[Cracked Sidewalks] Analyzing the Decision Process

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

Analyzing the Decision Process

Written by: Henry Sugar

Just some additional comments on the decision to hire Buzz, and then I’ll back off.  My opinion on  the Buzz hiring is that I believe Marquette made a bad decision.  It's not a reflection on Buzz... just an opinion that there were more qualified candidates out there.  There is an excellent book called "Winning Decisions", which covers the process that people should use to make good decisions.  Really important decisions (like say picking a basketball coach) should follow a structured process such as:  

• Determine      the crux of the issue
• Create      decision criteria and weight those criteria
• Gather      Information
• Make      the decision
• Learn      from your decision
  

   What’s the crux of the issue?
The first, and most important step, is to figure out the right frame for the problem. In other words, for Marquette, what was the crux of the issue? Was it finding a coach? The best coach? A coach that wanted the job? The crux of the issue should have been a coach that can grow the Marquette program so that it is in a position to compete for the Big East and National Championships. After all, this is what Cottingham alluded to at his press conference, so Marquette did this well.
    What are the decision criteria?
Of course, once that is determined, the decision process should require selection of decision criteria. What did Marquette look at for making this decision? According to Cottingham, it included:
Primary Decision Criteria    

• Committed      to Marquette's      mission of developing exceptional student-athletes
• Represent      the University well
• Hungry      for the challenge - Recruit the best players, Win in the BIG EAST, and Win      at the highest national level.
  

   Additional Decision Criteria  

• Vision      and plan for success
• Work      Ethic
• Recruiting
• Style      of Play
  

   Okay, two beefs with these decision criteria.  Number one - All three of the primary decision criteria are basically a view of “Organizational Fit”.  We know from Rosiak's latest blog that recruiting was considered very strongly too.  How well the coach aligned with the administration is certainly important.  But what about coaching, player development, and leadership?  If you look at Cottingham’s statement, one would think that 100% weight was applied to Organizational Fit / Recruiting.      Number two – if you look at the additional decision criteria for Buzz, Cottingham says
   

“there are other qualities that make Buzz the best choice for the Marquette head basketball job”

Hate to say it, but that reads to me like Confirmation Bias.   In other words, Marquette might have decided on Buzz and then adjusted the criteria to fit that decision.  
     The big implication from these two points is that there's a possibility Marquette didn’t really know what they wanted in a new head coach.  That’s a scary implication and that's what we were afraid of happening with Cottingham.
       
What about Information Gathering?
If we look at Rosiak's blog again, we can see that MU made multiple attempts at luring Washington State's Tony Bennett.  Marquette also contacted Xavier's Sean Miller, Virginia Commonwealth's Anthony Grant, Davidson's Bob McKillop, and Georgia Tech's Paul Hewitt, with additional interest from Siena's Fran McCaffery, Bradley's Jim Les and Illinois' Bruce Weber.  
Using the wonderful benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it’s easy to see why pretty much everyone MU contacted decided it wasn’t a good fit.  The marginal benefit for Miller wouldn’t have been worth it, Grant’s recruiting contacts were in the south, McKillop has Curry (and his son) playing next year, and Hewitt is already in a premier conference.    Making the decision
So let’s say that Marquette makes overtures to their top four or five candidates and none of them are a good fit.  All of a sudden, the candidate that is readily available starts looking better (we call this Availability Bias).  In other words, the qualities of the candidate that is close by and interested starts carrying more weight.  Organizational Fit and Recruiting become even more important to the decision makers.           Conclusion
I stand by my premise that the administration made a bad decision (which may be confirmation bias of our own).  Buzz may be a superstar coach, but he's a risk we shouldn't have had to take.  Unfortunately, what I believe is that the administration never really defined what was important to them.   Rather than working towards its own long-term vision of the program, Marquette instead jumped straight into the process of gathering information.  When this information did not turn out favorably and the initial outreach was not reciprocated, Marquette then began adjusting the decision criteria so that the most available candidate (Buzz) became the preferred candidate.  
Marquette should have taken a step back, defined what was really important to them, and then approached a structured decision process that included candidates like Lowery,  Brownell or a host of other potential options.     Learning from the Decision
However, there is a fifth step that we can now begin analyzing.  What’s done is done with the coaching decision, and the Marquette coach is Buzz Williams.  To be clear yet again, none of this analysis is directed at coach Williams, but rather our thoughts on the psychology and process which led him to be selected as the new coach.  However, we should also expect Buzz to prove that he can handle the job.  
Luckily, we’ll be able to begin analyzing this with short-term milestones as we judge how well he does with:  

• Selecting      a coaching staff
• Dealing      with roster turnover
• 2008 /      2009 recruiting

   Good luck with those three areas, Buzz.  Despite our reservations on how the process was handled, we all really want you to succeed.  Prove you can handle the job!

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/04/analyzing-decision-process.html

[TGM3]

The coaching staff will tell you everything you need to know if Buzz has a fighting chance to ultimately succeed at MU.  If he's able to land a quality, seasoned staff then he has a very good chance to be successful.  If his staff is composed of younger guys and being an assistant at MU is the best job they've ever had - y'all are going to be in for a long, long couple of seasons. 

[Pardner]

Henry--
Stats aren't going to explain this one...this was a Blink moment.  SC went with his gut versus the Power of Groups:  Pure recruiter who SC just made hungrier to prove himself.  His only resume point is fire in his belly...which we may not see from the outside....but it is there. 

We can P&M for the next six months, look at the stats, review the resume, look up old articles, scratch our heads....the answer will be the same.  But Buzz is the guy, our guy--and he wanted the MU HC job unconditionally.  I'd rather lean into his high upside than to settle on the others who are afraid of the BE--making excuses before we even talk to them.  It is risky as all get out, but the reward is higher.  Face it, we are 5th in the BE.   Let's go for it! 

http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2005/02/leadership_and_.html

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Nice post Henry.

I appreciate your displeasure/concern, but also the explanation.

Pardner...

That's an interesting take... and there is something to be said for giving a guy a chance. It's risky, but if you bet on the right guy, a lot of times they will perform.

People who think they "deserve" a job often aren't as effective as people who really "want" a job.

[Daniel]

Sometimes, sometimes experience isn't everything.  In the early '80's I tried to get a job with this high tech software company, in sales.  I had ny own compnay prior to that for 5 years, totally unrelated, that went belly-up.  I wanted this job.  I had been in sales, but not software sales.  I made it past the first gatekeeper, then made it to an interview with the VP of sales.  We talked for over an hour.  At the end, he just looked at me and said, "Why should I hire you with no software sales experience, when I can hire of of the other 5 guys I've been interviewing who have it?"  I looked at him and said, "Because if you do, I will make your decision look brilliant."  He hired me, and I retired from software sales and marketing at Microsoft 5.5 years ago.  I did ok without that initial experience becuase someone gave me a chance.

So Buzz can do - it can happen.  Buzz, make the BOT's decision look brilliant - I think you can!

[Henry Sugar]

Henry--
Stats aren't going to explain this one...this was a Blink moment.  SC went with his gut versus the Power of Groups:  Pure recruiter who SC just made hungrier to prove himself.  His only resume point is fire in his belly...which we may not see from the outside....but it is there. 

We can P&M for the next six months, look at the stats, review the resume, look up old articles, scratch our heads....the answer will be the same.  But Buzz is the guy, our guy--and he wanted the MU HC job unconditionally.  I'd rather lean into his high upside than to settle on the others who are afraid of the BE--making excuses before we even talk to them.  It is risky as all get out, but the reward is higher.  Face it, we are 5th in the BE.   Let's go for it! 

http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2005/02/leadership_and_.html

I read Blink and loved it.  Lost in that point, however, is that the real people that had the ability to make accurate, snap decisions (like the art expert, the relationship trackers, and the cops) were experts in their field!  Cottingham is, well, not quite an expert, is he?   

There are all sorts of cognitive biases that people have when they think about how to approach a problem, so snap judgements are actually less effective in most cases.  For small questions, like if I should order Tuna or Chicken, intuitive decisions are great.  But really important decisions should require more process (which isn't really that hard once one is practiced at it).  Here are some examples of how people think incorrectly:

Availability bias - People tend to favor information that is more readily available, recent, or vivid
Correspondence bias - people tend to oversubscribe abilities to a person and less to the situation
Confirmation bias - people have preconceived notions and then self-select data that fits their preconceived notions
Overconfidence bias - in unfamiliar situations, people are almost always overconfident of their abilities or what they know

I could make an argument that almost every one of these cognitive biases played some sort of role in Cottingham's "snap" judgement.  Using a "gut instinct" approach to this problem is sub-optimal.

Again... Cottingham screwed up.  I hope Buzz does great.

[THEGYMBAR]

Guys everybody hopes Buzz does great but it is not realistic. I hope to play in the Masters and no one is pulling for me. Fairy tales are for kids, not grown men.

[Sir Lawrence]

Again... Cottingham screwed up.  I hope Buzz does great.

So, if Buzz does great, has Cottingham still screwed up? 

[THEGYMBAR]

So, if Iraq ends up great, did Bush still screw up?

[Niv Berkowitz]

Judging the C-ham hire will take at least two seasons. This year is a throw away EXCEPT if the team just blows. Then it will only take one season.

There are too many leaders and seniors on the team this year to allow for it to not make the tourney and not compete for the top third of the B.East. Sorry...but w/Mbakwe potentially going, I'm not putting MU as a contender for the B.East title. But...they return the core of an 11 win team.

We'll all best be able to rate Buzz' success in 24 months. At that time, we should have an idea whether or not the hiring of him was a success or a failure.

How much is his salary? Haven't heard that yet. Wonder how much the school/donors saved.

[THEGYMBAR]

Niv---Glad to hear a voice of reason. I suggest we give C-Ham five years before we judge it. Hell, what difference does it make? We hired the guy, let's watch it unfold.

[Pardner]

Henry--
The problem with the theories and biases is that they are designed around risk avoidance.  Regression to the mean--which means you can never forecast the end of the tail of a normal curve.

Explain how an actor who starred in "Bedtime for Bonzo" became one of the greatest leaders of all time.  How two high school graduates bought the PC and mouse idea from Xerox with all their risk avoiders for a pittance and started Apple Computer...and how those guys were forced out by MBA types who floundered, only to have the board beg Jobs to come back to start another revolution.  Or how Gates overheard a conversation in the hallway of the DoD about how Data General wasn't coming through on some software and went out and bought DOS.  The Governator, Stephen Dell, etc, etc.  None of them fit the profile and all happened into their success.

What have I seen in the past 10 days?  Our HC leaves us in the middle of the night without thanking his bosses, alumni and athletes who gave him their all.  The next day, a bunch of recruits and players say "I want out" as MU is a circus.  The majority of the group of assistant coaches headed to Bloomington to look at new houses for their next job.

Meanwhile, Buzz is left to gather the pieces on something that isn't his to fix yet.  But, the team leaders perform with grace under pressure at the presser announcing the search.  Buzz has to call all the recruits and talk to the players, hs coaches.  No contract for the HC job yet, but he assumes the role.  Allowed to interview, gets the job and performs admirably at the press conference when 90% of the MU community is questioning the sanity of hiring him.  Gets the banquet sold out.  Then is popping on the plane to help salvage this potential disaster in front of him.   Meanwhile, his predecessor is already complaining about the condition he was left with.  

SC is not an AD expert, I questioned his hire.  But, being successful in law and business, maybe he knows something about leadership.  Maybe he can make a better decision because he doesn't know too much about the situation?  Would a coaching retread who fit the profile make us happy?  Another fifth place finish?

Buzz and SC deserve our support.  They are the only ones who have stepped up to show positive leadership and support for the players and university.  

[mwbauer7]

Well regardless of the hire, can we agree that Cottingham is a dink?

I mean, did you see the press conference?

He looked like a HS athletic director. Thank god he went to Madison...

[Henry Sugar]

Pardner, if I extrapolated from your examples, no one should ever go to college.  After all, dropping out worked out well for Jobs, Gates, and Dell...   

I guess that the fundamental question is if the Risky Hire of Buzz is worth it.  I would argue that Marquette didn't need to take the risk, and you disagree.  That's cool.

Anyways, here are some more concepts about Risky Hires.  I'm fully in favor of risky hires when it makes sense.  It must have made sense for Microsoft to hire Daniel, and I'm glad it worked out for him.

It makes sense to hire "Risky" employees when:

It's a new position (no)
Candidates are young (yes)
If you are hiring multiple employees (yes)
If it's cheap to terminate the employee (no)
If there's lots of upside potential (yes)
If you expect to benefit long-term from this employee (no)

Employers benefit from risky hires when:

switching jobs is costly to workers (no)
stars are not easily identified by competitors (no)
productivity is firm-specific (no)
large supply of risky candidates (maybe)

I guess I just don't see where Marquette needed to take such a risk.  There's a 50/50 argument that it makes sense, but I don't expect Marquette to ultimately benefit.  Again, I sure hope it works out.

[Pakuni]

Great discussion.
My meager two cents:

Hiring Buzz definitely carries some risk for MU, and perhaps not an insignificant amount.
That said, I'm not sure why anyone believes any of the other viable candidates do not carry risk. Maybe not the same risks. Maybe, in some cases, not even the same level of risk. But there definitely were negatives with each of the possibilities that would require MU to take a leap of faith in hiring them.
For example, Lowery and Brownell have never coached or recruited above the mid-major level.

Bennett and Miller, IMO, were not viable candidates. Both turned down MU, in Bennett's case more than once. They also turned down Indiana, so there's no shame in it. Those who want to argue that they would have changed their minds if Marquette just "pushed harder" are living in a fantasy land.

[SoCalwarrior]

Bottom line is that if Buzz works out it will not be because of the hard work, exhaustion of resources and due diligence of our AD, Steve Cottingham.  And that brings us back to that hire.  No search committee.  No other interviews.  Steve's hire was the biggest mistake and now it is paying dividends.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Great discussion.
My meager two cents:

Hiring Buzz definitely carries some risk for MU, and perhaps not an insignificant amount.
That said, I'm not sure why anyone believes any of the other viable candidates do not carry risk. Maybe not the same risks. Maybe, in some cases, not even the same level of risk. But there definitely were negatives with each of the possibilities that would require MU to take a leap of faith in hiring them.
For example, Lowery and Brownell have never coached or recruited above the mid-major level.

Bennett and Miller, IMO, were not viable candidates. Both turned down MU, in Bennett's case more than once. They also turned down Indiana, so there's no shame in it. Those who want to argue that they would have changed their minds if Marquette just "pushed harder" are living in a fantasy land.

As stated earlier, all candidates have risks, some are more risky then others.  I would qualify this hire as much higher in risk then a Brownwell, Les, Lowery, etc.  With those guys, you get the benefit of the doubt from the coaching and basketball world that you went after a good mid major coach who couldn't pull it off.  With Williams, that risk is much bigger because there is almost nothing to latch on to other then the UNO record.

If MU pushed harder with Bennett and Miller, I totally agree nothing would have happened there.  The issue for many is why did they give up the overall search so soon, plenty of other candidates to work those discussions and it appears they talked to very very few.  Timing should not have been an issue.

MU should not have to be making gut feeling hires at this point or hires that are this risky.  Pray it works out, but from a risk management standpoint, this was highly unnecessary in the time frame provided.  If we didn't have a coach by mid next week, fine, but not after 3 days.

[Pakuni]

As stated earlier, all candidates have risks, some are more risky then others.  I would qualify this hire as much higher in risk then a Brownwell, Les, Lowery, etc.  With those guys, you get the benefit of the doubt from the coaching and basketball world that you went after a good mid major coach who couldn't pull it off.  With Williams, that risk is much bigger because there is almost nothing to latch on to other then the UNO record.

Historically speaking, though, guys with some success at a mid-major school have proven to be no better coaching at the next level than guys who landed there as an assistant. To be sure, there are examples of success and failure from both groups. But the notion that a guy is more likely to succeed in the Big East because he coached a few years in the Missouri Valley and never at a higher level, or a couple years in the Horizon League, isn't supported by reality.
Look no further than Marquette's own experience. Bob Dukiet or Kevin O'Neill? Mike Deane or Tom Crean?
Stan Heath was an Elite Eight coach at Kent State. He was middling at Arkansas.
Steve Alford flopped at Iowa.
Or look at our own conference.
Wainwright has been terrible at DePaul, despite a long record of success at mid-major programs.
Tim Welsh never could get it done at Providence after some really good years at Iona.
Mike Jarvis ruined St. John's after tremendous success at GW.
Of course there are some examples of successful mid-major hires in the conference as well (Calhoun, Brey, JT III) but there are also examples of guys who went straight to the big job from an assistant's role (Boeheim, Dixon and, yes, Tom Crean).

Again, historically speaking, one option is not clearly better or more likely to bring success than the other.
I suppose it would be more comforting to some to have a guy with 100 wins under his belt already, but those 100 wins from years past aren't likely to make him any better at Marquette.

[Pardner]

Pardner, if I extrapolated from your examples, no one should ever go to college.  After all, dropping out worked out well for Jobs, Gates, and Dell...   

I guess that the fundamental question is if the Risky Hire of Buzz is worth it.  I would argue that Marquette didn't need to take the risk, and you disagree.  That's cool.

Anyways, here are some more concepts about Risky Hires.  I'm fully in favor of risky hires when it makes sense.  It must have made sense for Microsoft to hire Daniel, and I'm glad it worked out for him.

It makes sense to hire "Risky" employees when:

It's a new position (no)
Candidates are young (yes)
If you are hiring multiple employees (yes)
If it's cheap to terminate the employee (no)
If there's lots of upside potential (yes)
If you expect to benefit long-term from this employee (no)

Employers benefit from risky hires when:

switching jobs is costly to workers (no)
stars are not easily identified by competitors (no)
productivity is firm-specific (no)
large supply of risky candidates (maybe)

I guess I just don't see where Marquette needed to take such a risk.  There's a 50/50 argument that it makes sense, but I don't expect Marquette to ultimately benefit.  Again, I sure hope it works out.

Don't get me wrong...this is a risky hire.  I am just saying we should allow that Buzz is outside of one standard deviation on your stat curve.  Look at it this way, do we want a 75% chance that we hire an average coach (i.e., Brownell, et al) and finish 5th in the BE?  Or do we want a 25% chance we hired some one who will be a great coach and win/vie for the BE title? 

Now our odds of hiring great improve with a Miller or Bennett.  However, the funny thing is we maybe had a better chance to hire them if we finished 12th in the BE.  Why?  They are doing their risk analyses themselves like TC did with IU.  All upside, no risk, buy myself a honeymoon.

Buzz has the one sure trait of a winner in the BE:  Recruiter.  Our few data points so far on his leadership ability, under tough conditions, are outstanding (and better than the previous coach it turns out).  My point is, maybe we should allow that the boy has what it takes.  One sure thing, if Buzz succeeds, he will have completely turned the fan base.  Expectations for him couldn't be any lower right now, and he'll have no TC honeymoon. 

We really need to move on and help the guy succeed.  There is something to be said for showing up like a real man and taking on this mess.  My strong hunch is that we have a winner.  A pink ribbon for 5th place doesn't do it for me any more.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This has to be the best thread about the new hire.

Sugar... nice analysis... and I'm inclined to agree.

Pardner, I agree with you as well.

So, I guess my stance is "concerned optimism" if that is a stance.

I'm concerned about the hire (and process), but optimistic for the upside.

Also, I have to believe that there are some pretty smart people at MU. I mean, MU has made some mistakes as an organization... but they've also done a TON of things right in the past 20 years.

MU is light years ahead of where it was in the 1980's. The campus is better, facilities are better, enrollment is up, donations are up, the marketing is WAY better, the image is better, etc.

Somebody over there is doing something right... and as so many people here have reminded us for so long, it wasn't just Tom Crean.