Business Game Time

Thanksgiving weekend in the US – that traditionally means lots of turkey and lots of football.

While watching the Thanksgiving Classics I caught myself thinking about all those flags thrown by the officials. In business there obviously aren’t any flags to throw for indicating a foul.  Even worse, there aren’t a lot of rules on what foul play would be.  So I compiled my top five football fouls I would like to see called in business, too. Here’s the list:

5) Unsportsmanlike conduct

There is no rule in the NFL that disallows playing hard in general. But when it comes to taunting or verbally abusing others, fouls are strictly enforced.

Bullying coworkers, talking negative about them and trying to build oppositions against others is not playing hard. It’s simply unsportsmanlike and unfair. That’s not the right spirit, neither on the pitch nor in the office.

4) Delay of game

That’s a classic: Not getting things done in time, not trying to move, watching left, right, left, right, etc., thinking what to do best and meanwhile forgetting to get anything done in the first place.

In football, that’s just a five yard penalty. Not one of the big ones, but one that wakes up and gets everyone focused again. That would be a useful one in other areas, too.

3) Intentional grounding

Intentional grounding is the desperate try of the quarterback to avoid being sacked. It is not trying to be productive at all, as the quarterback isn’t trying to throw towards a receiver, all he does is trying to destroy the well-earned reward for the defensive player.

Trying to avoid a negative impact for oneself even if it may kill the reward of the hard working coworkers is a rather common pattern (many say it’s generally the more common the higher you look in hierarchies). Not being able to accept a mistake and trying to soft-pedal  it by playing tricks would be well worth being penalized .

2) Illegal formation

An illegal formation is called in football when players are not lined-up in accordance with the rules. In companies the formations are also well defined. There are clear hierarchies of how people are lined-up. Yet, many try to bypass these defined formations, trying to gain a personal advantage. Even though others realize it and even though it is not considered correct behavior in companies either, this is nearly never called, i.e. sanctioned.

1) Unnecessary roughness

The name of this foul speaks for itself. It is a sign of missing respect for others, a sign that a player values his own aggression higher than feeling and state of others.  If this foul would exist in business, I’m sure it would be among those called the most often.

So what fouls would you love to see penalized in your office? Throw the flag or simply leave a comment!

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: (american) football by Johannes Musseleck
on November 25, 2011 at 10:38 pm CET
Tagged with: (american) football • behavior • bullying • delay of game • flags • fouls • hard • hierarchy • illegal formation • intentional grounding • nfl • organization • penalties • respect • reward • taunting • thanksgiving classics • unnecessary roughness • unsportsmanlike conduct

On Sunday, the final of the Rugby World Cup will be played in Auckland, New Zealand. The tournament in this rugby crazy nation has been a great success so far, and the climax is yet to come as the “All Blacks” from the host country made it to the final where they are the favorites to win the title.

Their opponents from France have not been expected to be there by most experts prior to the tournament and they even lost two games on their road to the final, one against Tonga (14-19), the other being a heavy 17-37 defeat against, guess what, New Zealand. And even in their semi final against Wales, they played not quite convincing: Wales took the lead early and looked like the stronger team when their captain Sam Warburton saw a red card not even 20 minutes into the game. Despite being one player more for the remaining three quarters of the game, France did not manage to score a try and only won narrowly by 9 points to 8, with Wales kicking one kick just inches short and another on hitting the bar.

Obviously, the red card was decisive. And for those of you that haven’t seen the match last weekend or maybe aren’t too much into Rugby anyway: It was heavily controversial. Warburton received it for a dangerous dip tackle on Vincent Clerc, but other similar tackles during the tournament did not lead to red cards. However, if you go strictly by the rule book, a red card can be shown for the kind of foul Warburton committed.

This leads to a discussion that can be heard in nearly all kinds of sports involving a referee: The sensitivity of the refs. Up to the red card situation, the match had been hard but fair and Warburton is all but an unfair player. It was early in the game and no one would have complained about a yellow card. So go by the rule book or take a decision that everybody would agree on and that would allow for a high quality rest of the match with the stronger team winning?

Referee Alain Rolland decided to go by the rule book.

Wait a minute, what was his name? Alain Rolland? That sounds pretty French for a referee in a match involving France! And for a good reason: Rolland, a mortgage broker from Ireland, has a French father, parts of family still live in France and he speaks French fluently.

Honestly, I cannot imagine seeing a referee with a French father to call a soccer World Cup semi final involving France. In rugby it’s possible. It’s a hard game, but one where respect and fairness are highly valued. Also, the rugby world is a lot smaller than e.g.  soccer, so for finding top quality referees you don’t have too much choice of countries. And Rolland is clearly one of the best refs in the world – even though nowadays there are some different opinions in Wales (Rolland even received death threats).

So was it wrong to nominate Rolland for this game? That’s an interesting question which I will try to answer in a way that not only refers to rugby:

Rolland has not done any mistake. By the rule book he did the right call. The International Rugby Board (IRB) referee manager Paddy O’Brien even stated they were “delighted” with Rolland’s performances in the semi final.

Still, other referees during the tournament did not hide behind the rule book. I believe there’s a reason why Rolland did. Just imagine you were in his shoes. When the game starts you would believe that all Wales was expecting you to favor France with your decisions. However, if a controversial decision would be called against France, everybody in France would complain that you made this call against France only to explicitly demonstrate that you were not favoring France. Whatever you do, it will be used against you.

These kinds of situations do not allow for any sensitivity, they lead to people trying to protect themselves by sticking strictly to the rule book. In sports as well as in business.

Alain Rolland is an expert. He speaks the language of both teams in that semi final fluently. He has both a Celtic and a French influence. He has been a rugby player himself (three caps for Ireland). Who could have been better suited?

Anyone could have.

In situations in which sensitivity and creativity are vital to mediate between two sides, it doesn’t always pay to have someone in place who has strong links to both sides and/or a lot of knowledge of all details. Mediators or moderators can quickly get caught up in a sandwich position. Each side will always believe that the ties with the other side would be stronger, mistrust and trying to take influence result from it. In this climate, the mediator can’t move and sticks to the book to play it safe and avoid any suspicion. Just like Rolland did.

The problem is that playing it safe often does not yield the best possible results.

When mediating between two sides, it doesn’t take an expert. There are enough experts on both sides to get the facts straight. It takes someone who is free to suggest untapped approaches, someone who is free to be sensitive, someone who is by no means suspicious. If you look for this someone, don’t look on either of the two sides or even close to them. Find someone who has room to move.

On Sunday, the referee in the final will come from South Africa. And Rolland? He will be one of the two touch judges. The other one is from … Wales.

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: rugby by Johannes Musseleck
on October 20, 2011 at 11:30 pm CET
Tagged with: alain rolland • all blacks • auckland • bias • creativity freedom • dip tackle • expert • france • influence • international rugby board • irb • mediator • mistrust • moderator • new zealand • paddy o'brien • red card • rugby • rugby union • rugby world cup • sam warburton • sandwich position • sensitivity • soccer • south africa • suspicion • tonga • vincent clerc • wales

When Dick Forsbury created the high jump technique of the flop, it seemed like a crazy idea to cross the bar with the face looking into the opposite direction.

When Jan Boklöv invented the V-style in ski jumping, it seemed like an inferior approach because of the low style points to be earned with it.

Today, no one can imagine a high jumper using the straddle technique or a ski jumper keeping the skis in parallel.

Like many radical innovations, when they came up they seemed to have less potential than the established techniques, approaches and products.

I remember the discussions I had with developers at some of the leading mobile phone companies back when the first smart phones were created. They were all discussing technical capabilities and features for “the high end users” – some weird imaginary people they didn’t really understand.

Then a company came with a smart phone that was technically inferior, but understood the users, and that company also came up with a solid use case to match it.

Today, the Forsbury flop looks elegant and is performed in a perfect flow. But at its core it helped to jump higher.

Today, even the V-style yields high marks in ski jumping. But at its core it helped to jump further.

Steve Jobs wasn’t afraid of bad marks or coming up with products that were technologically less sound than those already on the market. If they helped to jump higher or further, i.e. if they helped the user and built a great user experience. He knew the products could and would develop further technically over time.

The enormous amount of reactions to his passing shows how Apple excelled in reaching the customers’ emotions, lead by their visionary founder.

I never owned an Apple product, but I profit from their developments, too, as they changed the whole market. And just like in high- and ski jumping we cannot imagine smart phone without touch screens or digital music without well-structured download shops anymore (and there are a lot more examples I could give here).

Looking at Forsbury, Boklöv and Jobs I am thankful they taught me that a great radical innovation must not only aim at developing a successful product or service within one’s own company, but to have the potential to change the whole category, the whole market – to change the game.

