Continue reading this post »

(This is a business article I wrote - excuse the ref  to "for those who don't...". Obviously not applicable to this crowd.)

A lesson about implementing transformational “change” in your organization.

Three weeks ago Auburn’s head football coach (CEO) Tommy Tuberville fired his offensive coordinator (VP)Tony Franklin in a dramatic mid-season move most will argue was done to save his own job.  The firing followed what could only be described as a dismal year for Auburn football where they started the season ranked 10th in the nation and after losses to LSU, Vanderbilt, Arkansas and West Virginia no longer show up in the polls.

For those who don’t follow Auburn football it is important to know that historically they have run a conservative offence relying heavily on running up the middle and the use of the option. Though effective to a point, the CEO (Head Coach) felt this offence wasn’t producing the results needed to achieve the goal his Board of Directors (Auburn Trustees) or shareholders (fans) expected - a national title.  As a result, the CEO made the bold decision to adopt an entirely new offensive strategy called “the Spread”.  Considered by most to be a very dynamic and complex  - no huddle/shotgun - offense,  this offensive style is a vast departure from anything the Auburn “company” has done before. 

Like any good CEO about to introduce “change”, Tommy Tuberville researched and hired one of the guru’s of “the Spread” offence, Tony Franklin, and named him his new Offensive Coordinator (Vice President).  He would not let Tony Franklin hire his own assistance but was told instead to use existing assistants - loyal to the CEO.

So what went wrong? 

An insightful radio interview with Tony Franklin revealed classic mistakes made by the CEO in implementing change in his organization. The VP stated there was little communication between him and the CEO after he was hired.  There was no social contact whatsoever.  The VP also stated there was little if any attempt by the CEO’s assistant (long standing employees and managers) to befriend him let alone embrace the new guy.  Though the CEO would speak publicly of his support and commitment to this new offence, even when things were not going well, the interview left one with the distinct impression he did little else in the way of actions to make this transformation successful.  And on game days, the CEO would not hesitate to make public (over the headphones) critical observations of his new VP’s play calling.

Let’s explore how the CEO’s action or lack thereof undermined and in fact directly contributed towards the failure of this transformation.  First, he believed that simply communicating his intention to change was all that was necessary to have his employees and leaders embrace the change. What he failed to understand is from an employee perspective, the kind of communication that impacts behavior is 10 percent “traditional” vehicles (speeches, email, etc...), 45 percent organizational structure (whatever punishes or rewards) and 45 percent management behavior.  The last 45 percent includes “off the record remarks”, and daily activities.  In the words of Sue Swenson, CEO of Cricket Communications, “What you do in the hallway is more powerful than any thing you say in the meeting room.”

Secondly, he mistakenly believed that you can manage a transformation strategy in the same manner as you would an incremental changes and past success will assure future success with this venture.  Incremental change - continuous improvement - is linear, predictable and logical.  Transformational change, on the other hand, is a redefinition of who we are and what we do.  It is often unpredictable (responding to unforeseen circumstances, challenges and opportunities), and illogical (demanding people and organizations change when they are the most successful). Most importantly, past success is not a valid indicator of future success.  In fact, past success may be the greatest obstacle.

In closing, organizations don’t change.  People do - or they don’t.  If they don’t trust the leadership, don’t share the organization’s vision, don’t buy into the reason for change, and aren’t included in the planning - there will be no successful change - regardless of how brilliant the strategy.

As the CEO who made the bold decision to introduce this dramatic change to his organization it was incumbent on him to understand the challenge of changing and how his actions both verbal and nonverbal can make all the difference between success or failure.  The sink or swim approach he used was destined to fail.  Tony Franklin was magnanimous in accepting some of the blame for failing.  With all do respect, in this environment, no single man would have succeeded in this environment.  It was doomed to fail.

* Italicized text taken from The Biggest Mistakes in Managing Change by Carol Kinsey Goman, Ph.D

Dear Track-em Tiger Readers/Bloggers,

I want to thank you for your considerable blind loyalty and obedience these past few weeks.  It is comforting to know you are there for me.

I’d like to clear the air a little bit - cause I think I owe you that much.

First let me say that I might have slightly overstated expectations this year in my conversations with reporters - which led to our no. 10 pre-season ranking.  There might have been a few signs that we were going to have some struggles at quarterback with the spread offense.

And I know that I might have sent some confusing signals to you the fans and to our personnel with regard to who we were going to groom for that ever critical quarterback position.  BTW - I still haven’t made up my mind.

Though I enthusiastically endorse the spread offense - I just don’t think it is for us.

I am also aware that our 3rd down conversion rank of 111 of 120 stinks as does our total offensive ranking of 97th.  But I remind you - we are a defensive team. It is the defense that wins the game - and you’ve got to be proud of those boys.  

Now I’ll admit I have gone through my share of offensive coordinators.  But trust me, this wasn’t my fault.  I would have kept them longer if they’d just been a little more enthusiastic about my “up-the-middle, up-the-middle, up-the-middle, punt” concept.  It really is exciting - when it works.

I have no idea how GATech scored so many points against Miss State after they held us to just 3.  And I know losing to Vandy was hard on you.  Especially those thousands who traveled to the game. We were bound to lose sometime.  Right?  And can you believe Miss State beat them!

That trick play Arkansas did this weekend was quite a surprise.  The fact they did it in our own stadium was pretty ballsy.  Didn’t see that coming.

On a personal note.  I know there are some who are suggesting I am past my prime and should probably consider stepping down - but look at guys like Joe Paterno and Bobby Bowden. I say if they can do it - so can I.  Afterall, I run a clean program and isn’t that what’s most important to you?

I’d like to give you some words of encouragement for the remainder of the year - but I can’t think of anything other than I know we’ll get better.  I am glad that is all it takes to retain your passionate unbridled loyalty.

War Eagle,

Teflon Tubs

I chose not to rush and immediately write my reactions to Sat game.  Instead, I wanted to give it some thought first.  I have and the title sums up my feelings.

It is clear Les Miles came to win or go down hard trying.  His on-side kick and halfback pass were both brilliantly timed and more importantly - perfectly executed.  He clearly prepared well for this game and had in his arsenal "contingency" plays he would use to WIN  - not tie and "come close" - but WIN.

On the other hand, it appears Tuberville's strategy was based on 'hope'.  Hope that his defense would keep the score low (possibly score a few themselves) and hope again his offense would perform better this week than they did in the last three weeks putting points on the board.  As a famous business author put it, "Hope is Not a Strategy".   Tuberville's "hope" strategy almost worked.  Les's WIN strategy did work.

BTW - No one has mentioned the GaTech vs Miss State game.  An unranked ACC team that was able to rush for 438 yds (500 total vs our 315) and rack-up 38 points against a SEC team we stuggled to score 3 against the week before.

I saw nothing Saturday that changes my position about Tuberville.  A good coach but not great.  A CEO who does not have the skills to lead this team to a National Championship - let alone win it.  This assessment has come after years of watching how he recruits (A-), prepares his team for the season (C+), prepares and strategizes for each game (B+), and makes mid-game course corrections (D). 

I said it before and I'll say it again.  A team is a reflection of the head coach and "standards" he expects from them (the players and coaching staff)

This is not a "knee-jerk" reaction as some have stated.  And to pass it off as the rantings of "irrational fans" is akin to the venerable ostrich burying its head.   As Mattco so accurately stated in replying to my last tumultuous blog entry - "if Auburn is ok with being a 9-4 to a 10-3 team year in and year out, then Tuberville’s our man."  I for one am not ok with this - especially when considering the money spent on this program.

Let's take a look at the Auburn football program as one would examine a business.  You have the fans, the university alumni and contributors who would be equivalent to the shareholders of the company.  Then you have the Board of Directors - who are those in the Auburn administration responsible for protecting the shareholders' assets and ensure they receive a commensurate return on their investment.  They also select and evaluate the CEO, determine his compensation, and provide him with the resources necessary to perform at a level they expect .  And finally, you have the CEO.  The person whose is responsible for the operation of the 'company'.  He sets expectations, and through his actions (personnel selection, preparation, etc....), the 'standards' with which his company is run and excels.

Once again Tommy Tuberville, our CEO, has launched into the football season with the performance standards of a mediocre high school football coach.  Yet, rather than point the finger at the CEO, we blame his personnel - the offensive coordinator, the quarterback, etc.... for the pitiful performance.   Have you ever seen Wall Street do this ... blame the VP of Sales, or the HR director, or the Director of Training for poor quarterly results?  Never.  They blame the CEO.  In Auburn's case, there is one person responsible for how well this team is prepared and how well they perform at the beginning of the season and that is, Tommy Tuberville.

As a comparison look at CEO - Pete Carroll of USC.  Look at how well they perform and execute right from the start - despite loosing a bushel of players to the NFL.  What do you think are the 'standards' he sets for his players and coaches?  Watch them on the sidelines.  They play, coach and act like winners.  Mediocrity has no place there. The dynamics are so incredibly different from that of Tuberville and the Auburn sideline.

I have never been a fan of Tuberville for this very reason.  He is a CEO that has been given all the resources to hire the best, to train the best, and to recruit the best.   Yet, every game, and I do mean every game, we shareholders are holding our breath wondering with gut wrenching, nail biting anticipation which team is going to show up.  We are more likely to play down to the 'standards' of our competition than be the benchmark. 

The fumbled balls, the poor play calling, and even poorer execution are all symptoms of a organization whose 'standards' are not that of a national champion - despite the fact the shareholders and board of directors have all given the CEO the resources to be just that.

"A win is a win" was one of the quotes from Tuberville after last weeks' embarrassing performance.  Wouldn't this have been a more appropriate quote, "I want to apologize to the University and the fans for last week's dismal performance.   I have no excuse.   You deserve a better return on your investment.  I hope you'll be generous enough to give me another chance to prove to you I can field a first class team each and every week.  If I can't then I should be fired."

This team is a reflection of the CEO, Tommy Tuberville.  In the business world, if a company with this much talent and resources were to perform like this, the CEO would be placed under a magnifying glass by both the Board of Directors and the media.  It is time for us to ask whether we have the right man at the helm.  Are his 'standards' high enough?

War Eagle!