by Peter A. Arthur-Smith, Leadership Solutions, Inc.®

“If we play in accord with all the numbers then we’ll win; right?” is a typical refrain of modern day managers.

 Wrong. Putting together the right numbers is only part of the performance story. Ask Joe Girardi, the prior Yankees manager, who was known for walking around with a tome of statistics under his arm? Over a nine year period, other than his very early days in the manager role, when the Yankees won the World Series, it seemed that the team was spinning its wheels: numbers or no numbers. As a trained engineer, the team decisions that he took seemed so rooted in particular numbers.

It was the number of pitches a pitcher had to make (100) before being relieved; even though it was evident the pitcher was struggling. Or expecting batters to make their quota “at bats,” even though it was clear a batter was badly off form that particular day. Or pitching rotations that had to run to a certain formation: even though better combinations, relative to a competitor’s line-up, would have brought greater success.

At the end of last season, Girardi had disappeared from the scene, in favor of rookie coach Aaron Boone for a rebuild, and now we’re at the 2018 World Series. Alex Cora coaches the Boston Red Sox and Dave Roberts the Los Angeles Dodgers. Both apparently have plenty of numbers at their disposal; including on each other’s team. But it was interesting to watch which one relied more upon those numbers and which one relied more upon capturing the hearts and minds of his players. Cora was especially interesting to watch, because there he was leading his team into the World Series as a rookie manager. He was bred as a leader with last year’s World Series winner, the Houston Astros.

It was fascinating that both Cora and Roberts had competed as players for each other’s teams. Cora was a Dodger for the first six years of his career and Roberts was a Red Sox player during the final years of his career. The two teams hadn’t met for a World Series since 1916. They rarely played in each other’s park, due to being in different leagues; notwithstanding that their home parks are on opposite US coasts. The latter fact, showing 3,500 miles between, was bound to become a factor in this Series, too, although so many sports journalists ignore such people related challenges as if they just don’t exist; except for them personally.

The first round of two games at the Red Sox stadium went to the home team quite convincingly. Cora made some neat game moves as depicted by a New York Times headline: “Red Sox Play All the Right Cards.”  Now the question was, as the teams prepared their move to Los Angeles, could the Dodgers make a fight of it? Not only did Cora play the right cards, but Roberts’ Dodgers had the cards stacked against them. They had made their challenging trip across country, the hardest time warp to handle with 3 hrs time difference, interspersed by their two tough games in Milwaukee. Then they were required to arrive at unfamiliar Boston, too. These teams hadn’t met in a World Series since 1916.

An obvious question arose: ‘Could Roberts get his team back to LA in good enough shape to mount a turn-around rally?’ He now faced some tough choices. We’ve no idea what options he considered, although we can propose some speculative options. A decision technique called Option Solving would start with the rational question: ‘What is our optimum team flight home from Boston to LA; considering 1) sustaining team morale, 2) mitigating against team fatigue, 3) giving players time to unwind, and 4) optimum economics?  

Given this question, he could resort to this option solving technique to frame two book-ends; designed to set option boundaries and to focus his intuitive and rational minds on his most practical possibilities. One book-end could be: ‘Use the most economical trip regardless of player sentiment;’ which would undermine team spirit. The other book-end to be: ‘Ultra first-class travel option;”which would give team members a false sense of themselves. Clearly both would be seen as extremes that are out of the park. But then they serve the purpose of stimulating their creative minds to come up with more realistic options. Realistic options for Roberts could’ve included the following five:

2. A) Red-eye flight home immediately after Game 2.
3. B) Depart early East Coast Time the following morning.
4. C) Mid-day ECT the following day: to equal 9.00 am LA time.
5. D) Evening ECT the following day; to allow time for relaxation.
6. E) Fly out of Boston the same day as Game 3; to allow maximum time for relaxation.

(Note: Your author would have advised Roberts to put his option solving picture in place the moment he was leaving Milwaukee, when he was in a positive frame of mind and likely in a clearer thinking mood. He would then review his option solving pictogram the moment he sensed the outcome of Game 2; thus taking his team member’s likely mindset into account.)

Whatever option he took, we would likely know if Roberts took an optimum decision by how his players responded to Game 3 and beyond. LA eventually won that game after a record 18 innings – the longest in World Series history. So, despite Red Sox continued pressure, the Dodgers found their manager’s decision sufficiently acceptable to press for a win. They rewarded his leadership with a spirited fight back. Cora also must’ve done a pretty good job getting his team to LA as well, because they fought all the way during Game 3.

Then they plunged into Game 4, where the Dodgers came out ahead by the sixth inning. But the key difference between Cora and Roberts came through once more. Roberts suspect decisions on pitchers and batters was brought to light again. Additionally, Cora has a reputation, even as a rookie coach, of preferring to spend a lot of time with his players: both extolling their strengths and being straightforward about their opportunities to become even better. It’s probable he knows his players very well, consequently makes better pitching and batting decisions at crucial moments. That decision difference enabled the Red Sox to come through to a 9-6 win. As a New York Times article commented at that point; “…everything Cora has done has seemed to work out, in part because the players appreciate his approach.”

Finally, the Red Sox broke the spirit of the Dodgers in Game 5, where Boston won 5-1. You could see both teams were exhausted; although the Sox won the World Series. So it’s clear in high stakes games like this, decision clarity can be the decider.

» It would clearly be worthwhile to take a further look at your decision making approach.

» It will also be valuable for you to determine whether you get close enough to your team members, such that they will support you when the chips are down.

» Do you also have an appropriately intimate knowledge of your team members’ talents that you can make the right calls in difficult competitive situations?

» Are you also willing to respect your team’s feelings when they’re being tested beyond their normal limits?

» Is it clear once more that people issues are as important as the numbers and, even more so, if you’re going to get the most from them? Such thinking reinforces a people engaged culture, where people are likely to do exceptional things because they’re valued.

To learn more about decision-clarity, talk with: