After reviewing the teams and organizations I have been a part of in my life, my junior year high school football team is fit for a discussion on the functionality (or lack thereof) of successful teams. Over a nine game regular season, my team finished 5-4: starting 2-4 but going on to win the final three games in order to reach the minimum 5 wins to make the playoffs (7-5 overall, lost in quarterfinals of playoffs). Once reaching the playoffs, we beat two top 15 teams in the state--an accomplishment many individuals analyzing the team believed impossible. In order to properly analyze where this team succeeded and where it did not, I will first examine the team structure followed by the effects the structure had in determining success.
Similar to the organizational structure of other teams, seniority plays a major role in obtaining respect. On the varsity team, juniors and seniors make up the majority of the population with the exception of the most talented players from the sophomore class. The senior class consistently gets the most respect from the coaching staff. Conversely, being a senior also warrants higher expectations in terms of performance and leadership on the field. Juniors that earned playing time also earn more respect from both players on the team and coaches. This seniority structure plays a particularly strong role in explaining the 5 game win streak this team enjoyed.
Connecting this team to some of chapter 5's terms, "One Boss," "Simple Hierarchy" and "All-Channel Network" all apply aptly. Our "Boss" was our head coach. He was not in charge of a specific position group like many assistant coaches, rather he would observe the practice as it was unfolding. He would provide discipline and teaching points as he saw fit. He designed the practice format and organized drills he believed to provide the best preparation for the game that week. He was essentially the CEO of the organization: managing the big decisions of play-calling and game planning and delegating some of the smaller tasks such as scouting to assistant coaches in addition to directing players to do certain tasks.
In conjunction with "One Boss," a "Simple Hierarchy" was installed through the presence of four senior captains (typically either the best seniors or most talented players on the team that are well respected). These individuals were able to communicate well between both the coaching staff and the players. They provided an avenue for discussion about the state of the team especially what could be done more efficiently.
On a separate note, players created an "all channel network" through our Facebook groups and group texts to have an open line of communication at all times. Many of the players had played together over a period of three years and knew each other's tendencies both on and off the field. In my opinion, team accountability increased greatly because of this network. For example, team leaders made sure teammates were not going out drinking or causing trouble the night before games to ensure that they were focused on the task at hand.
This connectivity of the team was a huge reason for late season success. When the team was 2-4, morale was low and the constant barrage of criticism from the coaching staff was not elevating the team's overall play. However, the captains and seniors on the team held several team meetings to synchronize the team. By holding an open forum, any player, significant contributor or not, was able to lend input to better understand the issues at hand and how to remedy them.
Following this meeting, the turnaround was immediate. The discipline that had been lacking was finally evidenced in the team's play. The players (seniors in particular) took greater pride in making the team "their own." Meaning that the coaches influence should not mean as much as a fellow teammates. The coaches still remain relevant and continue to teach and adjust but the players on the team provide the motivation. If your peers are not willing to push you and challenge to be the best you can be then the organization will lack drive and persistence through difficult situations.
It was this resolve and discipline that helped propel this team to wins over the 5th and 14th ranked teams in the state. In the end, my team was defeated in the quarterfinals by a much stronger opponent filled with players that would go on to play Division 1 football. Despite this failure, the team was able to achieve relative success by its ability to adapt and motivate from within the organization, rather than be motivated by outside groups.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Friday, September 16, 2016
Opportunistic Thinking
From my personal experience, an opportunity I passed up on and have debated the opportunity cost since is my college decision making process. As a prospective student, I was highly interested in exploring the field of business either in Finance or Accounting. I also expressed desire to stay in the Midwest, close but not too close to home. After doing research on the programs in the area, I narrowed my list down to Indiana, Illinois, Notre Dame and Marquette. Notre Dame would have been my first choice had I been accepted, but I wound up making my decision between Indiana and Illinois.
February of my senior year I had almost come to consensus that I would attend Indiana as I had received the decision of denial from the University of Illinois College of Business. Similarly, I had been accepted into Indiana's Kelley School of Business so the decision seemed like a no-brainer. However, after several months of consideration, I decided that I would attend Illinois and attempt to transfer into the College of Business as an undeclared student.
Long story short, I did not have the credentials to gain admission into the College of Business and instead decided to pick Economics as my major. Knowing this, the question becomes did I make the right choice even though I had a significant opportunity that I passed up. There are several areas of interest. First, would I have had the same amount or more career opportunities than I do here at U of I. The Kelley School of Business offers many great opportunities but I feel that Illinois has an equal or even greater amount of career opportunities. With many career fairs, student-run organizations and well-connected alumni, a student would only have to apply themselves in order to find quality career-preparing experiences.
Secondly, would have I enjoyed what I would have been doing at Indiana? In all likelihood, I would have ended up as an accounting major. After taking an accounting class here at U of I, I realized I might have made the right decision. Similarly, I have nothing but good things to say about the Econ department here and I fully enjoy my major.
Finally, do I regret not going to Indiana? The answer to that question is a resounding no. Although my path at U of I was not as straightforward as it would have been at IU, I can confidently say that my education experience has benefited from having to research and explore a major on my own rather than being placed into one. I also understand that at Indiana I would have a near equal amount of opportunity to find a good career path.
Despite passing on a great opportunity, I do not feel regret. Although I feel I would have capitalized on the opportunity in the moment, my patience paid off in the long run.
February of my senior year I had almost come to consensus that I would attend Indiana as I had received the decision of denial from the University of Illinois College of Business. Similarly, I had been accepted into Indiana's Kelley School of Business so the decision seemed like a no-brainer. However, after several months of consideration, I decided that I would attend Illinois and attempt to transfer into the College of Business as an undeclared student.
Long story short, I did not have the credentials to gain admission into the College of Business and instead decided to pick Economics as my major. Knowing this, the question becomes did I make the right choice even though I had a significant opportunity that I passed up. There are several areas of interest. First, would I have had the same amount or more career opportunities than I do here at U of I. The Kelley School of Business offers many great opportunities but I feel that Illinois has an equal or even greater amount of career opportunities. With many career fairs, student-run organizations and well-connected alumni, a student would only have to apply themselves in order to find quality career-preparing experiences.
Secondly, would have I enjoyed what I would have been doing at Indiana? In all likelihood, I would have ended up as an accounting major. After taking an accounting class here at U of I, I realized I might have made the right decision. Similarly, I have nothing but good things to say about the Econ department here and I fully enjoy my major.
Finally, do I regret not going to Indiana? The answer to that question is a resounding no. Although my path at U of I was not as straightforward as it would have been at IU, I can confidently say that my education experience has benefited from having to research and explore a major on my own rather than being placed into one. I also understand that at Indiana I would have a near equal amount of opportunity to find a good career path.
Despite passing on a great opportunity, I do not feel regret. Although I feel I would have capitalized on the opportunity in the moment, my patience paid off in the long run.
Friday, September 2, 2016
Alvin Roth Biography
Alvin Roth is currently the Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University. He was born in 1951 in New York City and received his Bachelor's degree from Columbia while earning both his Master's and Doctorate at Stanford. Roth's greatest recognition in the academic field comes from his research on the topics of game theory, market design, and experimental economics. One of his most significant awards received was the 2012 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design. He won this award with Lloyd Shapley.
Roth is the co-creator of New England Program for Kidney Exchange which aids patients in finding a compatible donor. In short, the program groups two incompatible pairs together. For example, a wife and husband may be incompatible the same way a father and son do not match. However, if the father and husband match while the wife and son match, transplantation can occur. A 12 party transplant (6 donors-6 recipients) occurred in 2008.
This link shows Roth explaining the process in a 2015 lecture at Berkely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exB1O3pTf7E
One interesting fact about Roth is he took his teaching talents to the University of Illinois from his graduation at Stanford until 1982. I look forward to understanding how his contributions to the field of economics are applicable to the real world.
Roth is the co-creator of New England Program for Kidney Exchange which aids patients in finding a compatible donor. In short, the program groups two incompatible pairs together. For example, a wife and husband may be incompatible the same way a father and son do not match. However, if the father and husband match while the wife and son match, transplantation can occur. A 12 party transplant (6 donors-6 recipients) occurred in 2008.
This link shows Roth explaining the process in a 2015 lecture at Berkely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exB1O3pTf7E
One interesting fact about Roth is he took his teaching talents to the University of Illinois from his graduation at Stanford until 1982. I look forward to understanding how his contributions to the field of economics are applicable to the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)