Peyton Manning's Vaccum of Power

Watching the Colts horrific performance this year was very telling on many different levels.  Beyond proving the unquestioned greatness of Peyton Manning, it also proved how providing one individual with so much power, control and responsibility can lead to a catastrophic downfall should anything happen to that individual.

It is no secret that the Colts provide Peyton Manning with way more control over the offense than any other team in the NFL.  They primarily use two personnel groups, four formations and rarely motion or shift.  They are in a static alignment the majority of the time so that Peyton Manning can manipulate the defense at the line of scrimmage to show what they are doing.  Peyton can then change the offensive play to what is appropriate.  For the past however many years, this has proven to be very effective.  They have won many games, and Peyton Manning has made a ton of endorsement money off of his on field persona.  During this time, I have never heard a football analyst question the way that the Colts run their offense.

In contrast, the New England Patriots utilize a system which provides their future Hall of Fame Quarterback with less control at the line of scrimmage.  They use many personnel groups, formations, shifts and motions.  They are continually dynamic with their alignments to create uncertainty amongst the defense.  Although Brady could probably handle the same type of responsibility that is placed upon Manning, the Patriots utilize a more "collective" effort.  Their offense is much more of a system than the Colts offense, which had gotten to the point of being totally dependant upon one individual.  When Brady was lost for the season in week one a few years back, Their backup came in with no experience and guided their team to an 11-5 record.  They were able to accomplish this with a very similar level of talent to what the Colts were working with this year.

When you look at these two organizations, It is no wonder that the Patriots future is looking a whole lot brighter than the Colts.  After firing both the Polians, the Colts really are starting from ground zero.  I am very curious about whether the new coach who is hired (after Caldwell is inevitably fired) will establish more of an offensive system to take some of the control away from Manning, and allow the offensive coaching staff to actually do their job.  As Manning rose to greatness, he continually took more and more control of the offense... to the point of where any coach holding the title of offensive coordinator was somewhat irrelevant.  Despite their success, I think it is also fair to question whether the Colts potential was fulfilled during the time that Peyton was running things.  Yes they did win a super bowl, and yes they were continually in the playoffs, but many of those post season births ended in disappointment.  Given the amount of talent on those teams, I think that it is fair to question whether that talent was continually optimized.

I think that the bottom line here is that when you are running an operation, you cannot let one person be larger than the operation itself.  When you have a great individual, you definitely want to exploit his abilities, but not at the expense of becoming overly dependant upon that person.  It is very important to develop an operation that strives to be fully dimensional, even at the expense of short term success.  I think that the Colts often did not see the big picture, and got too caught up in dominating regular season games with absurd offensive outputs.  In many instances this hurt them in the post season, and now they are looking at a very uncertain future.  I think that the coaches who enabled Manning's insistence of controlling everything should bear a lot of responsibility here.  Tony Dungy was clearly a players' coach.  He always treated his players with the utmost respect, and was a great leader of men.  With that respect, came an insistence that the players win games... not the system the team ran.  I tend to believe that this is a faulty way of thinking.  As a coach it is your job to establish a system, and try to do everything in your power to be creative in devising a scheme week in and week out.  Otherwise... You are not really doing your job.  When I see the Saints, Patriots and Packers offensive systems perform like they do, it confirms this belief.

Accountability and Incentive - The Problem of the Private and Public Sectors

Like so many current topics debated within our contemporary way of life, the battle between public and private sectors seems to have a rather polarizing effect on many individuals.  On one level this is very understandable, as both sectors operate in a highly flawed manner and present numerous opportunities for criticism.  Thus it is easy for leaders to galvanize large groups of people in an attack against the opposition.  What is troubling however, is that many of those who are so quick to condemn the flaws found within the opposing ideology, are so blind to the flaws inherent to their own ideology.  This common theme found within our socio-political world is truly crippling, as evident by our current economic state.  Instead of putting forth ones best ideas in a collaborative manner, individuals refuse to compromise their ideological agendas.  This leads to a high level of dysfunction where nothing is accomplished.  The lengths that people go to, to conceal the fact that their $#!t really does stink is truly amazing.  How people perceive “work” within our society falls right in line with the concept of polarization.  Instead of striving to create workplaces where employees are provided with job security and incentive while still being held accountable on a daily basis, our society presents two totally different work contexts which are equally dysfunctional.  That is not to say that there are no private sector jobs where employees are treated very well, and that there are no public sector jobs where employees are held accountable.  These work contexts absolutely exist.  I would argue however that they are few and far between, and that present socio-political and socio-economic factors are making them harder and harder to achieve.

As a highly motivated member of a Union in the State of California, I think that it is very fair for me to voice criticism towards the public sector.  Based upon my experiences, it is very clear that the public sector absolutely has the capacity to create an environment of zero incentive and zero accountability.  The concept of “waiting in line” and knowing that you will be taken care of in the long term is something that inevitably leads to a high comfort zone and low performance level for the majority of employees.  It also has the effect of stifling the drive of more motivated employees.  When you look at the size and scope of the public sector found within California and you see the impact that unions have on how business gets done, it is no wonder that our state is in such a terrible place economically.  Prior to entering my profession, I had no clue about the inherent gap that existed between Administration and Employees.  It didn’t take long before I was all too aware of how each entity kind of existed in a different world from the other.  Having talked with others in different areas of the public sector, the theme seemed to be pretty universal.  When backed by a union many employees feel bullet proof, and will go to great lengths to play the system.  In response to these actions, Administration will often “get creative” and implement childish and vindictive forms of accountability to establish some form of authority.  This only makes the problem worse.  Although this reoccurring process is very frustrating to deal with, it should not take away from the fact that there is great potential inherent to the concept of a union.  Job security is a good thing.  If you respect your job and perform well, you should have job security.  The level of authority that many unions now possess however is very excessive, and it is counterproductive in getting things done.  In order to perform at a high level, people must have a little bit of a sense of urgency.  Beyond the problem of the unmotivated employee however, exists another major problem.  Because of seniority, the talents of more gifted employees are often not utilized to their full extent.  In my mind, this is more problematic than the previous issue as it neglects the concept of “high level performance”.  As an organization, establishing a high level of performance should be your number one priority.  When you cannot place employees in the positions that they need to be in to make the organization function at an optimal level, you are settling for mediocrity.  As long as the public sector is gridlocked by power struggles between administration and unions, the public sector will continue to operate at a mediocre level leading to continually greater problems.

The private sector in contemporary society serves as the mirror opposite to the public sector.  Without the protection of a union, employees are pretty much at the mercy of their employer.  This constant sense of urgency and accountability often leads to a very high level of productivity.  Incentive is also much more of a factor in the private sector, as employers are able to place employees wherever they choose without the restrictions of seniority.  The high levels of accountability and incentive residing within the private sector present the perfect opportunity for motivated individuals to prove their “value” to their employers.  Employers in turn, are constantly looking to maximize efficiency and performance.  This involves finding creative ways to cut spending and maximize profits.  In order for a business/corporation to survive in a highly evolved and highly competitive marketplace, they must act in an extremely decisive manner.  If an employee is deemed expendable, then they are let go.  If an employee proves profitable, then they advance up.  As technology evolves and jobs are shipped overseas however, the demand for American employees is constantly declining while the supply is forever increasing.  This is because the “job creators” no longer need to create jobs.  Instead, they must refine systems.  Those who refine their system to the highest level become a dominant corporation.  As the free market continues to evolve, it is very apparent that we are living in an era of corporate dominance.  If you go to any major city in the United States, you will see the same businesses setting up shop.  They are one element of the manifestation of social Darwinism.  Their business models are highly evolved, and most small businesses stand no chance of competing with them.  Only brilliant visionaries who can further evolve the market will unseat them.  The small and centralized groups of people who run these corporations are making ungodly profits compared to the rest of society because they were able to exploit the wants and needs of consumers.  It is very clear that “collective best interest” is something that is not considered very often within the private sector.  Instead, a decisively ruthless greed inspires many of these individuals to conquer at all costs.  The result of their conquests is an economy which produces nothing, but consumes the most advanced products you could dream of at an alarming rate without having the money to pay for it.  Through an overly excessive application, the private sector has managed to warp the valuable concepts of accountability and incentive into a ruthless system which greatly benefits a few and marginalizes the majority.  It is also important to note that for some small business owners, the aforementioned problems within the private domain do not manifest in quite as large of a scale.  They are able to ply their trades independently and make a decent living without incentive and accountability being placed upon them by corporate superiors.  Instead, they deal with the incentive and accountability that they place upon themselves to run their own business.  This stress can become highly problematic however, when the corporate reach extends down into niche markets and bullies small business owners into submission.  This trend seems to be increasing as well.

                Both of these “work” contexts are problematic for the employee.  Although quality work settings still do exist, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.  It is a shame that you must decide between the two when choosing your career.  What is most frustrating is that both sectors could learn something from the other.  The public sector could vastly improve the efficiency and productivity of its employees by implementing more accountability and incentive, while the private sector could provide much more opportunity and security for current and potential employees by curbing the ruthless greed which seems to dominate the free market.  Bringing balance to each sector would make things better for everyone, and would probably solve a lot of the current problems which exist in our society.  Balance however, seems to be a foreign concept in this bi-polar country.  The bias within most media outlets is delivered in a contrived manner which preys on the weak minded by instilling them with fear.  The intent is aimed at forcing an individual’s perspective into one of two categories, both of which are extremely limiting and one dimensional.  The depth of human perception however is mult-dimensional.  Everyone has liberal perspectives on some issues and conservative opinions on others.  I tend to believe that we all have a very similar idea about what is true and what is fair however.  In regards to establishing a proper “work” context within our country, certain concepts should be present within all jobs.  Accountability and incentive must be present, but not at the expense of dehumanizing the American employee in pursuit of excessive gains.  Instead of pointing the finger at the other sector, supporters of both sectors need to look in the mirror and deal with their own problems.