wave of organizational momentum.
Moving the Chains

Misdirection and over-pursuit can be your friend or foe. Make it your
friend.
LOOK FOR A MISMATCH

Just like we have misdirection, Gridiron Leaders create value and
devise winning plans by creating mismatches. There are really two
complimentary ways to create mismatches. Either through people or
through strategic planning.
One of the more memorable and by-design mismatches could be
traced to former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka’s use of William “the
Refrigerator” Perry. Although there is considerable debate to Perry’s
playing weight, most believe that this 6-foot, 2-inch defensive lineman
out of Clemson was close to 400 pounds. Despite his enormous weight,
Perry had quick feet and displayed surprising agility for a man of his size.
Ditka capitalized on this and used Perry in goal-line situations either as
a fullback blocking for Hall-of-Famer Walter Payton, or as the ball car-
rier himself. Remember, it was Perry, not Payton, who scored a rushing
touchdown in Super Bowl XX against the New England Patriots.
The entire premise here, though, is what Perry created—a mismatch.
At his size, he could literally fall forward and gain three or four yards.
Used as a ball carrier on goal-line situations, he created problems for
goal-line defenses because he was as big as, or bigger than, the defen-
sive linemen trying to tackle him. And he possessed an enormous size
advantage over the linebackers that would have to try to stand him up
at the goal line.
Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots is also quite skilled at
combining people and strategy to create mismatches. Belichick will
devise specific plays along with larger game plans to exploit mis-
matches. Belichick knows how difficult it is for a 250-pound linebacker
with 4.9 speed to cover a wide-receiver with 4.3 speed. That’s why he
creates situations where that will occur. He’s also been known to use
players, such as Mike Vrabel, a linebacker by trade, in goal-line situa-
tions as either a fullback or tight end. He can block, run, or catch and
causes problems because offensive linemen can’t really cover Vrabel
too well if he blocks and releases into the end zone.
The allure of Reggie Bush out of USC was grounded in this notion
of mismatch. Here was a running back that had Barry Sanders–type
moves but also had Randy Moss–type speed. A linebacker could match
Reggie Bush’s size but couldn’t deal with his speed. For the cornerback,
it was just the opposite. They could deal and keep up with his speed,
but they couldn’t keep up with his size. This is why both Pete Carroll
at USC and Saints coach Sean Peyton tried or try to create “space” for
Reggie Bush—one-on-one situations with Bush on a linebacker or Bush
on a cornerback. As mentioned earlier, both lead to mismatches.
One last personnel mismatch that led to a long-term strategic mis-
match was Tony Dungy’s draft of Dwight Freeney.
It is difficult to tease out causality here. Specifically, it’s unclear
whether Dungy first dreamed up a light, but speedy, defense, or whether
the draft of Freeney came first, which led to the adoption of a speedy,
but undersized, defense.
Out of Syracuse, Freeney was pinned on many draft boards as a big
question mark. By most accounts, he was considerably undersized as a
defensive lineman at just over 6 feet and 255 pounds, with many draft
scouts predicting that his only chance of a successful NFL career would be
to play linebacker. After all, a recent first-round pick out of Virginia Tech
with similar attributes, Corey Moore by the Buffalo Bills, was a total bust.
Tony Dungy thought differently. He saw Freeney’s explosiveness and
4.42 speed as key attributes to build a high-energy, supercharged
defense capable of creating chaos on opposing offenses. Dungy’s projec-
tions were more accurate than many scouts. Freeney helped transform
the Indianapolis defense, much maligned as a much distant second
cousin compared to Indianapolis’s prolific offensive scheme led by
Peyton Manning, into a dominant force in the AFC. Dungy’s speedier
defense would dominate for several years against divisional opponents
like Tennessee or Houston who opted for bigger, but slower, offensive
linemen. Freeney would anchor that defense as a three-time All-Pro
and was the third fastest in NFL history to reach 40 sacks.4
Lastly, through strategic planning and tactical execution, there are
ways to create mismatches by simply employing the strongest aspect of
your team or organization against the absolute weakest part of your
rival’s. Frank Beamer, the head coach at Virginia Tech, has built a leg-
endary reputation of doing exactly that. Beamer’s genius is that he
knows the weakest part of most collegiate (not professional) programs
is the kicking game. Therefore, Beamer invests heavily in special teams’
plays and players who attempt to block kicks and punts. To that end,
Beamer and what is known as Beamer Ball has been extremely success-
ful by putting a strength (his special teams’ plays and players) against
the Achilles heal of most NCAA programs, their kicking games. In
fact, from 2000 to 2007, Virginia Tech blocked 36 kicks, trailing only
Texas and N.C. State in that category. The moral is clear—deliberately
putting your strength against another’s weakness is a surefire way to

create a mismatch.
Moving the Chains

Creating mismatches, either via people or via strategy or a combination
of both, is a guaranteed way to secure victory.
GAME CHANGER
In looking at the mounds and mounds of strategy books on the mar-
ket dating back five or so years, we noticed a common theme. Many of
the books focused on what comes after strategy—execution. This focus,
of course, values the outputs of strategy. As the opening Winston
Churchill quote attests, we don’t discount the value of results. How-
ever, we feel that the true source of a sustainable competitive advant-
age lies in looking at the inputs, not the outputs, of strategy. The
inputs we’re referring to are tough to quantify and identify, which, pre-
dictably makes them so valuable and unique. We are referring to the
strategic inputs of critical thinking, creativity, and innovation.
Make no mistake, a creative strategy is a game changer. A game
changer is some factor or variable that fundamentally and irrevocably
alters the game to your favor. Atop all of our wish lists should be to
identify and isolate that variable that can tilt the game dramatically
to one side or the other.
This phrase, game changer, is in vogue. For example, it was used fre-
quently in the successful campaign of President Barack Obama,
although many are unsure of exactly what it means. Pontiac, which for
years has sponsored a weekly Game Changer award on ESPN, celebra-
tes the performance of a single play that changed the face of the game.
Regardless, we like it because it rolls off the tongue with force and
command. But in true Gridiron style, we’re looking for something
more. We challenge all to find a season changer—a strategic variable
that doesn’t change the face of a single game, but alters a season or a
series of seasons. Undeniably, the most critical strategic factor that can
truly alter the course of a season is innovation and creative thinking. It
is these strategic variables, the inputs to the strategy-making process,
which transform the ordinary to the exemplary. At its extreme, this
spirit of innovation can result in a dramatic paradigm shift that by any
and all accounts contribute directly to victory.
BUDDY BALL
When innovation, strategic development and planning, and execu-
tion all intersect, a monopoly over rivals occurs and a sustainable com-
petitive advantage is all but guaranteed. The imperative then is to
invest and reward innovation and creative thought.
Look no further than Buddy Ryan and the 46 defense to see the
impact of innovation and the competitive benefits that accompany a
paradigm shift.
Buddy Ryan became immortalized for designing and using the 46
defense for the Chicago Bears while he was the defensive coordinator for
the team. The “4” stands for four down linemen and the “6” signifies six
linebackers. Two of those six are cornerbacks who play bump and run
coverage and who will also blitz—essentially making them a linebacker/
cornerback hybrid. The uniqueness of the 46 is that the defense was
weighted to the weak side (opposite the tight end) with the defensive
end split out wider than normal, occasionally referred to as being out on
an island. Another defining characteristic of this defensive scheme was
that both outside linebackers would line up on the same side of the for-
mation. In the 46 scheme, the linebackers would position themselves
almost directly behind the linemen, sometimes only one or two yards
behind. Maybe Buddy Ryan used some of his military expertise (he was a
Master Sergeant and served in the Korean campaign) because with this
formation, he could concentrate two or more defensive players on a sin-
gle offensive lineman. This concentration of force would quickly break
through and sack the quarterback or stop the runner in the backfield.
This defensive scheme was particularly troubling for quarterbacks
who didn’t know if, when, or where a blitz would be coming from. Back
in the 1980s, the run was more popular than the pass. The 46 scheme
made it harder to run and to do play-action since offensive linemen no
longer had the time to do simple pulling, trapping, or pass protection
schemes. Put bluntly, it caused chaos for offenses. The 1985 Chicago
Bears would win every single game that season except for a Monday
Night Football game against the Miami Dolphins, led by Dan Marino.
This was significant because if the Dolphins hadn’t stopped them, then
the Bears would’ve shared the distinction with Shula’s ’72 Dolphins as
the only NFL team to go undefeated and win the Super Bowl. The 46
defense was a true season changer; it would propel Mike Ditka, Buddy
Ryan, and the Chicago Bears to a 15-1 season and a 46-10 dominance
over the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XX.
Ironically, it would take another paradigm shift to account for and
neutralize the 46 defense. Bill Walsh’s West Coast offense with its
immediate and short passing game finally put an end to the effective-
ness of the 46 defense.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of paradigm shifts in strate-
gic thinking as a source of competitive advantage. Actually, referring
back to the opening quote also triggers the thoughts of several para-
digm shifts, some of which were so powerful that they almost gave vic-
tory to a force that most experts would’ve dismissed out of hand.
Consider the case of the German submarine in World War II. Known
also as the U-boat, Churchill would later confide that he thought
the U-boat was the only factor that could’ve prevented an Allied
victory.
After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles would limit the scope of
the German surface Navy. Smartly, they decided to go beneath the sur-
face for competitive advantage. It is impossible to dismiss the destruc-
tion and devastation of the German U-boat, especially during the
Second Battle of the Atlantic.
The U-boat campaign offers a unique glimpse into a pattern of inno-
vative strategic thinking. First was the initial emphasis on submarines
mentioned earlier. Second, was the manner in which the U-boats were
deployed. The Germans created “wolf packs,” or Rudeltaktik, that would
capitalize via mass attacks. It worked simply. After a U-boat would
identify a supply convoy, the single submarine would call out to all
other submarines. The submarines would convene in a wolf pack for-
mation and would track the convoy (usually British) and launch a
coordinated attack under the cover of darkness. The destruction of
these convoys almost derailed the entire British war-fighting machine
since the inputs into manufacturing could not make it to port. Not
until radar and sonar did the Allied forces really have a true answer for
submarine warfare. When combined with escorts and spotting via air-
craft, the German advantage of the seas would decline. Finally, and
almost forgotten, is the use of radio encryption in the wolf pack
attacks. Here, the Germans combined one innovation, submarines and
submarine attack tactics, with another innovation, technological com-
munication. The Germans would use the Enigma machine to encrypt
and code messages. The U-boat wolf packs were among the first navies
(or militaries) in military history to widely use and embrace encrypted
communication. Up to that point, the scope and scale of effective
encrypted communication was quite limited. For the German submar-
ine fleet, it became a source of competitive advantage until Allied
cryptologists were able to break the code.
The lesson is clear. Regardless of the context (i.e., corporate, profit, non-
profit, military, or law enforcement), paradigm shifts provide monopolistic
windows. These widows allow competitive gain with little to no resistance

as competitors try to devise catch-up strategies.
Moving the Chains

Never underestimate the value of creative thinking and innovation. At its
extreme, it can foster a paradigm shift that provides for a sustainable
competitive advantage.
HALFTIME ADJUSTMENTS
In the previous chapter, we discussed why comebacks were so spe-
cial. The allure and potential to reverse direction or beat the odds is
one of the most attractive and appealing aspects of the game. Come-
backs are total Hollywood.
We’ve already mentioned how rare comebacks are, but there are sev-
eral reasons for their infrequency. For one, time is running out. The
competitive odds are no longer on your side when in comeback mode.
Comebacks require you to not only beat your opponent, but to also
beat the clock. Second, momentum is working against you as well. It
can maybe best be explained by Newtonian physics—things in motion
tend to stay in motion. A losing team tends to gravitate towards losing,
and a dominant team tends to stay in motion toward the winning end
of the spectrum. The third element that makes comebacks so difficult
is due to a human element. You see, when strategies, tactics, penalties,
and poor execution lead to poor performance and a predictable loss, a
terrible side effect emerges—poor morale. In the face of all of these
obstacles, people give up on the execution plan and their teammates.
The probability of a comeback erodes because members of the team
simply do not believe that a comeback is possible.
Despite these incredible forces working against a leader and against
a team, Gridiron Leaders find a way to engineer comebacks. Legends
such as John Elway, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, and Jim Harbaugh built
their careers on the capability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
They were the comeback kids of the NFL. In truth, though, comebacks
are only in part about the leader’s ability to inspire the team. There’s
more. One game, in particular, shows that a comeback is equal parts
leadership and strategy and execution.
As far as comebacks go, the 1993 Buffalo Bills-Houston Oiler Wild
Card playoff game holds a sacred place in Gridiron Lore. At the very
outset, this game was special. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the
game, held in Buffalo’s Rich stadium, never sold out. As a result, the
game was blacked out meaning that it was televised nationally, but not
locally. Buffalo fans could not watch from home and missed the game.
Many who remember watching the game or who are just students of
the game think that the central figure in the comeback was Frank
Reich, a perennial backup to Jim Kelly. There is some allure to this
presumption, as Frank Reich has a rather storied career of being a
backup that came in to lead a comeback. Frank Reich was the backup
at the University of Maryland when thrust into an active role during
the 1984 Orange Bowl game against the University of Miami, when
Maryland starter Stan Gelbaugh went down with an injury. Down 31-0
at the half, Maryland was expected to roll over during the second half
with this little-known backup, and in the process, suffer one of the
greatest beat downs in Orange Bowl history. Except the story didn’t go
that way. Reich rallied Maryland for a 42-40 come-from-behind victory
over the Bernie Kosar-led, and heavily favored, Miami Hurricanes.
Almost a decade later, Reich would engineer another spectacular
comeback. But there’s more to it than Reich. We explain below.
The Houston Oilers, led by the prolific Warren Moon, simply domi-
nated every facet of the game during the first half. Moon was nearly
perfect, going 19 for 22 for 220 yards and 4 touchdowns in only one
half of play. The Oilers kept the ball for more than two-thirds of the
first half—21 minutes to Buffalo’s 9 minutes. The wave and force of
momentum was clearly with the Oilers; with 1 minute left in the half,
Moon connected with Haywood Jeffires for a 27-yard touchdown. The
Bills would enter halftime down 28-3.
The comeback began in the locker room and, contrary to popular
belief, the comeback probably started with Defensive Coordinator, Walt
Corey, as opposed to Frank Reich. Corey carefully examined the tactical
aspect of executing his defensive strategy, and he decided to change
course. Specifically, he went from a 4-3 defense to a 3-4 defensive scheme.
The difference is significant. A 4-3 defense means that there are four
down linemen and three linebackers. This defensive scheme is good at
stuffing the run. In the 3-4 defensive scheme, there are three down line-
men and four linebackers. Corey’s move was a good one. The extra line-
backer helped shut down the shorter passing attack of Moon and his
receivers, “Moonbeams” as they were often called. After this call, Moon
would not throw another touchdown for the rest of the game. The Bills,
who were at one time down 35-3, would win the game in overtime, 41-38.
There are several important lessons relating to both tactics and strat-
egy that we can learn from this game. First, know the difference
between strategy and tactical execution. Corey wasn’t drastically alter-

ing his defensive strategy of aggressiveness, speed, or risk-taking.
Rather, he focused on the tactical execution of that strategy. His deci-
sion to change from a 4-3 to a 3-4 was a change in tactics, not strategy.
They are, however, related. Poor tactical execution can make any strat-
egy look bad. Or put differently, it is hard to properly assess and evalu-
ate any given strategy, if the tactical execution and day-to-day
operation of that strategy is poor. For evidence of this, turn to the
Houston Oilers and not the Buffalo Bills. The day after this crippling
loss, the Oilers made a strategic decision to fire their Defensive Coordi-
nator, Jim Eddy. In our analysis, this decision was not provoked by a
poor strategy, as the Houston Oilers defense performed well enough
during the regular season to make it to the playoffs. This is an impor-
tant distinction; the decision to fire Eddy wasn’t strategic flip-flopping
a la Kmart and the Raiders. Rather, this case illustrates how important
halftime adjustments related to operations and the tactical execution of
that strategy are. Eddy failed to adjust, and got the boot as a result.
The secondary lesson here is the importance of monitoring and eval-
uating how strategies are executed. On occasion, strategies should be
revisited and adjusted or modified to meet changing internal and exter-
nal conditions. At no time, however, should strategic coherence be sac-
rificed, and Gridiron Leaders should always shy away from mindless
strategic flip-flopping. On many occasions, though, execution plans
should be evaluated and assessed—almost continuously. The Buffalo
Bills almost waited too long to make their adjustments. If it weren’t for
some lucky breaks in the second half, like Houston fumbling some
snaps, the adjustments made at the half would’ve been useless. For bet-
ter and more immediate results, the Buffalo Bills should’ve made their
adjustments sooner.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders have to constantly monitor and evaluate their strategy
while simultaneously ensuring tactical, day-to-day execution is performed
to a high standard.
USE YOUR TIMEOUT

There’s an old saying that goes something like this: You can’t fix an
airplane while you’re flying it. Rooted in this maxim is that the very
act of execution makes evaluation and fixing things difficult. Especially

today. The fast pace and busyness of today’s organizational climate
means that there’s barely enough cognitive and physical capital to
focus on execution, let alone focus on both execution and evaluation.
Gridiron Leaders, though, find a way to do both because they know
that execution without reflection and evaluation could result in getting
to the wrong place faster.
We’ve found both on and off the gridiron, the best way to do this is
to take specific moments to clear your head and the minds of your
team. Taking a timeout to discuss and evaluate the execution of strat-
egy is important to do. We see this done during effective off-site
retreats, but also during specific periods of the day. We know of one
sales manager that would end each day with a 15-minute, after-action
review of the workday. If need be, scheduling or promotional changes
were made so the following day would be better. This is more about
evaluating and assessing execution than it is about drastically altering
strategy. But, again, they’re both inextricably tied.
Moving the Chains

Make time to assess and evaluate the execution of any given strategy.
Don’t wait until halftime to make halftime adjustments.
DEEP THREAT
The Korean War wasn’t going too well for the United States. That
is, until Douglas MacArthur decided to go deep. In June of 1950, the
Communist Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) launched
an attack into South Korea. During those initial months, both South
Korea and U.S. forces fared badly. It seemed as if Korea would soon be
controlled by Soviet-backed Korean communists. General Douglas
MacArthur, commander of both U.S. and U.N. forces, decided the best
overall strategy to gain an upper hand in this conflict was to stretch
the field and go deep.
And stretch the field he did. In one of the great military strategic
maneuvers of all time, MacArthur ordered a successful amphibious
landing on the Incheon peninsula, deep behind North Korean lines.
Using both naval and close air support, the Marine and Army forces
outflanked the entire North Korean Army, which forced a hasty retreat
northward. This strategy helped turn the tables because it was
surprisingly bold and also deep. After the landing at Incheon, the
North Korean Army had to play honest and divert forces to cover
flanks and the rear. MacArthur’s call made North Korea less aggressive
and more restrained.
In our analyses of truly successful teams and organizations, inherent
in all strategies was at least some component of going deep, of stretch-
ing the field, of embracing some element of risk.
During the first decade of this millennium, risk-taking was taken to
the extreme in terms of the securitization and spread of subprime mort-
gages and mortgage backed assets. Entire firms went down, and eco-
nomic collapse loomed. Those strategies were faulty because, and like
the North Korean Army, flanks were left exposed and vulnerable.
There was just too much risk, and organizations were trying to stretch
the field all of the time. Whether in football or outside of football, that
strategy just never works.
What we’re talking about are calculated risks and, really, just even
the threat of risky behavior. Even the most conservative organization
or team can benefit from incorporating a small amount of high risk into
their strategic plans.
The reasons are many. First, taking a calculated, big gamble can pay
off. Since its creation, Apple was a computer company. It decided to
go deep and try its hand at music and music devices while simultane-
ously engaging in its bread and butter business—building great Mac
computers. Keep in mind, Apple didn’t abandon its core strategy.
Rather, Apple just complimented it with a risk component. It turns out
that the company’s deep pass connected and, in the process, changed
the entire music industry. So, going deep can produce outstanding
returns. Two, going deep and stretching the field keeps rivals honest
and, if it doesn’t keep them honest, it can burn them. Toyota’s invest-
ment in hybrid technology before everyone else, particularly Detroit’s
GM and Chrysler, stretched the field. GM and Chrysler could’ve played
for the deep pass but didn’t and ignored it. They’ve played catch up
ever since. A deep pass should force others to take notice. In the proc-
ess, rivals must divert at least some resources to protect against the
deep pass. This allows a team or organization to work other parts of the
field more effectively.
There’s a method to the madness when Bill Belichick calls a 50-yard
fly route to Randy Moss. The likes of Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Wil-
lie Gault, Herman Moore, and Lynn Swann were all known to stretch
the field at one time or another. When a coach or quarterback calls a
50-yard fly route to a deep-threat receiver, only good things can typi-
cally happen. First, and like Apple, it can connect. It can be a
completed pass. Two, there can be a pass interference call where the
defense bumbles and stumbles over themselves in an effort to prevent
the receiver from making the play. Finally, going deep sticks in the
minds of the defense. They can’t crowd the box, and they become more
conservative in their own defensive strategies. That allows the offense
to attack other parts of the field. Put another way, stretching the field
uses the “long” field to open up the short field for the offense to oper-
ate. Just the threat—not necessarily the action—is important here. For-
mer Chicago wide receiver Willie Gault is one such example. Willie
Gault was an Olympic athlete and part of a world record–setting 4 100
meter relay team. Every time he stepped on the field, he was a deep
threat. For that reason, defenses had to account for his presence whether
or not he actually went deep or not. The important thing is that he had
the capacity (and the reputation) to go deep. This threat alone changed
defenses. His presence was particularly important for a team, such as the
Bears, that had a dominant running game anchored by one of the all-time
greats, Walter Payton. There’s little doubt that Gault’s deep-threat
potential opened up running lanes for Walter Payton. The ironic twist,
and a lesson for all, is that it’s the most conservative teams and organiza-
tions that need the deep threat the most. Without the deep threat and
the occasional stretch of the field, the organization or team becomes stale
and predictable, and it becomes easy for rivals to plan for and plan against
it. By the way, the worst that can happen on a 50-yard downfield bomb is
an interception. In many cases, that’s the same as a punt. Going deep once
in a while (never all the time) should be part and parcel of any team or
organizational strategy.
Moving the Chains

The best strategies will try to stretch the field every now and then. There’s
no better way to keep competition honest than to have a deep threat.
NO HUDDLE OFFENSE
Erwin Rommel fought on the wrong side during World War II. The
former Nazi General will be forever known as one of the great tacti-
cians and tank commanders in the history of warfare. An aggressor by
nature, one of his most-referenced quotes is, “In the absence of orders,
go find something and kill it.”
There’s little doubt that battlefield commanders such as Patton or
Rommel wouldn’t have fallen in love with the No-Huddle Offense.
The No-Huddle Offense is, as its name suggests, an offense that goes
without a huddle. By so doing, they rattle off plays in a much quicker
clip since they aren’t taking 10 or 15 seconds out to huddle. Between
the three of us, we’ve probably played in or have seen close to 3,000
football games at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels.
One consistent truth that we can all agree upon is that time and again,
the No-Huddle Offense seems to work. It produces points. Coaches and
players offer different theories on why it seems so successful more often
than not. A majority opinion is that a No-Huddle Offense is both a
competitive strategy and tactical plan. As such, the No Huddle is a
decidedly aggressive, fast-paced, attack strategy. When executed well, it
disrupts the timing of rivals, particularly the defense. Similarly, many
coaches suggest that when run well, the No-Huddle scheme allows the
offense to dictate the flow, pace, and rhythm of the game. Often, we
see defenses back pedaling, on their heels, in response to a barrage of a
No-Huddle Attack. Because there’s no huddle, defensive and rival
responses are imperfect. A critical explanation is that in a No-Huddle
scheme, the defense can’t seem to substitute players or schemes fast
enough to catch up. Several years back, we heard John Madden wonder
aloud during a telecast why the No Huddle isn’t used in more circum-
stances given its effectiveness.
Outside of the gridiron, on the academic field as opposed to the ath-
letic field, are strategy scholars that would agree with the core premise.
One of the top strategy scholars may just be Dr. Ming-Jer Chen, an
internationally acclaimed scholar at the Darden School of Business at
the University of Virginia. Professor Chen is recognized as one of the
leading researchers in the topic of competitive dynamics, which studies
how or under what processes one firm tries to outcompete a rival firm
for a competitive advantage. A key and critical finding of his research,
which often examined the U.S. airline industry, is that competitively
aggressive firms enjoy more market benefits than firms that are slower,
more competitively conservative, and trigger shy. Put differently, air-
lines that go on the competitive attack and launch aggressive moves
against their rivals are more successful and more competitive.
The lesson here is simple, but profound. Regardless of context, set-
ting, or situation, competitive attack and competitive aggressiveness
are better and stronger indicators of competitive victory.
The question then is straightforward—if you don’t have a No-Huddle
offensive attack component to your strategy, what are you waiting for?
It is precisely this lack of waiting that makes a No Huddle so dangerous to
your rivals.
Moving the Chains

A No-Huddle Offense is a strategic mindset of attack. This attack
mentality allows one to take the offensive and dictate the parameters
of competition.
UNANSWERED POINTS
One day we sat down with a rather successful high school coach
who’d built a strong and consistent program over two decades in and
around Western Pennsylvania. At one juncture, we asked him to iden-
tify the key variable that best explained his success.
He didn’t hesitate, “Above all else, the best teams respond and an-
swer after an opponent scores.”
On the gridiron, there are answered or unanswered points. With
answered, a team responds to a rival’s score with a score of their own.
With unanswered, a team fails to respond to an opponent’s score.
Sensing the importance, we asked him to clarify.
“You must answer a score with a score of your own,” he declared.
“There are several reasons. Chief among them is that you never, ever
want the game to get out of hand. The best way to stop a tsunami is to
immediately answer a score with a score of your own. You stem the mo-
mentum. You never let the rivals get into a groove. Responding to a
rival is also about confidence. It shows that you aren’t scared and that
you’ll stand toe-to-toe with them. One of the things that we emphasize
and one of the things that we believe that’s made us so successful here
is that we believe that we must respond and respond in force to each
and every rival move. It is a statement. It is about our mettle.”
CLOSING SPEED
Another parallel and complimentary concept from the gridiron is
that of closing speed. The best defensive backs and corner backs like
Champ Bailey, Troy Polamalu, Ronde Barber, Al Harris, Ty Law, and
Dre Bly have this special skill, called closing speed. Closing speed is
special because it allows you to close quickly on an opponent even if
you’re originally out of position. Defensive backs with strong closing
speed are less likely to get burned for big plays downfield since they
can catch up quickly. Analogous to closing speed is response speed.
Closing fast means responding fast.
Another major finding from Professor Ming-Jer Chen’s strategic

research on competitive dynamics, particularly that of the U.S. airline
industry, is that answering scores with a score and closing speed are
two central tenets to achieving and securing a competitive advantage.
Chen found that airlines that were slower in responding to a rival’s
actions or competitive moves or who simply didn’t answer them dem-
onstrated response lag. The greater the response lag, the quicker the
loss of market share and profitability. His findings are clear and
unequivocal—when a rival acts, strong competitors respond quickly
and in force. Think about it for a moment. When an airline launches a
price cut or a change to policy, the most competitive airlines answer
quickly with price cuts and policy changes of their own. Sometimes
within minutes! Deep price cuts by one airline, say American, are met
almost simultaneously by rival firms like United. Failure to answer a
rival’s action can result in fewer customers and fewer dollars. A strate-
gic imperative, then, is to respond and respond quickly to rivals. Strong
organizations and strong teams emphasize the closing speed in both
strategy and tactical execution. This, in turn, allows them to be com-
petitive day-in, day-out.
Moving the Chains

When a rival acts, respond quickly. Answer all scores with scores of your
own. Never cede momentum. Work on closing speed.
OPTION ATTACK
We never knew why the Baltimore Ravens got rid of Trent Dilfer.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers released Trent Dilfer in the spring of
2000. Dilfer quickly signed with the Baltimore Ravens and initially
served as the backup to Michigan State phenom Tony Banks. Banks
would struggle, however, and lost his first two starts of the season.
Banks, a strong-armed quarterback with strong legs, seemed to be mis-
take prone and would make some questionable decisions. By compari-
son, and in replacement of Banks, Dilfer would engineer one of the
great streaks in NFL history by winning seven straight to finish the
2000 season. In so doing, the Ravens earned a wild-card berth. Dilfer
was extremely efficient during that seven-game winning streak and also
through the playoffs. His mistake-free mentality coupled with sound
decisions in the Red Zone carried the Ravens to Super Bowl XXXV in
Tampa where they would pound the New York Giants 34-7.
What is truly remarkable, however, is that Brian Billick, the Raven

coach at the time, decided to release Trent Dilfer shortly after the Super
Bowl win. Trent Dilfer occupies a dubious record—he’s the only Super
Bowl–winning quarterback released the following season. In the short
term, it was the end of Trent Dilfer. In the longer term, it was the end of
Coach Brian Billick. During his five or six more years after his Super Bowl
win, he’d never find another quarterback. During that time frame, the
Ravens tried Elvis Grbac, Kyle Boller, Chris Redman, and Steve McNair.
None, not even Steve McNair, accomplished what Trent Dilfer did.
The reason we raise this story is to raise an important lesson regard-
ing strategic alternatives. Often, we’ve seen leaders abandon, change,
or flip-flop strategies without first identifying a series of suitable options
or alternatives. Maybe even more important, Gridiron Leaders should
ensure that their option-in-waiting is significantly better than their cur-
rent situation. Clearly, Billick’s decision to throw out Dilfer for another
option never panned out.
The Army, for the longest time, owned the slogan, “Be All You
Can Be.” The slogan was synonymous with the Army and generally
viewed as an effective recruiting tool. After 20 years of this slogan, the
Army changed their marketing strategy and slogan to target the more
individualist-centered youth of the Millennial Generation. Their next
best alternative and option, they believed, was the slogan of “Army of
One.” Many, including some powerful pundits and thought leaders such
as George Will, thought the slogan interfered with and even contra-
dicted the “teamwork first” mentality necessary for Army functioning
and operations. This slogan barely lasted five years. In 2006, the slogan
was changed to Army Strong. Contrast that with the Marines and their
successful slogan—The Few, The Proud, The Marines, which is nearly
almost two decades old.
We won’t belabor the point, but it’s important nonetheless. Before
shelving a strategy, Gridiron Leaders must be confident, if not sure,
that the back-up strategy is equal to or better than the current one. If
it isn’t, wait until further alternatives and options are generated, vetted,
and researched.
Moving the Chains

When it comes to strategy, be careful about abandoning a course of
action without identifying and ensuring that better options and
alternatives exist.
Selecting, developing, implementing, and following through on an

organization’s strategy can elevate the organization above the compe-
tition or to new heights in performance. Strategy is the game plan for
how the organization will accomplish its goals and missions. It is this
game plan that guides decision-making. Make no mistake, though,
a successful strategy is a leader’s responsibility. Strategies, and more
often, tactics, will evolve over time to meet the challenges of chang-
ing environments, but leadership is continuous. Leaders at all levels
are responsible for the execution of strategy. Direction may be set by
leaders at the top of the organization, but it’s the leaders throughout
the ranks that ensure the strategy lives beyond mere concepts and
ideas. All leaders have the ability, and duty, to translate strategy into
performance.
TIP DRILL
1. Chose a strategy and follow through. Don’t be a strategic flip-
flopper. Changing strategies often means that no one idea can
gain traction. Since personnel may be chosen based on their fit
to a given strategy, changing strategies can also lead to higher
turnover, especially at the top of the organization.
2. Ensure a balanced strategy. Having a balanced strategy
decreases the likelihood that the organization will over-pursue
competitors. Leaders with a balanced strategy are free to maneu-
ver or take calculated risks without overexposing the organiza-
tion. Continuously monitor and assess strategy and operations.
3. Find the game changer. Play to your strengths and find variables
that make you or your organization better than the competition.
Identify the niche to exploit. Use creativity and innovation to
shift the paradigm and create a competitive advantage that
lasts.
4. Make necessary adjustments. Poor tactical execution can make
any strategy look bad. Know the difference between strategy and
tactics. Take time out to evaluate the execution of a strategy.
Don’t be afraid to make changes to operations (tactics) to meet
changing conditions. If the strategy needs to be changed, ensure
there are suitable, well-researched, and well-thought-out
alternatives.
5. Take calculated risks. Competitively aggressive organizations

enjoy more benefits than their more conservative rivals. Even
conservative organizations can benefit from incorporating some
element of risk into their plans. Go for ideas that are market
disruptors. Never let a rival’s move go unanswered or let mo-
mentum swing away from you. Respond quickly. Hesitation or
lagging response time can handicap the success or growth of any
organization.
NOTES
1. Amy Tsao, “How Good a Buy Is Kmart?” BusinessWeek, January 13, 2004.
2. As of December 1, 2008.
3. We recommend viewing the following video: Georgia 37, Florida 17. A copy
can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Georgia-Florida-1997-College-
Football/dp/B000N5XU2C.
8
BECOMING A PLAYOFF TEAM
In order to have a winner, the team must have a feeling of unity; every
player must put the team first—ahead of personal glory.
—Paul “Bear” Bryant
During the 2008 Monday Night Football Season, ESPN analyst and
legendary Eagle quarterback Ron Jaworski mentioned almost in passing
that the game of football is first won in the locker room. Implied in
his observation is that a divisive and fractured locker room cannot
produce results on the field. Cohesive teams will always execute bet-
ter, faster, and stronger than a mere collection of individuals. It is this
notion of teamwork that carries the day and leads to competitive
advantage.
Football is NOT tennis. Whereas tennis is about the individual and
independence, football is about the group and interdependence. That’s
what makes it a great game and that’s also a critical reason why the
concept and theory behind football is so important in today’s context
and in today’s profit and nonprofit organizations. Very simply, we live
in a world of teams. In our own personal experience, we’ve seen hiring
managers look almost exclusively at this trait of teamwork in the hiring
decision process—those that could play well with others got the job.
Those that couldn’t, didn’t, or wouldn’t were never even considered. In
fact, it’s just about impossible to overstate the importance of teamwork.
Leaders and organizations that can build strong, cohesive, and moti-
vated teams will enjoy a sustained performance advantage over those
that can’t figure it out. In this chapter, we draw on several Gridiron
Lessons to help you figure teams out.
137
Moving the Chains

Current-day life is all about teamwork. Gridiron Leaders build great teams
for great execution and, even better, performance.
A TRUE PATRIOT
In 2001, the New England Patriots were the Super Bowl champions.
That same year, they sent exactly zero players to the Pro Bowl. In 2003,
the next time the Patriots won the Super Bowl, they sent a whopping
three to Hawaii for the Pro Bowl. Two were defensive players—Lawyer
Malloy and Ty Law. The other was their kicker, Adam Vinatieri. The
very next year, the Patriots won the Super Bowl again. During that 2004
campaign, the Patriots only sent one Pro Bowler on offense (Tom Brady)
and one on defense (Richard Seymour). To put this into perspective, the
year that the Patriots won their third title in 2004, the following teams
had more talented players as reflected in the number of Pro Bowl selec-
tions on offense and defense: Colts, Chargers, Steelers, Chiefs, Ravens,
Bengals, and Jets. How can one even begin to explain that?
Arguably and according to Pro Bowl rosters from 2001 through 2004,
the Patriots ranked below average in terms of Pro Bowl selections. In
fact, from 2001 through 2004, both the Miami Dolphins and the Cincin-
nati Bengals received more Pro Bowl invites than the New England
Patriots (not including special team players like Adam Vinatieri).
Despite this supposed lack of talent, the Patriots won three of the four
Super Bowls from 2001 to 2004. Even if one were to explain some of the
success based on Spygate-type arguments, the fact still remains—the
New England Patriots were able to perform better, more consistently,
and over longer time periods than their more talented rivals. As we look
closely at this team, one truth is indisputable—the Patriots epitomized
strong teamwork. With them, the maxim certainly applied: The whole
was much, much greater than the sum of their parts. The Patriots were
able to take 2 + 2 and turn it into 5 while more talented teams, like the
Cincinnati Bengals, seemed to do just the opposite.
Moving the Chains

A true-tale sign of great teams is that they perform markedly better than
what their talent level would begin to suggest. In true teamwork, synergy
transforms average talent into extraordinary results.
Becoming a Playoff Team 139
T.O.
Skip Bayless is one of ESPN’s more colorful and controversial figures. As
one of the hosts of ESPN’s morning program, First Take, Bayless has been
known to take some rather controversial stances. For instance, Bayless feels
that field goals and extra points should be eliminated from the game of foot-
ball. While we don’t agree with this particular stance, we do overwhelm-
ingly agree with Bayless’s criticism of Terrell Owens. Bayless comically and
consistently remarks that T.O. should stand for Team Obliterator.
This is also where the Patriots seem to excel. Instead of hiring prima
donnas and Team Obliterators, the Patriots tend to draft, recruit, and
retain, well . . . Patriots. A true Patriot is a man or woman who subjugates
and shelves their personal ambitions for the collective good—usually,
love of country. Over the first decade of this millennium, it is tough to
argue against. The Patriots seem to act, play, and execute like Patriots—
individuals who are willing to forget about personal ambitions and inter-
ests to accomplish team goals.
The opening quote from Bear Bryant captures exactly this point. A
championship-caliber team cannot exist as a collection of self-interested
individuals. They must be willing to sacrifice their own desires, their own
glory, for the glory of the team. This is so central to the notion of team-
work that we felt obligated and compelled to start this chapter off with
this main point.
We want to be clear, though, that with great teams, self-interest is
still certainly involved. However, it’s what we call enlightened self-interest.
In enlightened self-interest, individual and team goals are aligned. With
enlightened self-interest, the players realize that, in the long-term, short-
term sacrifice on behalf of the team provides long-term benefits for them-
selves. For instance, if the team wins, then they tend to win as well. This
can take the form of extended and more lucrative contracts, greater playing
time, or more exposure on a greater stage. The point is that everyone tends
to win when playing for a winning team. This is a concept that true Patriots
appear to instinctively grasp. And, herein, lies the true definition of a
team—a group of people who share similar goals (e.g., to win a champion-
ship). Unfortunately, these points remain a foreign concept to teams with
Obliterators on them.
Moving the Chains

On and off the gridiron, great teams are composed of Patriots—those
willing to sacrifice their own interests for the good of the team. Make
sure you build your team with Patriots.
LOCKER ROOM INFLUENCE

Academic journals will never be confused with game-day programs.
The same may be said when academic perspectives regarding teamwork
and leadership are compared to the Gridiron Standard.
In academic circles, there is a tendency to classify personalities, indi-
vidual skill sets, and even team types. Teams tend to be broken along
several lines. Most notable is the idea that teams can either be friendship/
relational oriented or task/outcome oriented.
Friendship teams are social animals. People congregate and get to-
gether for the sole purpose of friendship and social support. Many
times, friendship teams or groups are spontaneous and informal. On the
other end of the continuum are task teams. Task teams concern them-
selves with getting the job and task done. These teams have a mental
framework of putting mission above friendships. Predictably, these
teams are a bit more formal and a bit more sterile.
In our experience, and in classic Gridiron Style, the best of teams
are a blend of the two. Actually, the forces are mutually supporting.
Strong friendship and relational roles allow the team to better tackle
the ups and downs of a task. Similarly, a tough goal or task tends to
make relationships and social interaction stronger, not weaker.
Gridiron Leaders can get involved here. Empirical psychological
research shows that individuals tend to gravitate towards the relational
and social or the mission or task perspective—but not both. As individ-
uals, we are predisposed to be either one way or the other. But the true
beauty of teams is that they can be balanced. Knowing this, Gridiron
Leaders should carefully build a team that has both social- and
relational-oriented people, as well as task-driven individuals. There
must be both. A team with just social glue alone isn’t really a team,
but a collection of people at a bar or picnic. Conversely, a team of
task-only people is a place where Johnny would never go because as
Jack Nicholson put it in The Shining—all work and no play can make
Jack a dull boy. We’ve personally borne witness to task-only teams.
Without exception, these teams were models for personal burnout and,
not surprisingly, were riddled with hard and angry feelings.
If we were to examine the truly dynastic franchises, we’d see team
balance between the relational/social and the task perspectives. How
do we know? Largely, because these teams won consistently and tended
to stay together while doing so.
From informal and formal accounts, we know that Steelers running
back Jerome Bettis was a leader within the locker room. Under difficult
and pressure-packed situations, he was good at keeping the locker room
loose. Interestingly, toward the end of his career, Bettis appeared to

change his focus from that of a goal orientation to a relationship orien-
tation. In the 2005 run to the Super Bowl, Bettis was transferring the
starting role of running back to Willie Parker. Parker, an undrafted
speedster out of North Carolina, was concerned with one thing and
one thing only—running the ball and performing his task. Bettis bal-
anced that with relationship-focused activities like befriending and
grooming not only Parker but also Ben Rothlisberger. We won’t bela-
bor the point any further. Suffice to say, Gridiron Leaders must build
teams with both a task and relational component. It can’t be one or
the other. It has to be both.
Moving the Chains

Truly great teams combine social friendships with a collective will to get
the task or job done. Great teams are balanced in their pursuit of both.
In examining teams on and off the gridiron for a combined 75 years

between us, we believe we’ve uncovered some universal truths that apply
to effective team functioning and performance. We discuss many of
these principles below with the aid of some sports metaphors, of course.
BLOCKING ASSIGNMENT
What do sailors on nuclear-powered Navy aircraft carriers, great foot-
ball squads, and the very best organizational teams all share in common?
Threaded through all of them is this notion of a collective mind.
In 1993, Professors Karl Weick and Karlene Roberts published a study
that involved an almost anthropological look at how work gets done on
nuclear-powered Navy aircraft carriers. They were amazed at the intrica-
cies, complexities, and interdependence of operations involved on the
ship. The ship was both dangerous and complex. But time and again, this
nuclear-powered ship would successfully launch and land multi-million
dollar aircraft in a safe and efficient manner. One of their most notable
findings from this study were two concepts termed “collective mind” and
“heedful understanding”—both of which allowed the sailors on this air-
craft carrier to perform safely at a very high level.1
A collective mind is a team mental model. It goes beyond the indi-
vidual. It is as if the team or group had its own conscience, own will,
and own understanding of the competitive situation. Closely related to
this concept is that of heedful understanding. To Weick and Roberts,

the sailors not only knew their own job well, but they also knew the
job of the person to their left and right, upward and downward of them.
Maybe even more important, these sailors had a “heedful under-
standing” of how their job fit with and affected the upstream and
downstream performance of their colleagues and fellow sailors. The
bottom line is that they knew how their job and performance fit into
the larger picture of team and group operations and performance; they
got the bigger picture.
Herein, rests a central truth regarding the most potent teams. Grid-
iron Coaches train, develop, and inspire players to think on a higher,
more global, level. Gridiron Coaches teach how one player’s assignments
affect a series of other players’ assignments. Gridiron Coaches, if you will,
are not entirely unlike spiders. They weave interlocking webs and make
sure that everybody has an understanding of their place in the web and
how they are linked to others. Of course, this involves recruiting unself-
ish, intelligent players that can truly and almost instinctively grasp net-
work operations at a level beyond the individual. But it also involves
repeated communication.
Again, we notice that Bill Belichick seems to do this especially well. His
players seem to grasp how their performance directly and indirectly affects
the performance of other players. If nothing else, Belichick shows all of us
how we can be certain that we’ve obtained this state of a collective mind
and heedful understanding. How? The answer is part Eli Whitney.
Eli Whitney was one of the early fathers of our entire American man-
ufacturing base. Besides inventing the cotton gin, Whitney is also best
known for conceptualizing and then inventing interchangeable parts.
He did it first for the musket. The way we know that we’ve built this col-
lective mind and heedful understanding is the degree to which we can
interchange parts. Belichick has moved linebackers to running backs,
linebackers to tight end positions, and receivers to cornerbacks. What
makes this particularly noteworthy isn’t necessarily the physical skills
that must be transferred. Instead, it is the mental and intellectual skills
that are remarkable. For Belichick’s Patriots, there are linebackers who
know the plays and schemes for running backs and tight ends. To be
sure, this isn’t to say that we should be able to move an accountant to a
marketing position or a human resource leader to a cost analyst position
for any real length of time. However, we should approach the essence of
this concept. Human resources should know well how they fit with and
impact manufacturing, accounting, and marketing and vice versa.
No doubt this is a high and difficult standard to reach. But we’re not talk-
ing about an ordinary team or just a collection of individuals. Rather, we’re
talking about a collective mind and a heedful understanding—hallmarks of

a true Gridiron Team.
Moving the Chains

Great teams develop a mind all of their own. Gridiron coaches help
develop and refine a group’s consciousness.
SIGNAL CALLER
One of the more interesting conversations we had was with a highly
successful high school football coach. The topic was strong teams.
He didn’t waste any time relating his theory: “Without question, the
number one driver of team execution is communication. You can
blindfold me and put me on a sideline, and I can tell you within three
minutes who the better team is even without looking at them.”
We didn’t quite follow, “We’re not tracking here, coach. What do
you mean?”
“I mean that the best teams are chatter boxes before and during the
snap. I can be blind, but if I hear a defense talking and chattering and
communicating in rapid fire as the offense breaks the huddle, I know
somethin’ is goin’ right. When that ball is snapped, if I don’t hear line-
backers screaming at cornerbacks and safeties screaming at linebackers,
I know instantly somethin’s wrong.”
We nodded our heads in agreement. We knew he was right.
He continued, “Look guys, I’ve been doing this for the better half of
a century. Of course, football has changed much since I first suited up,
myself, in the early 1950s. But one thing remains constant, unchanging
decade after decade, and that’s communication. The best teams talk.
They talk with everything—their hands calling out signals and also by
yelling, screaming, and barking. Bottom line, gents: the best teams talk.
The worst teams are silent. That’s why I don’t even have to see ’em.
I just need to hear ’em to know if they’re worth a damn.”
This coach spoke the truth that day, and we all know it. The best
teams, both on and off the gridiron, communicate freely. We’d prob-
ably extend this coach’s philosophy regarding communication. The
communication after the snap, and even after the game is over is
equally important. To us, it seems that formal, informal, social, and
goal oriented communication is continuous with great teams. As Jawor-
ski highlighted in the opening of this chapter, it is the communication
that occurs within the locker room, and off the practice field, too, that
is important. In our experience, one-dimensional communication such

as football-only talk can be found on mediocre teams. Great teams,
instead, enjoy a variety of multi-dimensional communication. Walk
into any locker room. If there’s talk about the weekend mixed with dis-
cussion about a television show last night interspersed with talk about
somebody’s family laced in with some game or tape talk, you know that
both communication channels are open and the team is strong.
To the extent that Gridiron Coaches can influence and even en-
courage rapid, honest, transparent, professional, and personal communi-
cation among teammates, the team will be better for it. There’s little
to argue against here—the best teams are a team of communicators and
the coach is ultimately responsible for manning and fostering these
communication lines.
Moving the Chains

Great teams know how to talk.
SPECIAL TEAMS
UCLA has had some success in football. In 1954, it won a share of
the National Championship. It produced one Heisman winner, Gary
Beban, in 1967. Up through 2008, the UCLA Bruins won their confer-
ence, the PAC-10, 17 times while feeding the NFL some 30 consensus
All-Americans.
Football aside for a moment, maybe the most substantial expert regard-
ing effective teams at UCLA never played on the gridiron. Instead, she
was in the classroom. Her name is Professor Connie Gersick.
Gersick gained some fame of her own by coming up with a model of
team development that is used throughout the world today. One of the
early pioneers and supporters of the Team Stage model, Gersick along
with Bruce Tuckman at Ohio State predicted that teams are not static.
Rather, they are dynamic and go through certain stages and states.
Maybe more important, both Gersick and Tuckman would argue in
their complimentary group models, was how well a team navigated
a stage would predict how well that team would do during their
next stage. Many probably have gotten wind of either Tuckman’s or
Gersick’s model; the stages of Tuckman’s model are more widely known
as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
The stage names speak for themselves. However, we want to focus
for a second on the second stage—the storming stage—because we’ve
seen this stage wreak both havoc or provide wild success depending on
how teams dealt with it.
T.O. REVISITED
Skip Bayless was probably right about Terrell Owens and his impact
on the teams he played for. Owens began his career with the San Fran-
cisco 49ers. Under the leadership of Steve Young and playing alongside
or behind Hall-of-Famer Jerry Rice, Owens kept his feelings to himself
during his early years with the team. This quiet and reserved behavior
is normally associated with newly formed teams or newly hired employees
or teammates. This behavior is consistent with the forming stage. We
would see this trend with Owens and the teams he blended into at San
Francisco, Philadelphia, and Dallas. Initially, everything was quiet. The
quiet never lasted long. It was the quiet before the storm.
The next stage is the storming stage. Here, Terrell Owens seemed to
catapult a team that was either forming or performing back into the
storming stage. Owens would feud regularly with Young’s replacement,
Jeff Garcia, and seemed to be at odds with 49ers coach, Steve Mariucci.
(Soon after Owens left the 49ers for the Eagles, Owens would publicly
comment on the manhood and sexuality of quarterback, Jeff Garcia, in
a widely circulated Playboy interview.) Once in this storming stage, the
49ers never seemed to get out. Actually, they probably retreated. For
five or six years after, the 49ers reverted back to the forming stage, con-
stantly reinventing themselves and trying to find their identity. The
49ers never really made it past the storming stage with Owens, and the
team was worse off for it.
Things started similarly in Philadelphia. The first year, the forming
year, of the Terrell Owens–Eagles teaming relationship went better than
expected. The Eagles won 13 of their first 14 games with Owens averag-
ing a touchdown per game. With two or three games left in the season,
Dallas Cowboys safety, Roy Williams, did a horse-collar tackle on
Owens, which fractured his fibula. In all of the escapades surrounding
Owens, many fans forget what transpired next. Supposedly out for the
remainder of the season, Owens announced that he would play no mat-
ter what in the Super Bowl if the Eagles made it. And made it they did.
Owens was a bright spot during that game in which the Eagles lost to
the Patriots; he would finish the game with nine catches for 122 yards.
The storming would come almost immediately after the Super Bowl.
Owens first suggested that the media response to his bravery was tepid
and that Brett Favre would have been considered a hero for doing what
Owens had done. Next, Owens ripped Donovan McNabb for getting
tired toward the end of the Super Bowl. Things were further aggravated
when Owens was denied permission to play in a summer basketball
league affiliated with the NBA Sacramento Kings. Bad blood was fur-
ther spilled when Owens and his new agent, Drew Rosenhaus, tried
unsuccessfully to lobby the Eagles for a new contract. During his second
season with the club, Owens was suspended four games without pay
and, ultimately, deactivated for the rest of the season. Owens would be
released in the off-season and join the Cowboys franchise. It would
take the Eagles some time to fully emerge from the storming stage and
to re-enter the performing stage.
By now, this may be reading a bit like Groundhog Day. Owens and his
impact on his new team would be replicated almost perfectly with the
Dallas Cowboys. The year 2006 started slowly, and there were some
instances of locker room tirades. However, Owens would rebound the fol-
lowing season and would help guide the Cowboys to the playoffs, where
they would lose a close game to the eventual champions, the New York
Giants. In 2008, Owens would feud openly both in private and through
the media with coaches, quarterback Tony Romo, and tight end Jason
Witten. So much so, the Cowboys released Owens during the off-season.
Gridiron Leaders should understand several key aspects of the storm-
ing stage. First, it is almost impossible to avoid, and leaders should
resist the temptation to ignore team conflict or the desire to suppress
team conflict. Believe it or not, conflict, if managed properly, can make
the team stronger. And every team we’ve ever known, both in and out-
side of sports, dealt with some form of conflict. We’d even go as far to
say that there’s something deeply wrong with a team or organization
that has no conflict. Second, our experience tells us that the storming
stage can get worse during periods of intense pressure and competition.
Under extreme pressure to succeed, some people buckle and others
might blame. Third, conflict in the storming stage tends to surface
around the internal jockeying over the leadership role. Until a formal
or informal leader is agreed upon, it is likely that the storming will get
worse. Gridiron Leaders can help here by backing a particular leader—
whether formal or informal. This informal leader tends, but isn’t
always, the quarterback. Coincidentally, Andy Reid, the head coach of
the Philadelphia Eagles, came under some criticism for not backing
more quickly or strongly his quarterback, Donovan McNabb, during
the feud with Terrell Owens. Without a clear mandate for a leader
within the locker room, the team remained divided. Finally, the old
adage stating that which does not kill you makes you stronger certainly
applies. Those teams capable of navigating through and dealing with
conflict will go on to the next stage—the performing stage.
Interestingly, the Terrell Owens case highlights many of the charac-

teristics mentioned above. The conflict got worse because the competi-
tion was fierce and expectations were high. The informal leader was
never fully vetted and fleshed out. Unfortunately, the teams associated
with Terrell Owens had a rough time exiting through the storming
stage. We’ll talk more in a moment on what coaches can do to build a
strong team that can get through the worst of storms.
Before we close on this topic, we want to highlight a quick story.
Several years ago, we attended a two-a-day practice at a regional uni-
versity. At a point during practice, one of the assistant coaches
launched into Oklahoma drills, which are football’s version of cock-
fighting. Oklahoma drills pit two players in a type of mortal combat
within a confined space. The purpose of this drill is to teach defenders
to shed a block and then to make a tackle, usually on a running back.
During one particular vicious hit, a fight broke out between the two
players. We were standing by the head coach who initially did nothing.
After several seconds, we couldn’t help but ask.
“What are you waiting for?”
Through his dark sunglasses, he responded quickly, “I’m goin’ to let
these boys scrap a bit.”
We were confused, “What? Why?”
“I’m not going to let them hurt themselves. But I’ll give ’em another
30 seconds before I break it up. Let ’em get some steam out. Obviously,
there’s some frustrations out there. It’s never good to keep those frustra-
tions bottled in. Conflict is one way to deal with these frustrations.”
A similar scene was replicated with Denzel Washington in the classic
football movie, Remember the Titans. Just as in the movie, it seems the best
coaches have a knack of allowing a certain level of conflict without it
destroying the team. That should be the goal of every Gridiron Leader.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders manage conflict; they don’t succumb to it or try to avoid it.
HALFBACK OR FULLBACK?
Lorenzo Neal is and will forever be a fullback. But nobody really
likes fullbacks, do they? How out of favor are fullbacks you may ask. In
2001, not a single fullback was drafted. In the year prior, only one full-
back was taken. Terrelle Smith was drafted in the fourth round from
Arizona State by the New Orleans Saints. In the year after, again, only
a single fullback was taken. And again, he was taken in the fourth
round. Jamar Martin was a bruising fullback taken out of Ohio State by
the Dallas Cowboys.
Not only do teams not like fullbacks, but we’re not sure if fullbacks
like other fullbacks. The fact is that there’s really just a couple of
Lorenzo Neals out there.
The fullback position is a tough role to play for many reasons. The
fullback is responsible for two primary duties. First, and maybe most
important, the fullback is the lead blocker for the halfback or tailback.
The fullback is to put a hit on a defensive lineman or a linebacker to
create a hole for the halfback to scurry through. The fullback is really a
human Bangalore torpedo. A Bangalore torpedo is a tool usually used
by elite U.S. Army Engineers, called Sappers. The Bangalore is a piece
of metal pipe filled with an explosive that is used to blow a hole and
create a path through an obstacle—usually concertina wire. And that’s
exactly what a fullback is. They’re a human torpedo, meant to break
the line for others to get through. It is painful and certainly not glam-
orous. In our record and statistical analysis, we never found a single
fullback in modern NFL history who rushed for more than 500 yards in
a given season. The secondary duty of the fullback is to block blitzing
defensive players who are trying to get to the quarterback.
Let’s return to Lorenzo Neal for a minute. We’re not sure whether
he knows this, but we believe that Lorenzo Neal is an inspirational
force as it applies to teams and teamwork. Lorenzo Neal is probably
one of the top two or three fullbacks to put on pads over the last
30 years. There’s a reason that Lorenzo Neal earned four invites to the
Pro Bowl and three All-Pro selections.
More than anything, Neal knew what his role was and accepted his
role without question or reservation. You need both ingredients. There
are plenty of people out there who know what their role should be, but
refuse to accept or be satisfied with it. Interestingly, Neal had a role
that is shunned by many others. As mentioned before, Neal’s job and
role were to perform the duties of fullback to the best of his ability.
This required him to essentially serve others who would often get the
glory behind his hard work. Take a moment to look at what Lorenzo
Neal did for others. In 1997, he blocked for Jets running back Adrian
Murrell who would eclipse the 1,000-yard mark. The very next year for
the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, he would clear holes for scat back, Warrick
Dunn, who would also surpass the 1,000-yard mark. The following
years, under the service of the Tennessee Titans, Lorenzo Neal would
make Eddie George a future Hall of Famer by creating wide running
lanes for George to lumber through. In 1999 and 2000, Eddie George
had great years—running for more than 1,300 yards in both years. The
next year, at Cincinnati, he would perform his role well again. With
Neal leading the way, Corey Dillon would also rush for more than
1,300 yards in two consecutive seasons. However, some of Lorenzo
Neal’s best years were when he was a Charger blocking for future Hall
of Famer, LaDainian Tomlinson. It would be the fifth 1,000-yard back
that Neal would block for. It isn’t coincidence that those were also
some of LaDainian’s best years as well.
All organizations have someone like Lorenzo Neal. Someone that
performs a role vital to success, even though the job is unglamorous or
is underrated. We knew a senior manager in a Fortune 500 company
who was known by many titles. Officially, he was the chief of staff to
one of the company’s vice presidents, but to most he was simply known
as the “slide guy” or other derogatory variations of that nickname. Most
saw him as the person that put together the vice president’s PowerPoint
slides, but his role went far beyond that. He would take the executive’s
concepts and turn them into tangible visions. After the executive team
generated creative ideas, he would be the one that followed up to make
sure things got done, diligently tracking deliverables and metrics, or
doing the legwork. When there was an undesirable project, he usually
got stuck with it. He was the admin-on-steroids, the one that could
herd cats, the corporate firefighter, problem solver of the unfixable, and
the underappreciated slide guy.
When we asked him why he wasn’t on Monster.com looking for
another job, he only laughed.
“Don’t tell anyone,” he joked, “but I actually like my job. When I
was a project manager years ago I always volunteered to take the proj-
ects no one else wanted. Maybe it was the satisfaction of doing a good
job on something no one else could or would do. There’s some personal
satisfaction in doing something that others didn’t want to touch.
I know many others wouldn’t want my current job. Many couldn’t do
my job. I know that, and I know people value me because of it.”
The lesson here is rather simple and straightforward. As mentioned
before, understanding your role is essential in creating this collective
mind and heedful understanding. But that isn’t quite enough. You also
need players on your team who are satisfied with their role and who are
willing to perform their job to the best of their abilities even if that
means the job isn’t pretty and is without glory. When examining the
Lorenzo Neal case, the starkness of this lesson is evident. It is still
unclear and fairly unlikely that Lorenzo Neal will make the Hall of
Fame. But during his career, he ensured that at least two of the backs
he blocked for (Tomlinson and George) would be a lock for Canton,

with Warrick Dunn and Corey Dillon also possibilities. The unselfish-
ness and willingness to do his job meant that the running backs that
he blocked for would get more yards, more touchdowns, and more
money. Still, he did his job. The leadership imperative for Gridiron
Leaders is to find people like Lorenzo Neal to build a strong team—
people who not only know their role but also accept it unequivocally.
Moving the Chains

Getting through the storm stage is a bit easier when you have players
who know and accept their roles on behalf of the team.
WILDCARD
When it comes to teambuilding, we’ve found that one of the wild-
cards that a leader owns and controls is that of recognition. In any
team, anywhere, and just like the Lorenzo Neal story above, there’s
usually only a slight few that receive the glory. This is unfortunate
since one person’s glory is often built on the backs and shoulders of a
great support staff like Lorenzo Neal. The trick then is for leaders to
spread some of that glory around by recognizing the unrecognizable.
Keeping with the fullback theme, Jerome Bettis was an informal
leader for the Steelers who truly understood the value of recognizing
the unrecognizable. Bettis made it a practice to buy a ticket to Hawaii
for the fullback that blocked for him whenever Bettis made the Pro-
Bowl as a running back. The thousand or so dollars in expense is more
symbolic than anything else. What Bettis did with this free trip to
Hawaii for fullbacks like Dan Kreider or Chris Fuamatu-Ma’afala spoke
volumes about recognizing the efforts of others in his success. This is
great leadership. It brings a team together and it shows that the support
staff and personnel aren’t really “support.” Rather, they’re essential and
the team can’t win without them. Leaders like Bettis instinctively
understand this. Again, this is more than great leadership. It is Gridiron
Leadership.
Before moving on, we want to highlight that Gridiron Leaders can
extend this concept of recognizing the unrecognizable by applying it to
more than a single person. Feel free to apply it to teams or squads. One
quick example here.
In a ten-year span from 1995 through 2004, the Denver Broncos pro-
duced six different running backs that surpassed the 1,000-yard mark.
Maybe more impressive, not a single one of those running backs were
first round picks. These backs include: Terrell Davis (1995–1998; sixth-
round pick), Olandis Gary (1999; fourth-round pick), Mike Anderson
(2000, sixth-round pick), Clinton Portis (2002–2003; second-round
pick), Reuben Droughns (2004; third-round pick of the Lions), and
Tatum Bell (2006; second-round pick). While the running back situa-
tion always remained fluid in Denver, the offensive line did not. A hall-
mark of the Mike Shanahan era was his emphasis on the offensive line.
And while the media didn’t always focus on them as a squad, Shanahan
repeatedly did. Shanahan knew how to recognize the unrecognizable.
Moving the Chains

Recognize those that usually receive little recognition. The appreciation
and accolades will increase team cohesion and make team members
perform even better.
NO MISTAKEN IDENTITY
As we examine the mediocre, good, and great teams, a theme begins
to emerge that seems to explain the performance difference between
teams. In our analysis of special teams on and off the gridiron, we found
that with the very best teams, there was no mistaken identity. Just the
opposite. These teams knew who they were, what they were supposed to
do, and what they stood for. And the Gridiron Leader influences those
feelings along the way. We offer a couple of examples. Maybe the best
place to begin is where we left off with Mike Shanahan and the Denver
Broncos.
Shortly after Shanahan arrived in Denver, he instituted a tradition
in which the offensive linemen refused to talk to the media. It was a
simple sign of solidarity. By keeping silent, no one player from the of-
fensive line would take the spotlight and become more visible than the
others; the offensive linemen would be perceived as a team and not
individuals. This served as a cohesive bond amongst the offensive line-
men and became a point of pride for the entire team.
Leaders can further use symbols and names to compliment traditions
to promote this sense of identity.
In the mid-1990s, the moniker Desert Swarm was applied to the
University of Arizona Wildcat defense. The name, alone, seemed to
inspire by giving an identity to a defense and a university that was
known for their basketball way more than their football. This shared
identity would pay off—Arizona would smother and shut-out a talented
Miami Hurricane team in the Fiesta Bowl on New Year’s Day, 1994, 29-0.
The Steel Curtain defense of the 1970s’ Pittsburgh Steelers squad
became the team’s identity. Besides providing an identity and sense of
purpose that would result in four Super Bowls during that decade, the
identity seemed to stick. To this day, the Steelers value a vicious and
unrelenting defense first characterized by the Steel Curtain label.
Gridiron Leaders wield tremendous influence and power in shaping a
team’s identity. Not only do they use symbols, names, and traditions to
build a team’s identity, they also shape a team’s identity through their
willingness to stand up for and defend these traditions and symbols.
One more notable example regarding the use of symbols to inspire
identity occurred in June 2001. During that month, Army Chief of
Staff, General Eric Shinseki, ordered the U.S. Army to switch headgear
to black berets. At that time, only units such as the Army’s Special
Forces, airborne units, and the Army Rangers wore the distinctive
headgear and the beret had become a symbol of a unit’s elite status.
The change to allow all soldiers to wear the black beret was to symbolize
the Army’s transformation from a Cold War legacy to a new, adaptive
force that could meet the challenges of the new millennia. This was
unthinkable to many, including the 75th Ranger Regiment. This elite
force was the only one that had worn the black beret. Not surprisingly,
they took offense that other Army units would wear headgear that was
symbolic of the pride and warrior spirit of the Rangers. Few, however,
could anticipate the incredible resistance that current and former Rangers
would levy at the Department of the Army, in general, and, General
Shinseki, in particular. For instance, retired Rangers launched nationwide
marches to Washington D.C. as a form of protest.
On the surface, this may seem a lot like insubordination. But we
sense something more. The level and depth of outrage illustrate some-
thing positive—not negative. The 75th Ranger Regiment owned,
guarded, and would defend their shared identity. Many inside (and
some outside) the Rangers knew that this shared identity was the cohe-
sive glue that enabled, even encouraged, Rangers to commit acts of
selfless bravery. To many civilians, it probably seemed quite silly. After
all, this was just a piece of nylon headgear. Those in the know, how-
ever, understood it was so much more. It was a symbol; it was part of
their identity. And it was this identity that led to cohesion. And it was
this cohesion that drove the remarkable, dangerous, and heroic per-
formance of the 75th Ranger Regiment over time and across borders.
Unfortunately for the Rangers, the policy was not overturned.
However, several months after General Shinseki’s decision the Rangers

won a small victory and were able to change their beret color from
black to tan to ensure they maintained their distinct identity.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders foster a sense of team identity. It is the invisible driver
of team performance.
FLYING HIGH
We end this chapter with a short anecdote we heard about South-
west Airlines. The airline is one of the largest, and most successful, in
the United States and consistently has some of the highest customer
satisfaction ratings in the industry. Some may credit Southwest’s strat-
egy for its success—a low-cost model that primarily operates only one
type of aircraft (Boeing 737) and departs from traditional hub-
and-spoke flight routing systems in favor of a point-to-point that brings
the carrier into secondary airports in most major cities. We, however,
think there is more to their success than their cheap fares. And we believe
that this anecdote summarizes many of the themes we have discussed.
We once were told a story of a business traveler that fell asleep in
his aisle seat during his flight. When he woke, he was startled to see a
flight officer in full uniform standing in front of him.
“Can I get you anything?” the flight officer asked with a smile. The
business traveler asked for water and the flight officer quickly retrieved
a couple of bottles from the galley. Still groggy from his nap, the trav-
eler could only muster a thank-you and watch the flight officer con-
tinue down the aisle offering to help other passengers.
So impressed with the flight officer, the traveler followed him to the
back of the plane and approached the flight officer as he was taking his
seat. The flight officer was deadheading; that is, catching a flight back
to the airport where he would board another plane to join the crew.
When asked why he was walking up and down the aisle helping passen-
gers, the flight officer simply laughed. He liked meeting the passengers
and giving the other crew members a break. He saw it as his job regard-
less if he was part of the crew on that specific plane.
You see, the flight officer didn’t have to do anything. He was not a
flight attendant and wasn’t required to wait on anyone. He wasn’t even
part of that flight crew. He didn’t need to do anything but sit in his
seat like other passengers and relax until he got to his destination. But
he wanted to help out.
It’s a simple example, but it’s a telling story about the organization.
Southwest Airlines has built a playoff team. The company has found
team players that can place the organization’s goals (customer satisfac-
tion) above their own personal ambitions (relaxing on a deadhead
flight). These team players are willing to perform other roles outside
their own job description for the benefit of the company. Handing out
bottles of water may not be sexy, but it is appealing to these team
members that care about their customers. We’re sure this flight officer
also fostered a strong bond with other members of the flight crew by
helping out and, perhaps, the flight officer was thinking broadly about
how his actions could, in a small way, impact the overall perception of
Southwest. We won’t lie and tell you that finding team members like
this flight officer is easy, but if you do, you’ll soon find yourself soaring
over the competition.
TIP DRILL
1. Build the team. We live in a world of teams. Leaders and organ-
izations that can build strong, cohesive, and motivated teams
will enjoy a sustained performance advantage over others.
Cohesive teams will always execute better, faster, and stronger
than a mere collection of individuals. Ensure the team is bal-
anced between being relationship and task oriented. That is, fos-
ter strong bonds among team members and ensure those
relationships are valued, but also make sure the team is focused
or structured to achieve specific goals.
2. Find your patriots. Hiring managers and leaders should look for
individuals who are willing to place the goals of the team or
organization above their personal ambitions and interests, or at
least find those that see how achieving team goals will help
accomplish their own personal goals. Also, find players who will
be satisfied in their role and who are willing to perform their job
to the best of their abilities even if that means the job isn’t
pretty and is without glory.
3. Train and develop team members to think at a broader level.
As a leader, help the team develop a collective mind, creating
a common consciousness or understanding of the competitive
situation. Team members should not only know their own job
well, but also know the job of the team members around them.
Within the best teams, members have an understanding of how
their job fits into the bigger picture and how their individual
performance impacts the group.
4. Manage conflict. Don’t ignore or try to suppress team conflict.
Conflict, if managed properly, can make the team stronger.
Gridiron Leaders can help here by backing a particular leader—
whether formal or informal. Allow members to vent if needed,
but know when to intervene. Don’t tolerate team obliterators
and those that care nothing for the team and don’t allow con-
flict to spin out of control.
5. Create an identity. The best teams know who they are, what
they’re supposed to do, and what they stand for. The leader
influences those feelings along the way. Promote the team’s
sense of identify and encourage team members to stand up and
guard that identity.
NOTE
1. Karl E. Weick and Karlene H. Roberts, “Collective Mind in Organizations:
Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks,” Administrative Science Quarterly 38
(1993), 357–381.
9
A CULTURE OF WINNING
The Bears are who we thought they were! . . . Now, if you wanna crown
them, then crown their ass! But they are who we thought they were, and
we let ’em off the hook.
—former Arizona Cardinals Coach Dennis Green, immediately after
a 2006 Monday Night Football loss to the Chicago Bears
We end Gridiron Leadership on the important topic of creating, build-

ing, and sustaining dynastic, championship cultures. Maybe the best
way for us to end is to look at another ending. Specifically, the end of
the 2008 NFL season played out in spectacular theater between Pitts-
burgh and Arizona. These stories and histories of these two teams offer
tremendous insight into how to change, build, and maintain high per-
formance cultures that we can all put into practice.
We start with the Arizona Cardinals. By examining their magical
journey all the way to Super Bowl XLIII, we can learn several lessons
on how to first, and foremost, change a culture.
A high school coach once remarked to us that some teams somehow
never learn how to win. He went on to argue that some organizations
will either learn winning or will learn losing. And once it is learned,
it’s difficult to change. The Arizona Cardinals were a team that seemed
only to know how to lose. The opening quote is a powerful indicator of
the gravitational pull of a culture of losing. In this particular game
played on October 16, 2006, before a national, prime-time audience on
Monday night, the Cardinals surged to a 20-point lead over the heavily
favored and Super Bowl-bound Chicago Bears. But on their home field
and in front of a nationally televised audience of several million,
the Cardinals would surrender 24 points to the Bears. With about
157
40 seconds left, one-time Pro Bowl kicker Neil Rackers missed a

41-yard field goal that would’ve cemented the win for Arizona. Not-
withstanding this monumental collapse, the most memorable portion of
the evening erupted from the Arizona coach at the time, Dennis
Green. He would launch into a profanity-laced tirade with reporters in
the post-game press conference. Many of us thought that Arizona, a
team who last won a championship in 1947, had developed a culture of
losing too embedded, too deep, and too toxic ever to amount to any-
thing in the NFL. The very next day, we heard a radio announcer men-
tion that parity now existed in the NFL. In any given season, any team
could win the Super Bowl unless, he paused, you had a cactus in your
backyard. But Arizona did improve. They were able to right the ship in
a way and manner that deserves the respect and admiration of not only
every football fan, but also of every organizational leader or scholar.
Very simply, there’s a ton we can learn from how the Arizona Cardi-
nals were able to turn things around.
OUTSIDE THE LINES

When teams or organizations are in a funk, the first maxim is to go
outside the lines. And what we mean by this is that it’s okay to experi-
ment and mix things up in an effort to reverse a culture of losing.
When a team or organization is losing and losing consistently, it means
historical and current attempts are not getting results. The charge then
is to get creative and to push the boundaries a bit. Arizona did just
that. After the team moved to Arizona from St. Louis, the Cardinals
went through a series of coaches, Raider-style. The Cardinals went
through eight coaches from 1988 through 2008 including the likes of
Gene Stallings, Vince Tobin, Joe Bugel, Dennis Green, and Buddy
Ryan. Bill Bidwell, the longtime owner of the Cardinals, seemed to
hire slow, but fire fast. If the hire didn’t work out, he canned him and
tried for another. The key and critical difference between this strategy
and the Raider coaching carousel is that Bidwell, unlike Al Davis,
wasn’t canning winners like Shanahan, Gruden, or Art Shell. Gruden
and Shanahan would go on to lead other teams to championships. Not
a single Arizona coach that left went on to coach again with any
meaningful results. Finally, Bidwell settled on Ken Whisenhunt, the
former offensive coordinator for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Here, he found
a winner. The lesson here, though, is straightforward. Sometimes it
takes a series of trials and error before finding the missing variable or
missing set of variables to turn things around.
A Culture of Winning 159
BUDDY BALL REDUX

We’ve already mentioned Buddy Ryan and his colorful persona.
Almost immediately after arriving in Phoenix as the Cardinals’ new
coach, Ryan told the media, “You’ve got a winner in town.” Buddy
Ryan was just a bit premature in his celebration. He would go 12 wins
and 20 losses over two seasons before Bidwell fired him. But, we love
the concept. To build a winning team, you must find individuals
who’ve won before and know how to win. On Arizona’s meteoric rise
to Super Bowl XLIII, we see something conspicuously absent from prior
Arizona football teams—a core group that had experience in winning
and who’d experienced the pressure and the demands required of win-
ning at the very highest levels of the game. On the coaching staff
besides the head coach, Ken Whisenhunt, was Russ Grimm, assistant
head coach and offensive line coach. Both men had experience in win-
ning, both in the coaching and playing roles. Whisenhunt and Grimm
were offensive masterminds for the Pittsburgh Steelers, propelling the
team to a victory over the Seattle Seahawks in Super Bowl XL. Grimm,
himself, knew how to win as a player; he was one of the Washington
Redskins offensive lineman referred to as “the Hogs” and won three
Super Bowls as an offensive lineman under Redskins coaching legend,
Joe Gibbs. Add to that two special players in the form of Edgerrin
James and Kurt Warner and the Cardinals were off to a good start.
Edgerrin James was the former All-Pro running back from the India-
napolis Colts. While Edgerrin never made it to the Super Bowl with
the Colts, he was on a team that won and won consistently with the
help and leadership of Peyton Manning. By our count, Edgerrin played
in nine playoff games prior to joining the Cardinals.
Kurt Warner was and will continue to be a winner on many levels—
not just the least of which is football. Warner knew how to turn around
poorly performing programs. As quarterback for the St. Louis Rams, he
along with Dick Vermeil took a team that struggled for many years to
the Super Bowl twice (once with coach, Mike Martz). Prior to joining
the Cardinals, Warner racked up two NFL MVPS, two Super Bowl vis-
its, one Super Bowl win, and one Super Bowl MVP.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of bringing in winners to
an organization. Especially for young organizations or teams that have
never known winning. People like Grimm, Whisenhunt, Warner, and
James add immediate credibility and legitimacy. Other teams have
done the same thing. Steve McNair showed Baltimore how to win
again after leaving Tennessee. He led them to a 13-3 record and first in
the AFC North shortly after his arrival. And Joe Montana did the same
for Kansas City after leaving San Francisco by leading the Chiefs to an
11-5 record and first in the AFC West. In every case, their resumes and
their examples helped propel others to win. With this role modeling
and experience sharing, a culture can begin to change. The greatest
evidence of this may just be the 2008 Arizona Cardinals.
Moving the Chains

Bring in people that know how to win to an organization.
GAME OF INCHES
On first blush, it may seem that a culture is too big, too abstract, too
metaphysical to really change at all. Ironically, though, we’ve found
that it’s the small things, the tactics at the margins that can, at least,
start to make a culture difference. It’s the small stuff, the inches, which
add up to change a culture.
Again, let’s examine Arizona. In spring 2005, Bidwell seemed to reach
for the mundane by announcing a uniform change. More specifically, Bid-
well didn’t think the bird on the helmet, which had been in place since
1960, was mean enough. So, Bidwell ordered a meaner, sleeker, more
menacing bird on the helmet. In a nod to a culture shift, Bidwell noted,
“Hopefully, it will be worn by tougher and faster and meaner players.”1
Call us crazy, but we call this a step in the right direction. Leading
scholars and researchers of organizational culture note that symbols and
language can constitute the core of an organization. Since the uniform
and mascot are symbols, this is a natural place to start. For Bidwell and
the Cardinals, this was particularly important since the “old bird” was
consistently and continually mocked throughout the league, often
referred to as a parakeet.
Sometimes, the change of a symbol can be dramatic. In our experi-
ence, when a clean break is needed to clearly demarcate the old from
the new culture, a more dramatic symbol change is in order. The
Tampa Bay Buccaneers are a prime example of this. For years, the Buc-
caneers wore an orange and white uniform with a “swashbuckling”
pirate on the helmet. The logo or mascot also had a knife clenched
between his teeth. This mascot became the ridicule of the NFL. All
kinds of remarks ranging from the absurd to the obscene fell at the feet
of this swashbuckling pirate named Bruce the Buccaneer or Bucco
Bruce. More important, though, the logo soon came to signify and rep-
resent a franchise in disarray and in continual decline.
In 1997, there was a move to not only remove Bucco Bruce, but to
undertake a change of team colors. Moving away from the “Creamsicle”
orange and white, the Bucs moved to more intimidating colors: red,
pewter, black, and orange. Instead of Bruce the Buccaneer, the team
moved to a skull and crossbones look. Not only did they change the
colors, and the logo, the team also changed the lettering to a more
Gothic style. Remarkably and consistent with Raider ownership and
management, a lawsuit was launched by the Raiders on the Bucs’s new
uniforms based on trademark infringement. The Raiders would also
attempt to bring suit against the Carolina Panthers who also used the
Raiders colors of silver and black. Anyway, even for throwback games,
where teams will wear vintage uniforms, the Bucs have refused to
return to the past by donning the orange and white with Bucco Bruce.
Consider the facts for yourself. From 1976, the first year in the
League for Tampa Bay, to 1996, the Bucs made the playoffs just 3 times
in that 20-year span. After the uniform and symbol change, the Bucs
would go on to the playoffs seven times and would win the Super Bowl
in 2002 (XXXVII). Of course, we can’t directly attribute these successes
to these dramatic changes in symbols. Other factors are at work. But
we can’t dismiss them out of hand, either. Again, it’s what the symbol
change represents—a clean break from the old culture of losing to the
new spirit of winning that is of primary importance.
If the Steelers could weigh in, here, they’d agree. The Steelers are a
team built on symbols and logos and all that they mean and imply.
The black and gold of the Steelers are important colors; throughout
the country people associate the black and gold with the team. The
Steelers logo on the helmet is based on the “Steelmark” which was the
original logo for U.S. Steel. The colors of the hypocycloids, the dia-
monds with inward curving edges, signify the steel-making process—
yellow stands for coal, orange for iron ore, and blue for scrap steel. In a
game of toughness and discipline, the Steelers logo connotes the most
gritty and hard of all manufacturing processes—the making of steel.
That toughness seems to carry on to this day on the gridiron. Finally,
the Steelers wave a black and gold “Terrible Towel” that was designed
and dreamed of by legendary local broadcaster, Myron Cope. The
Towel is often waved in frenzied fashion and is a symbol of the cohe-
sion and toughness of the Steelers Nation.
The point is that leaders can manipulate, change, and alter small
things—like logos, uniforms, and language to begin to change the
meaning of a culture.
Think this is only possible in the world of sports? There are exam-
ples of how leaders use symbols to create culture in almost every type
of organization. One notable example in the corporate world is con-

sumer electronics manufacturer, Apple. Apple has long been known for
its intense work atmosphere, corporate casual style, and individualistic
nature. Much of the culture appears to emanate from the personality of
cofounder Steve Jobs, but the company has also used symbols in the
past to reinforce their culture and values.
According to Silicon Valley folklore, Jobs told the team developing
the Macintosh that it was “better to be a pirate than join the navy”
during an off-site meeting in 1983. Jobs feared that the burgeoning
team was already becoming too bureaucratic. Jobs famously founded
Apple in the shadow of corporate giants like IBM and wanted to ensure
the company retained its rebellious nature. Programmers Steve Capps
and Susan Kare quickly created a pirate flag—skull and crossbones with
the Apple logo as an eye patch—and hung it over the team’s newly
occupied building. The flag remained over the Mac team building for
over a year and was even photographed with the team in Fortune maga-
zine. The pirate flag became the symbol for the independent spirit of
the team and how it differentiated itself from the competition.
The military is also known for its use of symbols or other mecha-
nisms to change organizational culture. Many years ago we came across
a story about a U.S. Army company commander who was about to take
over one of the worst-performing intelligence companies in the brigade.
His charge was to improve this lot of misfits. His actions within the
first 48 hours are telling. First, he replaced or, essentially, fired his first
sergeant. This is important and is indirectly related to the argument
above about bringing in winners. Before you bring in winners, it is nec-
essary to remove the losers. We often see this in the corporate world
when poorly performing companies will sack the CEO in exchange for
a fresh face and an opportunity to change. This is often a sad, but true,
aspect of changing organizational culture; it requires a change in
leadership.
The second action that this company commander took was to give
the company of 100 or more soldiers a name. For years, they were only
known as Alpha Company. The new company commander understood
that meant nothing. He called a company formation and pulled out
some T-shirts and hats with the name “Jackals” on it. Forever more, he
told the unit, they’d be known as Jackals, and it was important to pro-
tect and support your fellow Jackals. Embedded in this choice of names
are several meanings. Jackals travel in packs. They are cautious, but
aggressive. They are survivors and creative scavengers. They are sly.
T-shirts and hats and a new name aren’t, by any stretch, a cure-all
for an organization’s problems. What it does do, and what it did in this
case, is give a group an identity. That’s important because people tend

to want to work for teams, groups, organizations, or companies that
stand for something. People psychologically latch on to an identity and
the very best Gridiron Leaders are skilled at creating and fostering a
team with a collective identity. During the research for this book, we
reached out to this former company commander, who is now a year shy
of being promoted to the rank of colonel. According to him, thirteen
years after he renamed this company the Jackals, the name continues
to stick. And the company is no longer the bottom dweller in the bri-
gade. During and ever since his departure, the company has performed
in the top third of all units in the brigade.
And, again, Arizona’s got experience here too. After leaving
St. Louis in 1987, in 1988 the Cardinals became the Phoenix Cardinals.
However, this name was limiting, and in 1994 the Phoenix Cardinals
expanded their fan base by becoming the Arizona Cardinals, much in the
same way it is the New England Patriots as opposed to the Boston
Patriots.
Of course, in isolation, a name change here, a change in leadership
there, a uniform modification here could never change an entire cul-
ture in and by itself. But there’s an interaction effect. When these
small variables are put together, some synergy builds and it can take a
life all of its own. Many are in complete disbelief that the Cardinals
made it to Super Bowl XLIII. We can see, however, that the wheels
were put in motion awhile back. The trick for the Cardinals will be to
maintain and sustain.
Moving the Chains

Many small steps can quickly add up to a large leap forward for culture
change.
OFFENSIVE . . . LANGUAGE
Next time within your team or organization, stand quiet for a second
and what do you hear? Listen to the language being spoken. Like sym-
bols, logos, and names, the words we speak become the brick and mor-
tar for both strong and weak cultures. Is the language defeatist? Is it
negative? Does it blame? Does it gossip? These are words that invaria-
bly lead to a culture of repetitive losing.
We prefer offensive language. That is, language that goes on the
offensive. Leaders use offensive language when the words they use are
inspiring, positive, blame-free, frank, simple, and forward looking. Mike

Tomlin, the youngest coach ever to win a Super Bowl and current
Pittsburgh Steelers coach, is a great case study in the use of offensive
language.
Mike Tomlin told USA Today that “people aren’t very good listeners
by nature” and “part of being a good communicator is recognizing and
understanding that and trying to make the complex simple.” One of
Tomlin’s favorite lines is from the movie Glory where he tells his play-
ers “the time’s coming when we’re going to have to ante up and kick
in like men.” Tomlin’s other great lines as reported by the USA Today
is “I’ll tolerate you until I can replace you, and iron sharpens iron.”2
These statements of few words convey great meaning. Tomlin, like
other successful Gridiron Leaders use language, use words, to communi-
cate and transfer concepts such as motivation, performance excellence,
toughness, and winning. There is also a bit of contagion at work here.
When leaders use defeatist, depressing, or negative language, it is
picked up and circulated throughout the organization many, many
times over. The trick, then, is to use and transfer positive energy by
the very words we use throughout the organization. And, by the way,
very few do it better than Lombardi who seemed to offer the perfect
quote at the perfect time.
Moving the Chains

Great leaders use words as a special type of symbol to inspire and drive
culture change.
HELMET DECALS
Ever notice what’s on the back of Ohio State helmets or the helmets
of Florida State Seminole football players? At Ohio State, players are
awarded Buckeye decals that go on the helmet for particularly good
performance on the gridiron or practice field. Players on these teams
covet these buckeye stickers and are willing to exert tremendous effort
and the desired behavior to earn one of these decals. Frank Beamer
and defensive coordinator Bud Foster do something similar at Virginia
Tech with the lunch pail. For years, the defensive MVP of the previous
week’s game was awarded a beaten old lunch pail. For most anyone
else, a beaten and bruised lunch pail means nothing. But at Virginia
Tech, it means a great deal because it symbolizes the worker’s mental-
ity: a blue-collar style of working hard. Like the decals for the programs
mentioned above, players go all out, all of the time, for the privilege to
carry around the lunch pail. Take, for instance, Darryl Tapp. Darryl
Tapp was a vaulted defensive end for the Hokies who won the lunch
pail early on in his career. He kept it every week for two years by con-
sistently outworking others on and off the field. It became such an im-
portant part of Tapp’s persona that he was allowed to take the pail
with him when he was drafted in the early rounds of the 2006 draft by
the Seattle Seahawks.
Here, again, we’ve got two very important lessons—one new, one
old. We are reminded about the power and the use of symbols to create
and foster a high performance culture. It is hard to believe that a 15-
cent decal or a beaten old lunch pail could drive such strong and deter-
mined behaviors. Of course, though, it isn’t the decal or the lunch pail
that are, themselves, important. Rather, it is what they represent. It’s
what they stand for and symbolize that’s so important here. The decals
and lunch pail have meaning, which, incidentally, is provided by the
coach or leader. Leaders infuse meaning into symbols.
The second lesson is how leaders reward or punish behaviors dramat-
ically affect an organization’s culture. Notice that the symbols men-
tioned previously, the decal and the lunch pail, weren’t static. Rather,
they were used as rewards and could be taken away as a form of punish-
ment. In fact, there’s probably no quicker way for a new employee or
teammate to learn about an organization’s culture or about an organiza-
tion’s values than through the reward and punishment system. The
essence is simple and straightforward; when rewards and punishments
are attached to certain behaviors, the employees or players begin to
know firsthand what the organization’s priorities are.
Let’s return to the Super Bowl XLIII Champions, Pittsburgh Steelers,
for a moment. Several months before the big game, in training camp,
Coach Mike Tomlin placed star nose tackle Casey Hampton on the
physically unable to perform roster, as a form of punishment and stigma
for the overweight player. What’s the message here? We don’t tolerate
players who are out of shape and overweight. Or when wide-open
rookie wide receiver, Limas Sweed, dropped a touchdown pass in the
AFC Championship game. After the drop, Limas fell to the ground
and didn’t immediately get up, costing the team a much-needed time
out. Upon returning to the sideline, Tomlin chewed him out. Again,
the message is clear—make plays when you can but if you don’t,
bruised ego or not, get up quick and get back to the huddle.
Switching gears to the other side of the ball, we can see Ken Whisen-
hunt deftly use rewards and punishments to spark a team that was drifting
back towards mediocrity—or worse. The Sunday before Christmas 2008,
Arizona traveled east to Foxboro to play the Patriots. In what would

be one of the biggest blowouts of the entire NFL season, New Eng-
land blistered Arizona to the tune of 47 to 7. Making matters worse,
the score doesn’t reflect how bad and to what degree Arizona got
beat. The Patriots were up 28 to 0 at halftime and 44 to nothing after
three quarters.
With the playoffs fast approaching, Whisenhunt clearly saw this as a
turning point. The old culture of poor performance and low effort was
rearing its head, and a sense throughout the sports community was that
Arizona’s culture was regressing. Whisenhunt sought to stabilize the
team culture through rewards and punishments. Here’s what he did.
First, Whisenhunt went back to full pads for heavy workouts. The
emphasis on heavy pads was both punishment and symbolic—they
needed to be tougher and show more grit. Second, he called practice in
a chilly rain on Christmas Eve day. Third, he called for practice on
Christmas morning. Finally, Whisenhunt told the team during one of
the practices that anyone who didn’t try their hardest would not
play in the playoffs. The timing of rewards and punishment are also
important—something we haven’t yet mentioned. It appears now that
Whisenhunt delivered the message and doled out the consequences at
precisely the right time. The Cardinals would respond by beating the
Seattle Seahawks during the last game of the season before entering
one of the great playoff runs of all time. Looking back on that season
and playoff run, many sports authorities point to Whisenhunt’s
response during the late season swoon as not only saving the season,
but also moving Arizona’s culture to that marked by victory as opposed
to defeat.
We return to this notion of the little things. The inches that com-
prise a yard. None of this is particularly groundbreaking. However,
when used in concert, the little things add up. Knowing that rewards
and punishments are among the most potent drivers of human behav-
ior, Gridiron Leaders must use carrots and sticks in a judicious way to
send the intended message that will eventually lead to a high-performing
culture.
Moving the Chains

Gridiron Leaders concentrate on the basics, like rewards and punishments,
to communicate organizational values and priorities. These are among the
best tools to shape a culture.
TAILGATE
One of the unintended benefits of writing this book was that we
came into contact with some of the greatest sports fans on Earth.
Oftentimes, we came across these fans during tailgate parties. We came
across two guys from Maine who traveled 700 or so miles for every
Steelers home game and would host a tailgate party that became the
talk of the town. We talked to one Auburn fan who wrote a 25-page
tailgating plan during the off-season. We spoke with one crazed West
Virginia football fan who went to the same tailgate at the same loca-
tion dating back to Major Harris’s days as WVU quarterback. But one
of the most memorable events came after September 11th. About 10
days after the attack, we went to a Big East football game. As we sat
and talked about what had transpired, we talked openly about our col-
lective yearning and hope for normalcy. The guy who was hosting the
tailgate from his RV spoke up.
“This is where I find peace.”
We asked, “In football?”
“Not that,” he shot back. “This. The tailgate. I’ve been doing this
for 13 years and it’s now a family tradition. It is the tradition that keeps
me going.”
In preparing for this book, the three of us talked about this story, in par-
ticular, and the power of traditions in general. We know what he means.
Many label tradition as dwelling on the past and as a force that
works against change for the future. We’re not so sure. In a world that
is complex and ever changing, people need to feel comfortable, and
they need to base their beliefs and feelings on something solid, some-
thing unmovable. Tradition is one such force. The very best Gridiron
Leaders are able to juggle this tension between embracing tradition and
being a voice for change. Some leaders even create traditions. We all
know why—tradition creates a feeling of cohesion and esprit de corps.
It’s the glue that keeps people together—even when they’re moving
forward in change. We’d even go as far to say that high velocity and
rapid change organizations need some type of tradition exponentially
more. It’s in these high-paced environments that employees or team-
mates can get lost, distracted, or disconnected.
Creating or fostering traditions aren’t as difficult as you may think.
In fact, we can all do it, just like the family we talked to prior to the
Big East football game. Planned activities in the form of organizational
or team ceremonies or rites is all we’re talking about here. For instance,
we know of one small department of a highly successful technology firm
that holds planned and spontaneous dinners that they call “Hails and
Farewells.” The “Hail” is to welcome any new member into the depart-
ment. The “Farewell” is to celebrate and recognize the team members
who are leaving the department for any reason. It has become a tradi-
tion and one that provides constancy and consistency to a turbulent
working environment. One team member even remarked to us that it
made change easier knowing that this tradition was in place.
Of course, some are better at fostering traditions and, even, creating tra-
ditions. Look no farther than Texas A&M University. While none of us are
alumni, we’ve had a chance to visit College Station, home of the Aggies.
There is a closeness to that entire community that goes beyond football,
but football is surely a part. More than anything, it is the collection, preser-
vation, and respect for traditions that help foster this esprit de corps.
Here is just a sampling of some of those traditions. Texas A&M is
the home of the 12th Man. All fans consider themselves the 12th man
that supports the 11 players on the field. To symbolize this support, the
Texas A&M student body stands the entire game. In a tradition
grounded in respect, students will also step “off the wood,” which
means that they’ll step off the bleachers onto the concrete whenever a
player is injured on the field. Senior members of the Corps of Cadets at
A&M will also join the “Boot Line.” The “Boot” stands for the cavalry-
style boots that seniors wear in the Corps of Cadets. In any regard, the
“Boot Line” will line up on the north end of Kyle field to greet the players
back after halftime. One of the more special experiences is the Midnight
Yell Practice, which is a pep rally that usually fills a good portion of the
stadium. For home games, it is held on Friday at midnight. The yells and
cheers are led by motivated and charismatic “yell leaders” who are
selected from the student body.
Remember, this chapter is about building winning cultures. One of
the ways to accomplish this feat is to keep true to some traditions.
They provide stability and can help create cohesion. To be sure, some
traditions aren’t worth keeping. The best Gridiron Leaders seem to
intuitively grasp that some traditions add value and some detract.
Rituals, ceremonies, and rites of passage are part and parcel of building
a winning organizational/team culture. Reflect right now on how many
of those activities you’re involved with on a quarterly or annual basis.
Moving the Chains

All high-performance cultures count on tradition to bring people closer
and to get the job done.
GONE—BUT NOT FORGOTTEN

Creating and maintaining traditions is not only a rite of passage to
foster team cohesion, it also connects organizational members to past
members and builds a sense of purpose. The belief that individuals are
part of something far bigger than themselves can be a powerful draw
for team members. Leaders can use this to their advantage to help share
their vision, craft their strategy, or motivate their team to execute.
In one of our training sessions with a large law enforcement agency,
we met a training officer with over 20 years of experience. He described
in detail how new recruits were sworn in before they would start training.
When the oath was complete, the recruits were guided through the sta-
tion and down a narrow hallway leading out of the station house. The
walls of the hallway were lined with pictures of those that died in the
line of duty. The training officer would draw the attention of the group to
the pictures and read the inscription, “These are the men and women
who have given the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our noble profes-
sion. Although they are gone—they will never be forgotten.”
By design, all officers have to use the passageway daily. It is necessary to
gain access to other parts of the building or to obtain anything they would
need for their shift. And every time the officers use the corridor, they pass
the photographs. It is a subtle reinforcement that the officers are part of a
great lineage of those protecting the community. The instructors reem-
phasize these thoughts during training sessions. Over and over again, the
instructors use the phrase “noble profession” and remind the recruits that
they are part of something great. This constant reinforcement creates a
connection between the officers and the organization. Feeling that they
are part of something special, the young officers are more willing to accept
the values of the organization and take pride in their role.
More important than the actual tradition or rite of passage is how
leaders make members feel about being part of the organization. Willie
Davis, a Hall-of-Fame defensive tackle for the Green Bay Packers in
the 1960s illustrates this point. Upon entering the NFL and playing
two seasons with the Cleveland Browns, Davis was traded to the Pack-
ers. Admittedly, he was surprised, upset and briefly considered quitting
until he met his new head coach, Vince Lombardi. Davis later said,
“When Coach Lombardi said, ‘You were chosen to be a Green Bay
Packer,’ he made it sound like something unique and wonderful.”3
It meant something to wear the uniform of the Packers, and it repre-
sented excellence both on and off the field. Lombardi did not use any-
thing more elaborate than words to convey his feelings about the
organization. But his words seemed to have an effect on Davis’s playing
ability. Davis would go on to become an All-NFL selection five times

in six years from 1962 to 1967 and was selected to play in five consecu-
tive Pro Bowls. Additionally, he played a major role in Green Bay’s
winning tradition of the 1960s that included five NFL championships
and six divisional titles in eight seasons.
Moving the Chains

Leaders can use rites and traditions to make organizational members feel
that they are part of something bigger than themselves. This will help
create cohesion and commitment.
OUT OF BOUNDS
When people first enter an organization, join a unit, or become part of a
team, they often don’t know how to act. This may seem counterintuitive,
but even the most seasoned adults look for cues on how to act. Because of
this, leaders who aim to build high-performance cultures seek early to set
and establish boundaries on what is, and what isn’t, acceptable behavior.
Take for example, our friend Brian, a district manager for a large
pharmaceutical firm. Within 48 hours of a new pharmaceutical rep
joining his team in his region, he sits them down and goes over the
rule of 3s. Verbally and in writing, he tells his new representatives the
three things that will help ensure they get promoted or bonuses. And
then he tells them the three things that are sure to get them low per-
formance evaluations, or worse, fired.
By the way, boundaries only really mean anything if they’re enforced.
Constantly “redrawing lines in the sand” and moving boundaries do
more to erode a culture than to sustain it. When the boundaries are
clearly violated, the leader must hold true and enact a consequence for
the boundary breach. The amazing thing is most people, from toddlers
through retirees, all appreciate boundaries. Boundaries are about safety
and about consistency and about everybody knowing what ground they
can cover. When leaders fail to set or enforce boundaries, there is no
firm, strong, or agreed-upon culture. Instead, you’ve got a mess. Remem-
ber, that high-performing cultures are about maintaining some consis-
tency. Without this consistency, individuals can’t make sense of what’s
going on, they can’t pick up on cues for what’s acceptable behavior, and
they’re given no direction. At the very highest level, a strong and high-
performing culture provides an invisible hand that guides and directs
decisions and behaviors consistent with organizational goals.
One respected collegiate defensive coordinator confided to us that his

worst season was when he applied different standards to different players
on a routine basis. Because of that, there were always questions regarding
boundaries and what was and what wasn’t acceptable conduct on and off
the field. Enough said here. We know our charge—set and enforce boun-
daries that will become the pillars of the culture you’re trying to build.
Moving the Chains

Know this—leaders build cultures by setting boundaries to what is and
what isn’t acceptable behavior and performance.
START WITH THE END IN MIND

Perhaps the most important factor in changing an organization’s
culture is for leaders to know what culture they want before shaping it.
As we have discussed throughout this chapter, leaders have various
tools and methods to impact organizational culture (See Figure 9.1). At
a minimum, the actions of the leader, through decisions, communica-
tions, and even appearance, will have an effect on culture, whether
Leadership
Vision
Traditions &
Setting Rituals
Boundaries
Organizational
Culture
Lead
Reward
p
Language & Systems

s hi
Communication
ers
er
Symbols
ad
p
hi
Le
Figure 9.1 Organizational Culture Influencing Factors

intentionally or not. For this reason, it is critical that leaders consciously

plan out what they want their culture to be. Remember, culture is ulti-
mately the reflection of the leaders within the organization. This is not to
say that embedding the desired values into the fabric of the organization
is easy. And it will not occur overnight. Only through conscious effort
and consistent, continuous action can leaders build a winning culture.
Of all the concepts we have mentioned throughout this book, creat-
ing a winning culture just may be the most important. In the begin-
ning, we mentioned that the greatest legacy for a leader is to create a
dynasty. To create a sustainable competitive advantage that would
allow the organization to win over and over again. To climb to the top
and remain there. Indeed, the dynastic component of this entire book
is rooted in organizational culture. A high-performance organizational
culture contributes to a sustainable competitive advantage because it
endures as organization members, even leaders, come and go. Organiza-
tional culture is what helps new members play at their best and reach
their full potential. It can accelerate the execution of strategy and sup-
port decision-making. It is also responsible for freeing the leader from a
command-and-control leadership style and, instead, allows and enables
a commitment-based approach. It’s not necessary for the leader to con-
stantly dictate action or be directive because the high-performing cul-
ture does that heavy lifting for the leader. In essence, culture is a
strong, invisible hand that is there to do the leader’s bidding. Even
more, a strong, high-performing organizational culture allows team
members to lead themselves toward organizational goals. Sustainable
competitive advantage is impossible without developing a winning cul-
ture. Our journey through this book has led to this point. We began
with individuals, the leader and the team member, and we end not just
with a high-performing team, but with a system of shared beliefs that
connects current members and will extend to future members as well.
That’s what a true dynasty is all about.
TIP DRILL
1. Try something new. Momentum can be good or bad for an
organization. For organizations that have created a culture that
perpetuates losing, it can be hard to break the cycle. Leaders
need to experiment, try new approaches, and use different ideas
to identify the needed variables that are required to turn things
around. Never be afraid to mix it up.
2. Attract winners. There’s an old adage that if you want to be suc-

cessful, then surround yourself with successful people. The same is
true for organizations. Recruit, select, and retain only the very
best people. Fill your ranks with those that have proven track
records of success. Successful organizational members can serve as
role models and share experiences with everyone else.
3. Leverage the various tools at your disposal. Leaders can manip-
ulate, change, and alter small things to make a big impact on
changing the culture of an organization. Logos, uniforms or
appearance, symbols, and language can begin to change the
meaning of a culture. Be cognizant of how people communicate.
The attitudes or images conveyed through the language people
use can be contagious. Ensure the language within the organiza-
tion is consistent and positive.
4. Stand for something. People want to work for teams, groups,
organizations, or companies that stand for something. Create a
collective identity for the team or organization. Ensure the right
behaviors are rewarded and the wrong behaviors are corrected
in order to get desired results. Organizational members can
quickly learn what the organization values through the reward
and punishment system.
5. Start off right. Ensure there is a socialization process to bring in
new members that will reinforce the organization’s culture. Create
traditions or revitalize existing ones. Rituals, ceremonies, and rites
of passage will create a feeling of cohesion and esprit de corps.
Don’t forget to also establish boundaries. Seek early to set and es-
tablish boundaries on what is, and what isn’t, acceptable behavior.
6. Pick your end zone. Whether it is intentional or not, leaders
drive the culture of an organization. Decide what culture should
define your organization. Then, determine what actions, steps,
and communications should be reinforced to ingrain the desired
values throughout the team or organization.
NOTES
1. “New Uniforms to Come This Spring,” http://www.cardsclubhouse.com/
forums/viewtopic.php?p=122137&sid=c9071594c0a7d4d047870c60e2424f3e
2. Jarett Bell, “Having a Sway with Words,” USA Today, January 30, 2009, 1C.
3. Motivation Lombardi Style (Aurora, IL: Successories Publish, 1992), 39.
AFTERWORD: POSTGAME ANALYSIS
Things that hurt, instruct.

—Benjamin Franklin
This book works. But this isn’t our conclusion to write. It’s yours. So,
go ahead and write it. Draw it up on the board. Then live it.
There’s little doubt that cynicism is spreading into the arena of
sports. Poor behavior, performance-enhancing drugs, and big contracts
seem too often to be associated with big-money sports. But we’re not
buying it. And, chances are, you aren’t either.
The media seems to enjoy sensationalizing some of the not-so-good
aspects of sports, whether that’s football, baseball, and basketball. But
still we watch. Still, we play. Why?
The reason is because we know that sports, in general, and football,
in particular, aren’t like that. Those cases are the tiniest of minorities.
We know the scales of good and bad lean overwhelmingly toward the
good. We know because we all live or lived sports.
Ever wonder why on a job interview they ask about affiliation with
sports? Ever wonder why the Ivy League colleges and universities and
the military academies want to know whether an applicant played a
sport? We know the answer because, oftentimes, we’re the ones doing
the asking. We ask because it matters. Sports improve us.
Some of our greatest learning lessons occurred on a field or within a
stadium. Unlike many of the lessons found in textbooks, the lessons
upon the field seem to stick a bit more. They’re lasting; they’ve got
staying power. None of us had to be a Division I athlete to appreciate
and understand these lessons. The instruction, coaching, and training
that were heaped upon us in Junior High, Junior Varsity, or Varsity
hold just the same as if we were being coached in the National Foot-
ball League. The level of competition may change, but the leadership
175
176 Afterword
themes and messages that we heard when we were eight years old on
some Pee-Wee team apply equally to the Super Bowl champions.
Of course, sports build character. But they do so much more than
that too. On the football field or baseball diamond, we all learned to
lose. That doesn’t mean that we had to like it. More important,
though, we learned to deal with setbacks and temporary failures. For
the three of us, it was our involvement in sports that taught us the im-
portance of rising up after being knocked down. Life isn’t easy, nor is it
always fun. And not everybody always wins all of the time. There will
be times that you’ll lose. Moreover, there are countless times in life
where you get metaphorically punched in the mouth. Sports reveal our
character and improve upon it by showing us how to lose, how to dust
ourselves off, and how to suit back up to play again. That’s life—not
sports.
Incidentally, one of the most memorable examples of what losing
can teach us occurred in the 2007 NFL season. It was the last game of
the regular season played on December 29, 2007, between the New
York Giants and the New England Patriots, who had gone the entire
regular season without losing a game. The outcome of the game was
immaterial especially for the Giants; the Giants were locked into a fifth
seed in the NFC. The Patriots were playing for history and to secure
their undefeated regular season, but their first seed and initial playoff
bye were already in the bag. In what caused an initial uproar due to
possibilities surrounding injuries, Giants head coach Tom Coughlin
decided to play all of his starters and play to win the game. In a wild
swinging contest, the Patriots prevailed—38-35. However, both
Coughlin and the Giants learned quite a bit from the loss. Most nota-
bly, they knew that they could go toe-to-toe with what many called
the best team ever in NFL history. The confidence factor, alone, was
significant. About a month later, the Giants would again meet the
Patriots. Only this time, the stakes were much higher. A Super Bowl
was at stake. In one of the most talked about upsets in football history,
the Giants defeated the Patriots 17-14 in Super Bowl XLII. There’s lit-
tle doubt that the manner and method in which the Giants lost that
final game of the regular season actually led to their eventual win. Los-
ing can do that. This is a classic, American story—get knocked down,
learn the ropes, get back up, and win it all.
For the three of us, sports are also where we felt stretched and chal-
lenged. Sports aside, there are few life activities that demand us to push
our boundaries. That stretch us. That challenge us. Sports are a place
and a time where we often feel just a little lost, just a little outside of
our comfort zone. It’s important to learn how that feels like. Because,
Afterword 177
again, that feeling goes way beyond football. It is life. The very best
corporate, military, profit, and nonprofit leaders are constantly pushing
themselves, reinventing themselves, stretching themselves. No individ-
ual, no organization ever improves without testing boundaries and lim-
its. Sports, in general, and football, in particular, are pushing hard
against those boundaries to get better. Again, that’s not so much valua-
ble to the gridiron as it is to life.
If we were to randomly poll 100 Americans on our nation’s greatest
strength, how many of them would say rule of law? Probably very few.
However, we are a nation where rule of law reigns supreme. We see it
often but take it for granted. Our private property is usually safe, and
during political elections, there is always a peaceful transfer of power.
Where else in the world does that occur? This is important since rules
and regulations are the grease that lubricates a society. Without them
or ignoring rule of law means that we are closer to chaos and societal
anarchy. The three of us talked about this issue on several occasions,
and we would ultimately return to the influence of sports in producing
a citizenry with a healthy respect for the law. After all, it was while
playing sports at an early age that we were socialized into playing by
the rules and regulations. Importantly, we learned quickly that conse-
quences existed for breaking rules. A 15-yard penalty for holding not
only hurt the player, but it hurt the entire team. To millions of young-
sters across this nation, their initial socialization and indoctrination to
rule of law wasn’t when the police officer visited their elementary
school. Rather, it was when the referee blew the whistle on the gridiron
or the hard court. Rule of law and a level playing field, where all play
by the same rules, is so essential and central to capitalism and social
order. In fact, you cannot argue against it. Without rule of law and fair
competition, we don’t have capitalism and we don’t have a society.
Keeping with this theme, every society depends on some type of
mechanism to socialize its citizenry. Surprisingly, many overlook the
role and influence of sports in indoctrinating a populace on desired
social norms. Besides learning about rules and regulations, we learn to
play with others. We learn the value of teamwork. We learn about
roles on a team and subjugating personal desire (at least temporarily)
for the benefit of the greater team. We learn about how to live, func-
tion, and accept a hierarchy. In most sports, there are both formal and
informal leaders. And not everybody can be one of them. It is while
playing sports that we first learned to follow before we could lead. We
all quickly realized that the team captain and a variety of coaches were
at the top of the food chain, and most of us learned to respect that. At
the very least, we came to accept that. In any smoothly functioning
178 Afterword
civilization, recognizing and operating within the framework of a hier-

archy is critically important. Here, we thank sports for doing a job that
society couldn’t easily perform on its own.
We, too, are a nation that loves to compete. Our political economy
depends on just that—our ability and desire to effectively compete. De-
mocracy and, more specifically, capitalism, are continually thirsty for
the competitive spirit. Without this competitive spirit, innovation,
technological advances, and, eventually, an improved standard of living
is all but a pipe dream. Have you ever wondered where this competi-
tive spirit comes from and how it gets passed on from generation to
generation? We feel that this competitive transfer process can largely
be attributed to sports, in general, and football, in particular.
Steven Covey got rich on habits. The author of numerous leadership
books, of which the most famous was Seven Habits of Highly Effective
People, Covey made a rather simple claim that was impossible to dis-
miss. Simply, the most effective people in society, time and again, dem-
onstrated tremendous and productive habits. Where do you think this
habit-forming process begins? We wrestled with this, too. And, again,
the lines on the map brought us back to sports. Whether tennis, base-
ball, basketball, or football, we would learn in piercingly clear ways
that practice matters, that repetition matters, and that strong work
habits matter. Those that didn’t buy into this premise would quickly
find themselves on the sideline. Forget about what the drills or the
practice were about. That’s not important. It was the very act, the
process itself, however, of practice and repetition that is of such impor-
tance. We need a generation, a society of leaders and workers, who
aren’t afraid to work hard, to practice, to roll up their sleeves. Without
the toil of hard work and repetition, we have a soft society—a society
that our very own Benjamin Franklin seems to hint towards in the
opening quote. Pain and hard work is the input into the learning and
value-creating process.
Up to this point, we’ve been conceptual. So, don’t take our word for
it. Let’s look at what the empirical has to say about sports and the
value it adds to our life. Consider a study published in the Journal of
American College Health that examined risky behavior between student
athletes and nonstudent athletes. In a sample size that surpassed 550
students, the authors of the study concluded “the athletes were found
to engage in significantly fewer risk-taking behaviors than the non-
athletes (drug and alcohol) and to be at less risk for HIV.”1 Or how
about a recent article in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, which
examined the influence of organized sports on the choices and
decision-making of young women. Here the authors report “women’s
Afterword 179
involvement in organized team sports was favorably associated with

sexual risk taking behavior,” meaning that women who played sports
were less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior.2
Of course, this book is no public policy treatise. However, let us be
the first to say what many think—everybody that is able (and even
some who aren’t) should play sports throughout life. But, early on, we
believe it is essential. Not for reasons of child obesity, while that still
applies, but more about what it does on the inside as opposed to the
outside. As these studies suggest, sports do something psychological,
something emotional, which may even dwarf the physical benefits. It is
precisely these emotional and psychosocial benefits that help develop a
future generation of leaders. We’re done with this point, but take it to
the house—all sports matter because it makes us mentally tough and
better leaders. It is a game changer. Better yet, sports are a life changer.
Finally and maybe a bit abstract, esoteric, but still real, is the role
sports can play on our individual and collective psyche. Let’s begin
with the individual. All three of us (just like all of you) have experi-
enced some low points in life when we were confronted with setbacks.
Time and again, we’d turn to loving friends and family to rebound. But
we also turned to playing and watching sports. There’s a catharsis in
playing and watching that soothes the soul. Even with football; out of
a violent game can come peace. What is true for the individual exists
at the collective. Perhaps in the writing of this book, we’ve talked to
200 or more people. One thread that was deep but still exposed in
many that we talked to was the role of sports at the local and national
level that helped them heal during times of crisis or tragedy. The terror
of September 11th was acute. One of the catalysts in the healing pro-
cess, many argued, was watching college and NFL football on TV or in
person. Or with a group. Or watching their grandson’s junior varsity
football game. Never underestimate the power of sports to act as a
healer. Many relayed to us that sports help them cope and hope. In
that, there’s beauty.
Related to this point, when thousands upon thousands enter a sta-
dium to root for a single team something special occurs. All classes of
society come together for a football game. Differences melt away and,
before you know it, connections are built between complete strangers
who are now inviting you to a tailgate or offering a high-five in cele-
bration. Our society, in both good times and bad, need this particular
type of activity. While many of us are shirking and shrinking behind
laptops and iPods, this collective unity, even for an afternoon, is some-
thing special to a community and a society that is tough to quantify or
even articulate. We just know that it’s needed.
180 Afterword
So, enjoy all the themes contained in this book. On first blush and
on the first turn of the very first page, you may have thought that this
book would be light, airy, and inconsequential. If you’re reading this
last sentence, we hope and trust you feel otherwise. We’ll see you in
the end zone.
NOTES
1. Patricia K. Kokotailo, “Health Risk Taking and Human Immunodeficiency
Virus Risk in Collegiate Female Athletes,” Journal of American College
Health, 46 (1998), 263–268.
2. Stephanie Jacobs Lehman and Susan Silverberg Koerner, “Adolescent
Women’s Sports Involvement and Sexual Behavior/Health: A Process-
Level Investigation,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33 (2004), 443–455.
INDEX
Airbus, 117–118 Clarett, Maurice, 36

Apple, 128, 162 Cleveland Browns, 62
Arizona Cardinals, 42, 157–163 Clock Play, 96–97
Arizona Wildcats, University of, Coca-Cola, 65
151–152 Colorado, University of, 56–58,
Asch, Solomon, 95 62–63
assessment testing, 82 comebacks, discussion of, 124–126
commitment, 41–44; to mission,
Baltimore Ravens, 132–133 43–44; to organization, 41–42
Barnett, Gary, 62–65 Corey, Walt, 125–126
Bauman, Charlie, 20 Costco, 43–44
Bayless, Skip, 139 Coughlin, Tom, 48, 55, 176
Beamer, Frank, 75, 120 Covey, Steven, 178
Belichick, Bill, 65, 86, 119, 128, 142 Cowher, Bill, 15
Bettis, Jerome, 140–141, 150 Crouch, Eric, 83–84
Bidwell, Bill, 158–160 culture, 157–173; boundaries of,
Billick, Brian, 133 170–171; change of, 158–173;
Blank, Arthur, 55, 78 communication, role of, 163–164;
Boeing, 60, 117–118 rewards and punishments, uses of,
Bonds, Barry, 58 163–164; symbols, importance of,
Boston College, 93–94 160–162, 165; tradition and rituals,
Brock, Stan, 12 value of, 167–170
Bryant, Paul, 53
Buffalo Bills, 120, 124–125 Dallas Cowboys, 2–4, 85–86, 94, 146
Bush, Reggie, 119–120 Davis, Stephen, 105–106
Davis, Willie, 169–170
Callahan, Bill, 22–23 Dell, 67
Carroll, Pete, 29 Denver Broncos, 150–152
Chen, Ming-Jer, 130–132 desire, importance of, 39–41
Chicago Bears, 79–80, 91, 119, 122, 129, Detroit Lions, 91–92, 99
157 Dilfer, Trent, 132–133
Chrysler, 77, 128 Ditka, Mike, 119
Churchill, Winston, 121 Donnan, Jim, 116–118
Circuit City, 45–46 Druckenmiller, Jim, 73–75
181
182 Index
Dungy, Tony, 21, 53, 120 Howard, Timothy, 59

Dunlap, Al, 95 Hurricane Katrina, 46
employee flexibility, 84 illusion of control, in decision-making,

employee willingness, 83–84 104–107
Enigma machine, 123 Indianapolis Colts, 120
enlightened self-interest, discussion of, 139 innovation, discussion of, 121–124
Enron, 58 intelligence, value of, 37
Erickson, Dennis, 31 Irvin, Michael, 55–56
escalation of commitment, in
decision-making, 99–101 Jackson, Steven, 9
ethical codes, 67–68 James, Edgerrin, 159
Jaworski, Ron, 137
Fannie Mae, 59 job analysis, 81–82
Firestone, 64–65 Jobs, Steve, 162
fit, 73–79; Person-Job (P-J) fit, 74–78; Johnson, Jimmy, 3–4
Person-Organization (P-O) fit, 74–78; judgment, uses and importance of, 38
Person-Strategy (P-S) fit, 74–78, 115 junior military officer (JMO), 87–88
follower readiness, 79–80
Ford, 64–65, 76 Keane, Jack, 30
46 Defense, 122 Kiffin, Lane, 26
Freeney, Dwight, 119 Kmart, 113–114
Frost, Scott, 83–84 knowledge creation activities, 37–38
Korean War, 127–128
Gateway, 103 Kotite, Rich, 2–3
Gault, Willie, 128–129 Kotter, John, 15
General Electric, 40, 68, 77–78, 87–88 Kram, Kathy, 12
General Motors, 128
German U-boat Campaign, 123 Langer, Ellen, 104
Gersick, Connie, 144 Latham, Gary, 15–16
Glenn, Aaron, 96 law of small numbers, in decision-making,
Glenn, Terry, 1–3 104–107, 109
goal orientation, 47–48 Leaf, Ryan, 99
goal theory, 15–16 learning orientation, 47–48
Goodell, Roger, 54 Leinart, Matt, 37, 41
Grambling State University, 13 Lloyd, Greg, 61–62
Grimm, Russ, 159 Locke, Ed, 15–16
Gundy, Mike, 12–13 locus of control, 44–47
Lombardi, Vince, 53, 60, 66, 169–170
Halo Effect, in decision-making, 93–96, Lott, Ronnie, 43
109
Hansen, Jason, 92 MacArthur, Douglas, 127–128
Harrington, Joey, 99 Madoff, Bernie, 58
Hayes, Woody, 19–21, 108 Mamula, Mike, 93–95
Hnida, Katie, 62 Mangini, Eric, 23
Holtz, Lou, 68 Manning, Peyton, 37–40
Home Depot, 77–78 Marino, Dan, 96–97
Honeywell, 67 McCartney, Bill, 56–58, 62
Houston Oilers, 125 McNair, Steve, 159
Index 183
mentoring, 12–13 Reich, Frank, 125

Miami Dolphins, 96–97 reputation management, 64–66
Miami Hurricanes, University of, 11 Rhodes, Ray, 94
Microsoft, 65 Richards, Curvin, 3–4, 7
Montana, Joe, 75, 159–160 Roberts, Karlene, 141–142
Moon, Warren, 125 Robinson, Eddie, 13–14
Mornhinweg, Marty, 91–92 Roehm, Julie, 76–77
Motorola, 101 Romanowski, Bill, 59
Myers-Briggs personality test, 82 Rommel, Erwin, 129
Rudeltaktik, 123
Nardelli, Bob, 77–79 Ryan, Buddy, 122
Neal, Lorenzo, 147–150
Nebraska Cornhuskers, University of, Salaam, Rashaan, 79–82
10–11, 83–84 Sanders, Deion, 84–85
Neuheisel, Rick, 62 San Francisco 49ers, 27, 43, 73–76, 86, 145
New England Patriots, 1, 65, 86, 119, Schoonover, Phillip, 45–46
138–139, 176 Schultz, Howard, 98
New Orleans Saints, 7–8 Shanahan, Mike, 114, 151–152
New York Giants, 176 Shinseki, Eric, 152–153
New York Jets, 23, 65, 84, 96–97 Simms, Phil, 39–40
No-Huddle Offense, 129–131 Sinegal, Jim, 43
Northwestern University, 64 skill inventory, 36
Notre Dame, University of, 68 Smith, Akili, 99
Southern California, University of,
Oakland Raiders, 26, 114–115 29, 37
Ohio State University, 19, 36 Southwest Airlines, 153–154
organizational flexibility, 86 Soward, R.J., 54
Osborne, Tom, 10–11 Spurrier, Steve, 103–106
Owens, Terrell, 139, 145–147 Spygate, 65
Starbucks, 97–98
Palmieri, Jerry, 94 Staw, Barry, 99–100
Parcells, Bill, 1–3, 8, 84 Steward, Kordell, 80, 86
Payton, Walter, 119, 129 Stonecipher, Harry, 60
Perry, William, 119 strategic coherence, 114–115
Peyton, Sean, 120 strategic focus, 114–115
Philadelphia Eagles, 94, 145–146 strategic misdirection and overpursuit,
Phillips, Lawrence, 54–55 117–118
Pittsburgh Steelers, 15–16, 85–86, 152, 161 strategic mismatch, discussion of,
power, 19–34; coercive, 23–24; expert, 119–121
27–28; legitimate, 22–23; network, strategy: adjustments to, 124–126;
30–32; referent, 28–30; reward, 25–27 aggressive, 127–129; attack,
primacy effect, in decision-making, 129–131; competitive, 113–116;
107–108 differentiation, 113–114; low cost,
prior hypothesis bias, in decision-making, 113–114; response, 131–132;
96 risk component, 128–129
problem diagnosis, in decision-making, 96 Sunbeam, 95
Raines, Franklin, 59 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 94, 160–161

Randle El, Antwaan, 86 Tapp, Darryl, 165
184 Index
Target, 113–114 Vermeil, Dick, 54–55

teams, 137–151; collective mind of, Vick, Michael, 54
141–143; communication within, Vietnam War, 100–101, 110
143–144; heedful understanding of, Virginia, University of, 7
141–143; identity of, 151–153; Virginia Tech, 73, 75, 120
recognition of, 150–151; relation
orientation, 141; role theory, Wal-Mart, 44, 76–77, 113
importance of, 147–150; stages of Walsh, Bill, 27–28, 75, 122–123
development, 144–147; task Ward, Hines, 117
orientation, 141; team synergy, 138 Warner, Kurt, 159
Tennessee Titans, 115 Weick, Karl, 141–142
Texas A&M University, 168 Weightman, George, 46
Thorndike, Edward, 95 Welch, Jack, 40, 77, 87
3M, 48 West Coast Offense, 74–75, 122–123
Tillman, Pat, 41–42 Whisenhunt, Ken, 158, 165–166
Tomlin, Mike, 164–165 Whitney, Eli, 142
Torre, Joe, 29 Wonderlic test, 82
Toyota, 128 Word, Barry, 7–8
Tuckman, Bruce, 144 Wuerffel, Danny, 105–106
UCLA, 144 Young, Vince, 109

U.S. Army Rangers, 152–153
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, 68 Zimmerman, Paul, 42

Gridiron Leadership

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gridiron Leadership

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gridiron Leadership

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword by Art Rooney II

Chapter 2 Power Rankings 19

The Power of the Network 30

Chapter 3 Franchise Players 35

Chapter 4 Big Upset 53

Chapter 5 Finalize the Roster 73

Spurred to Victory 103

Chapter 8 Becoming a Playoff Team 137

Helmet Decals 164

Afterword: Postgame Analysis 175

makes it a great read and an effective tool is that it is a testament to

Rhodes, Arthur Jones, Chris Harmon, Lowell Yarusso, John Spears,

As a second-year doctoral student down at Virginia Tech, one of the

no longer baseball. It is football. And the fabric of sports, in general,

THE GRIDIRON LEADER

heavily favored Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III? However, leaders,

also have to balance external stakeholders, whether it’s customers, part-

TALENT IS NOT ENOUGH

completion, attempts, and yards just wasn’t enough to guarantee a team

CREATING YOUR PERSONAL LEGACY

A ROADMAP—WHAT’S IN THIS BOOK

Here is an overview of what lies ahead:

• Chapter 1: Inspiration of the Individual. Winning starts with the

Throughout this chapter, we discuss some decision-making tools and

8. Sports Illustrated Web site, Lee Jenkins, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/

She’s coming along.

Moving the Chains

Although we will discuss some common principles that should apply

THE HABIT OF LOSING

Moving the Chains

Moving the Chains

“Interestingly, when I briefed the rest of the team, no one seemed

Moving the Chains

months in prison. Predictably, the New Orleans Saints gave up on

Moving the Chains

within and outside the organization. Frankly, almost three centuries of

consequence for performing high or low and rewards will be adminis-

Moving the Chains

PLAY IT SAFE OR GO FOR TWO?

that year. We disagree. Instead, we contend that the 1984 season

Moving the Chains

PROTECTING THE QUARTERBACK

Moving the Chains

PUT THE TEAM FIRST

Moving the Chains

GOAL LINE STAND?

Additionally, goals are important because they provide the speciﬁc

2. Become a guardian of standards. Establish, communicate, and

4. ESPN Web site, http://m.espn.go.com/general/page2/story?storyId=

I will pound you and pound you until you quit.

behavior of others. In gridiron terms, it is about controlling the man

Moving the Chains

BOTTOM OF THE POWER RANKINGS

on the organization to confer rank, position, and title. As soon as those

Moving the Chains

Moving the Chains

POWER SURGE AT THE LINE

organization is low on resources or just refuses to give leaders this

Moving the Chains

ON THE SHOULDERS OF GREATNESS

An example of a leader outside of the sports world who has mixed it