Leading The Pack
You know me well.
It’s about Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers.
I’ll begin with all the appropriate disclaimers. I haven’t followed the news reports on the Favre situation closely, I’m not a sports agent nor have I read Mr. Favre’s contract. I do know that he’s reported to have been offered between $20 million and $25 million not to play football.
This is one of the most uninspired solutions Packer management could have devised. Any time “leaders” throw money at people to get them to do what they want, they’re either uninspired or lack courage. As leaders yourselves, I’m sure you cringe at both labels.
Let’s look at some alternatives to the proposed “marketing” deal Favre was offered:
- Most contracts call for players to be paid, not that they’ll necessarily play. If that’s the case in Brett Favre’s contract, then appeal to his concern for the future of the team and ask him to teach the new quarterback what he knows. It’s called succession planning!
- If there are performance bonuses built into Mr. Favre’s contract, pay him as if achieved them all, assuming he’s teaching his replacement.
- If he’s not willing to take on the role of teacher, if his passion is playing and that’s what he wants to do, trade him. So what if he leads another team to a Super Bowl victory next year? What’s the likelihood that the Packers or any team will get there with a new quarterback?
Packer management has demonstrated courage in holding their position that Brett Favre will not be their quarterback this year. Yet, their “marketing deal” is uninspired and unproductive.
Throwing money at unhappy employees makes the situation worse. In this case, I’m sure that Brett Favre’s dissatisfaction deepened as Packer management withheld the one thing he wanted - the opportunity to compete. Other players, many of whom share that passion, can’t help but wonder what will happen to them when their time comes. Will they be able to go to another team? Finally, management set a precedent that they’re willing to pay unhappy players to get rid of them. Do any of these create a culture that’s conducive to winning another Super Bowl? I doubt it.
It’s counter-intuitive, if you want to be respected as a leader, don’t offer money; offer alternatives. Any of the alternatives listed above would have achieved the goals of all parties without paying any more than previously agreed. Sweetening the deal cheapens the relationship and fosters ill-will. Why? It ignores the true goals of each party.
Tags: counter-intuitive thinking, increase profits without adding resources