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: skiing, track and field by Johannes Musseleck
on October 6, 2011 at 11:02 pm CET
Tagged with: apple • athletics • development • dick forsbury • flop • game changer • high jump • innovation • iphone • itunes • jan boklöv • radical innovation • ski jumping • smart phone • steve jobs • straddle • style points • track and field • use case • user needs • v-style

I wasn’t able to watch two of the last three games of my club live on TV, so I taped them to be able to watch them after coming back home later the same day. That felt awful.

During the time the game was played, I knew it was on and was imagining what could have happened, which made me unhappy with the task I was actually doing at that moment because it kept me from watching my team.

After the match I was curious to know the result, yet trying everything to not get aware of it, trying to save the tension for watching the tape later on. Whenever someone called me I either didn’t answer the phone at all or started the conversation with “don’t tell my anything about the game”. On the way back home I kept the radio off to make sure no radio announcer would destroy my evening.

Back home, finally watching the game, it felt wrong. I knew it wasn’t live and I knew the game was already decided. I knew I couldn’t change a thing about the game. Not that I could when watching it live, but the feeling was different. I even had to keep myself from forwarding the tape in some phase of the game, which destroyed the experience even more.

At that moment I asked myself if it would have been any different if it wasn’t my team’s game, but any other two teams. I’m pretty sure it would have. If I would have gotten to know the result before watching, I would have been disappointed, but  it would have been easier to get over it. And even during the game I would surely have forwarded the tape a couple of times and cared less about the different experience. So the personal involvement seems to be an important factor.

Then I wondered what it would have been like watching the Super Bowl or the World Cup final on tape. My answer was: Why would that happen? No one schedules a meeting during a major sports event and as a fan you would try all you can to avoid e.g. travelling at that time.

This is a powerful finding. There are hundreds of games going on somewhere every day. Most of them I don’t care about anyway (no, I don’t watch the Chilean soccer league even though the games are live on cable TV and some of them probably are quite good games). For some of them, I’m curious to pick up the result, but that’s pretty much it. For some, I want to know instantly how it went and what the outcome was – even a slight delay gives me a bad feeling. And some I just can’t afford to miss.

Interestingly, my social media usage and my uptake and processing of information follow the same rules.

There are millions of blogs and users of Twitter, Facebook, etc. out there. They broadcast anytime in incredible volumes. Some of the posts for sure are very good and it’s a pity I miss them. But like the Chilean soccer league example mentioned above, in most cases I’m not even aware they exist.

For some, I’m kind of interested in what goes on, but if I miss it it’s not much of a problem. Lady Gaga has more than 14 million followers on Twitter. I’m pretty sure the majority of them could still sleep well even if they missed one of her tweets.

Then there is “my team”. Those sources that I don’t want to miss. Those that I want to know instantly about whenever they come up with something new. And just like I only have one favorite team in sports, these are very, very few.

And finally, there are Super Bowl/ World Cup final types of sources. Whenever they update, I try to make sure I’m available to check them at that very moment.

My team only plays once a week, the Super Bowl takes place only once a year, the World Cup Final only once in four years. If I missed one of those it would feel very bad. But if you’re a baseball fan and your team plays nearly every day for half a year, that bad feeling is probably less intense.

But: That perception seems not to be in line with the rules of the media. It seems that mass of information and especially frequency seem to be the most important success factors in social media.

Just a couple of weeks ago, URL shortening service bit.ly release some statistics showing that the half life of a Tweet or a Facebook status update is just three hours. Three hours!

This means that just a few hours after content has been published, no one cares about it anymore. As a result, people raise the frequency of publishing content. And while newspaper editors 20 years ago complained about the pressure of having to come up with a new paper every day, a day is a luxury many can only dream of today.

On April 6, 2008, the New York Times published an alarming article entitled “In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop”, which described the pressure professional loggers are subject to. It quoted blogger Michael Arrington saying that he “gained 30 pounds in the last three years” and “developed a severe sleeping disorder”, just to continue saying that “at some point, I’ll have a nervous breakdown and be admitted to the hospital, or something else will happen”. He finished with “This is not sustainable”. No it’s not. But nothing has happened since the article was published more than three years ago.

I believe it will change. And I believe it has to change.

Social media channels are designed in a way that they strongly privilege recency. However, a thought that has been published today is not any better than the same thought published one or two years ago.

Two things need to happen (and will happen):

1) Redesign of the channels in a way that values content and quality of content over recency.

This doesn’t mean tagging tweets (although it might be a starting point), but e.g. relating them to content that has been previously published or promoting it based on who forwarded it to whom and what relation that group has to your social context.

Facebook Timeline is probably the most interesting experiment into this direction today, but probably not on the most interesting channel from a quality of information point of view. I also believe that Facebook’s intention was a slightly different one, so it remains to be seen where this will develop.

I strongly believe that this will be the field for the next killer-app in social media. Who will build it?

2) Change user behavior

This is a tricky one as it happens on both sides. Let’s start with the “reader” side: By now we are all a lot more experienced in using social media than a few years back. We know better where to look for quality information that is relevant for us. However, our usage of the tools doesn’t always reflect this. How many people do you follow on Facebook or Twitter? Most probably too many, like most of us.

As long as we don’t start to use the channels in a way that concentrates on relevance, as long as we are afraid to unfollow someone and as long as our bookmarks go into a nirvana of thousands of other bookmarks that are unsorted and thus not retrievable in the moment they could be useful, we simply won’t be as efficient and effective as we could be.

On the “publisher” side, it’s even more complicated. As described above, the existing systems favor quantity and high frequency. It takes a lot of guts to slow down – to concentrate on producing quality output, new ideas, stuff that matters instead of just publishing something quickly to fight the three hour half life threat.

As you may have realized, I have reduced the frequency of my posts. Also, they don’t come in a regular pattern like they used to (this is actually only my fourth post in one and a half months). I’m actually doing everything wrong I can, according to the advise you can find all over the web on how to blog successfully.

The result so far: The bad news is, that less people read my blog. If I was a professional blogger who has to earn his living from it, I have to admit this would make me quite nervous. But there’s also good news. The feedback I get is mostly from people that are really interested and have a lot to say. I had some very interesting exchanges on the topics I posted and it was a joy to discuss with my ideas with those great people – like you reading this right now.

Redesigning the channels and changing user behavior are interconnected. User behavior drives channel development and vice verse, so in a way this is a chicken and egg problem. However, chicken and eggs both exist, so a chicken and egg problem often does not impact if a development will take place, it only impacts when it will happen. Our channels and behaviors will change. And I will be as interested to see this change happen as I am to see my team’s matches live.

1 Comment - read or add comment »

Filed under: (american) football, soccer (football) by Johannes Musseleck
on October 4, 2011 at 8:50 am CET
Tagged with: (american) football • bit.ly • blogger • cable tv • chile • dvr • facebook • feeling • fifa world cup final • frequency • half life • information • intensity • involvement • killer-app • lady gaga • michael arrington • new york times • recency • redesign • relevance • soccer (football) • social media • super bowl • tape • tech crunch • twitter • unfollow • usage

Swiss soccer club Neuchâtel Xamax is the stage for what is probably one of the most remarkable takeovers in sports in recent years: Xamax, one of the Swiss clubs with the longest history, was acquired by Bulat Chagaev, a billionaire from Chechnya. And since then, nothing stayed the same in Neuchâtel.

Chagaev, son-in-law of the last Soviet Communist Party leader in Chechnya, is not quite known for his patience and humble management style:

On May 11, just one day after taking over the club, he fired coach Didier Ollé-Nicolle. Just 19 days later, after losing the Swiss cup final, Ollé-Nicolle’s successor Bernard Challendes was fired by Chagaev, too. The rumor goes that at half time of that match, Chagaev would have entered the dressing room shouting at the players: “I will kill you all”. He then brought in former Barca player Sonny Anderson as new coach. Anderson prepared the team for the next season during the summer break. However, after losing the first two league games of the new season, yes, you guessed right, Anderson was fired on July 24. To put the icing on the cake, Chagaev also accused Anderson to have brought in players in which he had financial interest (ironically, last week Ramzan Kadyrov, the controversial president of Chechnya, accused Chagaev to have “eaten up” his money, while he was vice president of soccer club Terek Grozny under Kadyrov).

Also, the rest of the coaching staff and players Binya and Carlao had to leave together with Anderson. Speaking of players: One of them didn’t even last as long as Anderson this season: After the first league match, a 0-3 defeat against Lucerne, keeper Rodrigo Galetto was dismissed.

And the wheel keeps turning: The next coach, Joaquin Caparros, also only stayed for 39 days before being fired. And during this time, another dressing room encounter took place when Chagaev intimidated the players again – but this time joined by armed bodyguards.

The result of all the activity: Xamax is currently 8^th in the league which only is 10 teams strong, having only two wins from nine matches.

Supporters in Switzerland are far from the typical Swiss neutrality in this case: Xamax fan clubs promote a fan boycott of home matches, while e.g. fans of opponents Young Boys Berne presented banners such as “Love Football – Hate Bulat” or “Bulat – toys for grownups can be found in an adult store” during their match against Xamax.

Xamax is obviously a special situation, but not a singular one: Ramzan Kadyrov, whom I already mentioned above, brought in Dutch coach and former star player Ruud Gullit to Grozny, just to fire him after only 13 weeks. Meanwhile, at his league rival Anzhi Makhachkala, Suleiman Kerimov, number 118 on Forbes’ list of the World’s Billionaires, bought super star Samuel Eto’o from Inter Milan for a salary of nearly $30 million per year, an incredibly sum even in soccer. Kerimov also stormed the dressing room at half time a couple of weeks ago, but not the players’ – that of the referee.

These are maybe rather extreme cases, but the pattern is not limited to soccer: There is no more patience!

The business world has, just like soccer, become faster and faster. Decision are taken quicker, communication takes places at the speed of light. Information is everywhere, pressure is high and investors are looking for short term paybacks and results. The rule seems to be: “If it doesn’t work out in the short term, move on”. Be that by investing your money elsewhere (financial investors) or by hiring a new coach (billionaire owners of soccer teams).

Two weeks ago, Yahoo fired their coach.

The interview Carol Bartz gave in Fortune magazine after her dismissal as Yahoo CEO was remarkable:

She stated that the board fired her because they were looking for quick revenue growth, “even though they were told that we would not have revenue growth until 2012”. She spoke about the cooperation deal with Microsoft she set up, which would help the company long-term. Bartz then went on by critizing the impatience of the Yahoo board: “The board was so spooked by being cast as the worst board in the country, (…) now they’re trying to show that they’re not the doofuses that they are.” Wow.

When asked whom the board should bring in long-term as CEO, she shows not only great humor, but also her perspective on patience: “They should bring me in. I knew what to do.”

I’m with Carol Bartz here. I truly believe that patience will be one of the most important success factors for companies in coming years. Not letting capital markets and shortening reporting cycles define your strategy, but defining it yourself based on what is best for the development of the company. This is a tough challenge, and only the strongest managers will be able to withstand the pressure.

If Bulat Chagaev will ever agree? I don’t know. But while he is mainly trying to improve a club in Switzerland domestically, his “colleagues” Kadyrov and Kerimov have bigger plans: They want to build the best team in the world.

Let’s have a look at those that are already there: The last Champions League final featured FC Barcelona and Manchester United.

Barcelona’s coach Josep “Pep” Guardiola is with the club since 1990 (except for a couple of years at the end of his career as a player), while Sir Alex Ferguson is coaching United since 1986.

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: soccer (football) by Johannes Musseleck
on September 23, 2011 at 9:00 am CET
Tagged with: anzhi makhachkala • barca • bernard challendes • binya • board • bodyguards • bulat chagaev • capital markets • carlao • carol bartz • chechnya • coach • communication • didier ollé-nicolle • dismissal • dressing room • fc barcelona • financial investors • financial markets • fire • fortune magazine • intimidation • joaquin caparros • josep guardiola • manchester united • microsoft • neuchâtel xamax • patience • pep guardiola • pressure • quci • ramzan kadyrov • reporting cycles • ruud gullit • samuel eto’o • sir alex ferguson • soccer (football) • sonny anderson • speed • switzerland • terek grozny • xamax • yahoo • young boys berne

With the US Open coming into the decisive phase, it’s crunch time in Flushing Meadows for the big three players, namely Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. After what we have seen so far this year, the clear favorite to win can be no one else but Djokovic.

The number 1 player in the ATP ranking is in incredible form. In 2011, he only lost two matches (one against Federer, one against Andy Murray) while winning 62. The last time a player had stats like this at this time of the year was John McEnroe back in 1984.

An interesting comparison. If you ask people about McEnroe, most will answer with mentioning his discussions with umpires and his joking on the court. The fact that he was one of the greatest players of all time, a player with a feel for the ball that has probably never been matched in history, will only come second. The same with Djokovic: He is able to play like a genius (coaching legend Nick Bollettieri believes he is “the most complete player of all time”), but he still has the image of the “DjokerNole” (which by the way is also his Twitter handle), a player ready to mock his opponents or do jokes on and off the court at all time.

His style of play, combining technique, agility and feeling, is less straight forward than those of perfectionist Federer or powerful Nadal. However, despite all his performance advantages, his two main rivals are earning a lot more money than the Serbian idol. While Federer ranks  #30 in the Forbes list of celebrities’ gross income (May 2010 to May 2011) and Nadal #58, Djokovic didn’t even make the top 100, for all millions of dollars won at the tournaments he played. The problem: He doesn’t score the big advertising and endorsement deals.

While Federer is a perfect match for brands that stand for reliability and high quality like his sponsors Credit Suisse, Rolex or Mercedes-Benz, cool and powerful Nadal promotes cool and stylish brands such as Giorgio Armani and Bacardi. And while Federer and Nadal are dressed in their own colorful Nike collections, Djokovic looks more like a player from the 1980’s in Wimbledon than from the 2010’s in New York, wearing his old school white Sergio Tacchini clothes (his former sponsor Adidas decided not to extend his endorsement deal two years ago).

Federer and Nadal are more mainstream compatible, so despite their lower performance as compared to Djokovic, they get better returns.

In companies, there are Federer, Nadal and Djokovic types of people, too.

There are the Federers, which are the reliable ones that don’t harm or mock anybody. You can always count on them. Then, there are the powerful, Nadal-type ones, those that always play hard and try to overpower their opposition. And there are the Djokovic-types. Those with a lot of feeling, agility and maybe humor.

But just like Djokovic doesn’t get the expensive endorsement deals Federer and Nadal receive, the latter often don’t receive the same recognition and rewards as the reliable or powerful ones.

That’s a mistake. As a tennis “customer”, I would always prefer watching Djokovic over Nadal or Federer, as he is more likely to develop some “magic” in his play, those moments that make the difference.

In companies, where making a difference is the basis of success, it should be a no-brainer to hire or develop more Djokovic types. It should be but – it isn’t.

The reason is, again, mainstream compatibility.

Still, the mainstream opinion decides. The opinion of the reliable or powerful ones that are taking decisions today. And too often they opt for those that are like themselves.

Hiring a Djokovic or a McEnroe seems like a risk to them, as they don’t know what they can expect in return. But both examples, Djokovic and McEnroe, performed. They outperformed all others. Being unusual doesn’t mean they aren’t serious – that’s a common misunderstanding. Often they work harder than anyone else.

Djokovic looked like the World’s eternal #3 until last year, then he changed his training routine and diet completely, even completely revamped his service technique. The hard work payed off.

And McEnroe, who won his first Grand Slam tournament in 1979, improved further so that by 1984, when winning both Wimbledon and the US Open, he dominated the finals against Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl. Especially the Wimbledon final, a 6-1, 6-1, 6-2 execution of Connors showed the development.

Power players can only improve by becoming more powerful. Reliable ones can only stay reliable. Creative, empathic ones have way more room for development.

Note: Earlier this week, Djokovic communicated that he found a new sponsor: A Swiss luxury watch brand. Federer and Nadal are both also sponsored by watch companies. It seems like Djokovic is catching up in this category, too.

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: tennis by Johannes Musseleck
on September 9, 2011 at 8:55 am CET
Tagged with: advertising • agility • andy murray • bacardi • credit suisse • difference • djokernole • endorsement • feeling • flushing meadows • forbes • giorgio armani • hard work • hiring • ivan lendl • jimmy connors • john mcenroe • magic • mainstream compatibility • mercedes-benz • mock • new york • nick bollettieri • nike • novak djokovic • perfectionist • power • rafael nadal • recruiting • roger federer • rolex • serbia • sergio tacchini • switzerland • tennis • twitter • us open • watches

Totilas. No, not Tortillas, this has nothing to do with Mexican food. Tortilas is a wonder horse. A legend in dressage riding (to all of you getting a bit nervous now: Don’t be afraid, this will only be a short excursion to dressage, I will come to soccer in a minute…).

The stallion who was born and raised in the Netherlands holds the World Record score in Grand Prix Freestyle dressage, he was a huge hope for the Dutch for the 2012 Olympic games, where they were expecting to be able to beat their rivals Germany with Totilas’ help.

However, in 2010, disaster struck for the Dutch: Totilas’ owner sold the horse to – Germany.

The Dutch equestrian Federation issued the following statement: “With much sadness – and that is a euphemism – we were informed of the sale of Totilas to Paul Schockemöhle”, and Dutch Olympic Champion Anky van Grunsven put it like this: “This is really, really bad for us. A horse like this won’t come again so quickly”. A very emotional topic.
Today at the European Championships, Totilas will have his first international start for Germany, taking place, ironically, in Rotterdam, Holland.

New owner Schockemöhle, himself former Olympic silver medalist (equestrian) comments: I believe the Dutch are sportsmen. In equitation, they are the most mercantile oriented people, and they also sell a lot of horses“.
There typically aren’t any hooligans in dressage,yet fan protests are expected.

Fan protests are something another man who is, like his fellow countryman Schockemöhle, pretty aware of the rules of market, has become used to during the past few years – or let me put it this way – should have become used to: Dietmar Hopp, co-founder of software giant SAP.

In a very unusual approach in German soccer, the billionaire sponsored his local team from Hoffenheim so heavily, that they went up many leagues until finally making it to the German top-flight Bundesliga. To understand why this is so special, you have to understand that in Germany it is not allowed to any private company or individual to own a controlling stake in a professional soccer clubs. The clubs are owned by their members, many of them have a long tradition and fan/ ownership culture.

Hoffenheim has not, but they have the money from their sponsor. Fans from more traditional teams therefore have been criticizing Hopp and his Hoffenheim model for years.

One of these clubs is Borussia Dortmund, who played at Hoffenheim last Saturday. As usual, fan chants were quite aggressive against Hopp, who in the past has not always dealt with this kind of situations in a relaxed manner. But as he’s not into dressage but soccer instead, these loud criticisms (“Dietmar Hopp, son of a b…”) are what can be expected to come from the stands.

However this time, members of the Hoffenheim organization put up some loudspeakers in front of the away fans section and every time anti-Hopp songs started, they played a loud, high-pitch sound to stop Dortmund supporters from singing insulting chants.

Right now, they are in the middle of a media disaster (“Hopp-gate”) because of it, and one Dortmund supporter already sued Hoffenheim as he suffered a tinnitus at the stadium.

Yet there’s also another way of dealing with the commercial side of sports:

A few days ago, Spanish soccer player Javi Poves from Sporting Gijon quit the game at the age of 24. Poves, who mainly played in Gijon’s reserves in the third league but also already appeared in the first team, gave as a reason that “the more you know about football the more you realize it is all about money, it is rotten and kills your enthusiasm“. He feels that the money he got was only coming from the suffering of others and wanted to fight for more equality.

Upcoming weekend, the season in Spain is about to start. Well maybe. The players association threatens with a strike because of payment delays.

These were a couple of examples of where capitalism collided with emotion. They were taken from the world of sports, which is known to be very emotional, and most of the economic models there are based on the emotional involvement of the customers.

In the background of all professional sports, there are professional, economic organizations doing professional, economic things.

What these stories tell us is valid anywhere, not only in sports:

Economy must never disregard the emotional factors.

Customers are emotional, they don’t act rational. So if we come up with a rationally sound offer but don’t connect on the emotional level, we won’t be successful.

Markets behave emotional. And even those areas of the economy that are probably the least emotional one – financial markets – often stumble when market don’t behave in the way their mathematical models thought they would, but based on panic, greed or other emotions.

Emotion creates heat. It’s not just about figures, you will be criticized in fair or unfair, yet emotional, ways for emotional reasons all the time and probably you’ll do the same with others. It’s part of the game. If you can’t take the heat, stay off the kitchen. Just shouting back in a loud, high-pitch sound won’t make things better. On the contrary.

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: equitation, soccer (football) by Johannes Musseleck
on August 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm CET
Tagged with: anky van grunsven • borussia dortmund • bundesliga • chants • criticism • dietmar hopp • dressage • dutch • emotions rational • equitation • european championships • fan culture • fan protests • financial markets • germany • grand prix freestyle • horse • insulty • javi poves • london 2012 • loudspeaker • market behavior • netherlands • noise • paul schockemöhle • payment delays • player wages • rival • rotterdam • sap • soccer (footbal) • software • spain • sporting gijon • strike • totilas • tsv 1899 hoffenheim • wonder horse • world record

In my very first post here on businessgametime.com nearly two years ago, I wrote about New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick (the topic back then was risk taking and entrepreneurial thinking). Later, when writing about personal branding, I used the example of wide receiver Chad Ochocinco. Now these two are united as the Patriots signed Ochocinco for the upcoming season.

They may seem like an unlikely combination: A coach known for demanding disciplined behavior and a flamboyant player who has nearly 2.5 million Twitter followers and a lot of experience in being fined by the NFL.

Yet there’s something that gives us the feeling it might work out: Both are extremely hard working and focused on success. And both do it their way. Belichick’s record as a coach speaks for itself, and so do Ochocincos tweets at 5 a.m. when he’s getting ready for long training session – even during the lockout period.

But Chad is not the only difficult customer for Belichick: They also hired Albert Haynesworth, who was suspended by his former team, the Washington Redskins, over conflicts with the coaching staff.

Bill Belichick believes that he will be able to find the right way of approaching the two and getting them to produce, just like he successfully did with Randy Moss and Corey Dillon.

Moss, then known for his egoistic behavior, was traded for a fourth-round draft pick, but in the three full years he spent with the Patriots, he had a stellar 3.765 receiving yards.

Dillon was traded for a second-round draft pick prior to the 2004 season in which he rushed for 1.635 yards – plus 292 in postseason – which ended with the Patriots winning the Super Bowl.

Now Haynesworth (traded for a fifth round draft pick) and Ochocinco (traded for a fifth and a sixth round draft pick). Will Belichick have success again? Most probably.

There’s just one coach who doesn’t seem to be afraid of the Patriots: New York Jets’ Rex Ryan, who knocked the Patriots out of the playoffs last season. His reaction to the Patriots trades: “I think we have to find somebody out there to beat New England besides us.”

The confidence might come from the fact tat Ryan also hired a star wide receiver last weekend: Plaxico Burress. Burress just returned from 20 months in prison which he spent for criminal possession of a handgun after shooting himself in the foot in a nightclub. He came as a free agent after the Giants released him from his contract in 2009.

So here’s my 4th short summer thought:

Managing the good is rather easy. You hire them at market value and they perform consistently as you expect it from them.

Managing the outstanding is way more difficult. It takes outstanding managers like Belichick or Ryan. Both rather special characters themselves. However, when you succeed you get outstanding performance at a bargain price, as outstanding performers are desperate to find a place where they are given an opportunity. A place where they are understood. A place where they are challenged.

At this place, great things will happen. Be that in Foxborough, New York or right at where you are.

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: (american) football by Johannes Musseleck
on August 1, 2011 at 10:13 pm CET
Tagged with: (american) football • albert haynesworth • bill belichick • chad ochocinco • corey dillon • difficult • market price • new england patriots • new york jets • nfl • outstanding • performance • plaxico burress • randy moss • rex ryan • special ones • summer thoughts • super bowl • twitter • washington redskins • wide receiver

Here’s the short summer thought no.3 – the final one on the Tour De France:

Until last week, I have never been to Alpe D’Huez, the mystical climb of the Tour De France. On Friday I finally have. And what an experience it was: Hundreds of thousands of fans from all kinds of nations celebrating together, going wild, yet staying fair and supporting the athletes all the time. From the orange sea of Dutch supporters in corner 7 to the Norwegian community a little up the hill to Luxembourgian supporters close to the finish line, Americans, Australians, Germans, French, Belgian, Swiss, Spanish, you name it.

On our drive back from the French Alps we discussed which sporting event was the best to watch. With the experience of some of the greatest sporting events in store, we concluded that it was not dependant on which sport, which performance level or which outcome it has, but on the atmosphere: The location and most importantly: The people.

Companies tend to forget that: Job description, salary or job title are important factors, but what really motivates and glues people to the company is the atmosphere. And nothing influences the atmosphere as much as how people interact with each other. Like in Alpe D’Huez, it’s fairness, openness and supporting each other what counts.

And like the Tour De France in Alpe D’Huez this comes completely free. But getting there is the challenge.

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: cycling by Johannes Musseleck
on July 25, 2011 at 9:34 pm CET
Tagged with: atmosphere • cycling • event • experience • french alps • fun • interaction • l'alpe d'huez • mountain stages • people • summer thoughts • tour de france

As promised last week, here’s my next short summer thought, again on the Tour De France:

As the Tour heads to the Alps, one thing is obvious: In flat stages, riders can be winners for a day. But if they really want to create a gap between them and their competitors, they have to be strong in the mountain stages, they have to go uphill. In the steep climbs, those in good shape can create the basis for winning the complete tour. Those that aren’t among the strongest at the most difficult stages will lose so much that they for sure won’t be amongst the winners overall.

I like this analogy.

Succeeding at the easy jobs, getting the low hanging fruits will not give you a sustainable advantage over your competition. Going where it hurts can.

It’s not a guarantee to be successful, but if you don’t it’s a guarantee for not being successful.
Any entrepreneur working Monday to Friday nine to five probably won’t create the next breakthrough startup. Anyone searching for an idea without leaving the comfort zone won’t invent the next big thing.

If we just go with the flow, we will be stuck in the flow. With no advantage over those flowing along with us.

No Comments yet - be the first to add a comment »

Filed under: cycling by Johannes Musseleck
on July 18, 2011 at 9:23 pm CET
Tagged with: breakthrough • competition • competitive advantage • creativity • cycling • entrepreneur • french alps • idea • low hanging fruits • mountain stages • summer thoughts • tour de france • uphill