A Whole New World (Series)
Sports often reflect the times. And if this year’s World Series lineups are anything to go by, the times are a changing.
In one corner, we have the Cinderella story that is the New York Mets, who have made it to the big dance against huge odds. They weren’t even predicted to make the playoffs before the season began, having not posted a winning season in almost a decade.
Their opponents: the Kansas City’s Royals, who wore the Cinderella tag last season after an equally improbable climb to contention.
Both teams have gone against the popular recipe in their industry: traditionally in baseball the higher the payroll, the higher the chance of winning. But this year, things are different.
The Royals sit 16th in spending. The upstart Mets are a lowly 21st. And this isn’t another Moneyball tale either: the traditional metric used to measure a team’s talent, WAR or Wins Against Replacement, only has them sitting 9th and 10th respectively this season. Yet they’ve both outlasted — and at times out-blasted — arguably more talented and better-funded opponents.
So what’s the secret advantage these two over-performing teams have over the opposition? And what does it mean for the rest of us?
Here’s a hint: they have something in common with other high performing organizations. Google knows it. So does the US military.
Their common thread?
Culture.
In baseball they call it ‘team chemistry’, although some sabermetricians — the new wave of analytics gurus who drive the business of baseball — cringe at the term, mostly because it can’t be easily measured.
Experienced players and coaches can reliably point to the signs of good culture, though. They describe more positive emotions in the locker room, mostly due to better relationships. Players have a higher level of confidence and belief on the field. Team members are more motivated to get better in training.
“You can observe a lot by just watching” — Yogi Berra
Whatever you want to call it, research is consistently showing that a certain type of environment — and by extension, the type of leader who curates it — produces better performance, in all sorts of industries.
Both the World Series contenders seem to be onto it. “Numbers are more easily realized, or exceeded,” Mets GM Sandy Alderson is on record as saying, “if the culture or the chemistry in the clubhouse and the relationship with players is constructive.” When Royals GM Dayton Moore first started, he laid out a clear long-term aim: to build a culture of selflessness that would ensure long-term success.
The Mets and the Royals are just two examples, albeit magnified by the spotlight of pro sports, that serve to highlight what research from a number of industries has already shown: culture is the new wave of competitive advantage at work.
Make people feel better, and they’ll perform better, claim the culture crusaders. But can it be that simple?
Researchers answer with a resounding yes. Decades of studies suggest these ‘human factors’ do make a difference on the scoreboard, in all sorts of fields.
Wharton professor Adam Grant has written a whole book on how what researchers call ‘prosocial behavior’ — working relationships where giving & support is the norm — improves performance at work. Legendary basketball coach Phil Jackson would call this sacrificing the ‘me’ for the ‘we’.
And there is plenty of independent research from around the world to back this up: a combined analysis across 70 studies found more supportive workplaces produce better performance, from American police officers, to high school teachers in Canada, and even hospital teams in Korea.
The Mets are the perfect example of this type of environment, thanks to Manager Terry Collins having taken on Alderson’s culture change with gusto. “Everybody is together,” recently acquired infielder Juan Uribe enthuses. “You have to be together… fight together. That’s how I try to be a good teammate here by letting the guys know ‘Hey, you are my family.’ My teammates are my family.”
The effects of great culture are even stronger if the leader sets the tone. A phenomenon known as the ‘Pygmalian effect’ — where higher expectations lead to better performance — has been supported with evidence across a combination of 17 different studies, covering the military, not for profit and corporate teams. This is exactly the type of leadership that has elevated both teams to the pinnacle. ”We shouldn’t just try to be better,” Alderson was famously quoted as having said to his Mets staff. “Let’s have the mindset that we’re going to go out and win 90 games.”
The fact that the optimism of leaders can be contagious is also a good thing: optimism has been found to predict better performance for individuals, from officers in the army to sales people. It’s no coincidence that the Royals’ manager, Ned Yost, also leads in this style. In a recent NYT profile, Yost told of a time when he saw some players heading out late one night. ‘‘I know these guys inside and out,’’ Yost said. ‘‘I know they won’t stay out too long. Their goal is winning. They won’t do anything to detract from that.’’
This small snapshot of life on the road perfectly showcases the trust he places in his players on and off the park, the latitude he gives them to make mistakes, and the power he gives them to take responsibility for what they do.
The evidence from psychology research confirms what these smart leaders intuitively know: Positive relationships build trust. Trust builds autonomy. Autonomy leads to better motivation & more confidence. It’s this last link that could be arguably the most relevant to those trying to drive performance: this type of ’autonomous’ motivation leads to prolonged effort.
Field studies in medical clinics have shown that when staff operate under these conditions, they not only perform better, their patients also stuck to the treatment for longer. Another study of instructors in a university chemistry course showed that this style of leadership led to better student grades and lower drop out rates. The results show up on the scoreboard in baseball too: despite having talent levels that are average or just above, both the Mets and the Royals ranked in the top 5 for clutch performance (defined in baseball as ‘high leverage’ plays) in 2015.
Of course, this is all in stark contrast to traditional management, and indeed most work cultures of today: We pay you. You submit to our conditions. You deliver the equivalent of what we pay. End of story.
The new approach driven by leaders in business, healthcare, education and sports, flips that old-school model on its head: treat people like they are valued, and they’ll add more value. Give them some support, autonomy, and a pinch of optimism, and watch them take it to a new level.
Regardless of which team wins the 2015 World Series, this matchup can be seen as a sign of things to come. The smart businesses are no longer just relying on numbers, or pulling gimmicks to get a quick fix. They’re deliberately applying the latest in human sciences to get more engaged and invested workers.
Alderson was clear on this when he arrived as GM at the Mets, acknowledging in a recent biography that his first challenge ”was to overhaul the Mets culture of self-defeating angst and to replace it with quiet confidence.”
Whoever wins this World Series, their GM’s culture overhaul may be hailed his greatest accomplishment as a leader.
