Business Lessons from the Athletic Field v.1
The Myths of Playing Time, A Case Study in Feedback
Earlier this spring and now through the summer, tens of thousands of kids will be playing team sports and tens of thousands of parents will be watching them. Far too many will be complaining about playing time.
Before we talk about the prevalent myths of playing time, we need to examine what playing time really is in the world of amateur competitive sports. Amateur is a very important adjective here because the answer is currency. Your son or daughter is not getting paid to play in the classic sense but, assuming they love their sport, they are being paid with game time.
Time is money. We have all heard that before but people rarely appreciate just how true that is. There is only so much of either in this world (government printing presses aside). They are both highly prized and highly valued. They are both often traded or used to acquire the things we want. They are both commodities, in that a dollar is a dollar and a minute is always a minute. And most importantly for this article, they are both excellent mediums of feedback.
To say that money is a form of feedback is not too difficult for most people to grasp. The better you do, the more value you create, the more money you often receive. Because of many of the attributes above, it is actually a pretty perfect method of feedback. To say that playing time is a form of feedback gets people all jacked up… lets examine why.
Myth #1 — Everyone should get equal playing time.
The argument always turns to fairness. We all paid the same. They are just kids. We win as a team. Let’s knock these out one by one.
We all paid the same. Let’s assume that statement is true, fairly doubtful, but let’s take it at face value. So what were you paying for? If the answer was even playing time, you should have chosen a non-competitive sport. Just don’t pay too much, your child is likely to inform you that they aren’t much fun.
Most likely you were paying to give your child an opportunity to learn and compete. Unfortunately, equal playing time has nothing to do with that. If you want to learn, you need feedback. If you want to compete, you need feedback. If everyone gets the same playing time, then no one gets good feedback.
But wait. There are other forms of feedback and little Joey needs equal time so that he can get that other feedback. Really? Probably not. There are several other forms of feedback and they are all … poor. Titles, like captain, are limited to very few kids, unclear on the criteria for attaining them, and given once per season. Praise from the coach has no real value, is often given with changing standards, and honestly is only meaningful to a handful of personality types. Goals, points, touchdowns and other outcomes in many sports are too sparse, too subject to luck, and often equally attributable to your opponent.
They are just kids. So we should rob them of meaningful feedback? And by the way, they are just kids. So when little Joey and superstar Sammy each get the same amount of playing time and Joey make five turn overs while Sammy scores two goals — who is blaming themselves for the loss at the end of game? Sammy is blaming the coach for not playing him more and Joey’s parents are wondering why he won’t stop crying. After all Joey is just a kid, so a kid doesn’t know they should blame their coach and parents for putting them in a bad situation.
We win as a team. If Sammy and Joey had won the game, it is unlikely either would really think this way. Joey won’t be as sad, but both players will know that Sammy did more to win the game. This thinking is as silly as clinic games where no one keeps score… trust me, all the kids do.
It is not that win as a team is a bad motto. It is just a poor excuse for equal playing time. Win as a team means support each other, help each other, cheer each other, recognize everyone for their contribution. It does NOT mean everyone plays the same.
People often claim that when better kids want more time it is selfish. So therefore it is selfish for Sammy to play an extra shift, even if that shift would have prevented the loss or maybe just a costly mistake by Joey. It could also have caused a costly mistake by Sammy. Superstar or not, Sammy is taking a big risk. Is Sammy really the selfish one if Joey rides home with a smile? Or worse, if Sammy is the one with tears in her eyes?
In the end, teams don’t need feedback. Individual coaches and players do. Even if they are kids. Otherwise, you aren’t getting what you paid for.
Myth #2 — The Coach Should Give Time To The Best Players
My child is the best player on the team, so he or she should get the most playing time. Nonsense. The best player and the worst player both need feedback. Best players should get more time when they are earning it. There needs to be a criteria and benchmarks.
The coach also needs to recognize that best players have an opportunity for positive feedback that lesser skilled players don’t — bench time. Bench time can be positive when star players are told that they earned it. After a big goal or a routing half of play, time on the bench is now a reward. Better still, little Joey can now get more time with less pressure. This is likely to build Joey’s confidence, even if she makes a mistake or two.
Note — this is not an argument for benching good players when they make mistakes. That is not a good feedback model either. But they should lose time when they are not earning it, whether as a result of poor game play or practice. ALL players need to play. No play equals no feedback.
The Recommendation — All Players Should Get Some Time, But Everything Else Needs To Be Earned and Weighted
The standards and criteria need to be clear. The process should be as fair as possible. The coach that accomplishes this will find their players will respond most favorably. Positive feedback builds great players and great teams.
But playing time can be a double edged sword. Rewarding a player with more time also exposes them to more risk of mistakes and failures. Extra time should be given wisely. If Joey normally gets just one shift per game or per half, and extra shift should mean a lot without exposing Joey to too much risk of failure. The best model is that Joey is rewarded as his or her skills increase, this is feedback consistent with performance.
What can a business learn from this?
Time is money. Does your business compensate employees based on their performance? Or do many people earn the same? Are you dividing that last question between hourly workers and executives? Do hourly workers deserve less feedback?
How about bonuses? Are they set based on a company goal? That sounds a lot like we win as a team, doesn’t it? Or perhaps the top execs and salesman get stellar bonuses? Is that earned by performance or simply by being titled? Do they ever get smaller bonuses? If your bonus is always the same, did you really earn it?
Money is feedback. The best management will be sure that all employees are paid something, but that employees are able to earn more based on their skill, performance, and risk. Businesses that compensate based on tenure, title, or in other unearned ways, will find their organization fails to perform or adapt. There is no learning and no competition without feedback.
One final note
Coaches may be partially excused for getting this wrong. They are responding to feedback, too. Unfortunately, that feedback has been intermediated, by parents. Rather than responding to feedback that comes from the individual skills and confidence of the players, they are overwhelmed by feedback from their parents. The parents are either wrapped up in fairness (myth #1) or winning (myth #2). In the end they will get neither.
But what is the excuse for your business? Where is your feedback being lost? For more examples on recognizing lost feedback consider:
