The National Football League Increased Revenue to $12 Billion - But you can learn from their mistakes

“The single greatest advantage any company can achieve is organizational health. Yet it is ignored by most leaders even though it is simple, free, and available to anyone who wants it”

– Patrick Lencioni - The Advantage.

On Monday, Mike Rosenberg announced on Twitter that there have been 260 NFL player arrests over the last five years – which averages to a tidy, if rather alarming, one arrest per week.

This Tuesday, the New York Jets announced that their quarterback, Geno Smith, will miss 6-10 weeks while recovering from a broken jaw suffered during a fight in the team locker room, apparently over a monetary dispute.

Yesterday, a federal judge met with representative of the NFL and its players union, the NFLPA in an attempt to reach a settlement that would head off a court case between the league and Tom Brady, one of its most popular players, over what ostensibly is nothing more than a minor rules violation.

That's quite a week so far. They say all publicity is good publicity. We're about to find out.

The NFL is big business. The league projects 2015 revenue to exceed $12 billion and it has no plans to slow down with Commissioner Roger Goodell seeking to grow to $25 billion by 2027. The NFL is the most popular sport in the U.S. No one would deny the NFL leadership are experts in strategy, marketing and finance. In his book, The Advantage, Patrick Lencioni describes these as characteristics of a smart organization. The NFL may be a smart organization, but that is not the same as being a healthy one.

Unhealthy organizations struggle with politics, dysfunction, confusion and bureaucracy. Anyone who has worked in an unhealthy organization understands this all too well.  Given the movies, television programs and comic strips devoted to the topic, we certainly enjoy poking fun at these organizations, but in the real world these problems have serious financial implications.

The amount of money that organizations spend dealing with these issues and the money they have to spend to recover from them is incredible. Sure the NFL has managed to increase revenue to $12 billion, but one thing is certain, the league owners aren’t likely to turn down the chance to make more money. But imagine the wasted time and resources that the NFL league offices and individual teams spent dealing with what amounts to a player arrest essentially every week for the last five years!

But it’s much easier for those owners to turn to metrics like television revenue, ticket prices, and other hard data when they seek to grow the business of football precisely because these things are easy to measure, while the impacts of a healthy organization are more difficult to quantify.

The NFL is a financial powerhouse, and despite its recent bad press, appears on track to continue revenue growth. It's unclear if the arrests and other missteps are affecting the growth of the sport, but recent numbers show a decline in youth participation in football. The NFL offices are full of smart people and they will continue to work on increasing revenue. But ery few companies, particularly those which operate on the national/global scale, lack the intelligence necessary to succeed, but many will not reach their full potential because they are unhealthy. Many others will eventually make decisions that doom them to failure. History is littered with companies that once dominated their industries. 

As Lencioni argues “…don’t underestimate the cost of allowing our organizations to remain unhealthy”. Creating a healthy organization provides an incredible competitive advantage and improved profits. It also has a tangible positive affect on the people who work there.

Top Ten Myths about Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Learning that your project is subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) can seem daunting. The many myths and misconceptions surrounding the process can trip up the uninitiated and experienced practitioners alike – especially when it’s the very experts who perpetuate the myths.

Here’s a list of ten of the most common myths and misconceptions about Section 106 coordination.

1 - A Section 106 permit is necessary before a project may begin. Section 106 is a process for determining how certain types of actions might affect important places. This process may be a necessary step to obtain other sorts of permits, like those from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but there’s no such thing as a Section 106 “Permit”.  Sorry.

2 - The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is the lead agency responsible for administering Section 106. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on historic places and to consult with organizations who may be concerned about these historic places. The SHPO is only one of many possible consulting parties.

3 - The SHPO approves projects under Section 106 review. This is perhaps the most common misconception in the entire industry -   The lead federal agency is responsible for completing Section 106 review. The federal agency must consult the SHPO, but it’s ultimately the federal agency that is responsible, not the SHPO.

4 - Section 106 is all about archaeological sites. Section 106 coordination requires that federal agencies consider the effect of their actions on a wide range of important places – described as “Historic Properties” – of which archaeological sites are only one type. Others include historic structures, buildings, objects, or landscapes. A Historic Property can be essentially any place – natural or built – that has historic or cultural meaning.

5 - Section 106 coordination must focus on where a project disturbs the ground. This one goes hand-in-hand with the fixation on archaeological sites mentioned above. Just as the review process must consider a variety of Historic Properties, it must also consider the range of impacts a project may cause – from visual, to auditory, cumulative, and the like.

6 - The SHPO will tell you if there are important historic buildings, archaeological sites, or other important places in your project area. Even if the SHPO had the resources to accomplish this, it is the lead federal agency that is responsible for gathering the information it needs to perform Section 106 review - Though the task is often delegated to the project proponent.

7 - A place has to be listed in, or formally nominated to the National Register of Historic Places to be considered under Section 106.  Section 106 review involves all places that are eligible for listing in the National Register, regardless of whether they have been formally nominated or listed.

8 - It is necessary to find all Historic Properties in the project area to complete Section 106 coordination. Even if it were possible to do this, what Section 106 actually requires is that federal agencies make a good faith effort to identify historic properties to the extent necessary to make decisions about their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and how they may be affected.

9 - Section 106 review considers only unique, nationally significant, or rare places. The National Register of Historic Places is designed to include places of national, state, and local significance. “Uniqueness” is not mentioned in the criteria.

10 - Section 106 prohibits impacts to historic properties. It’s perfectly legal to impact or even destroy any historic property, providing the federal agency can show it has made a good faith effort to understand the nature of these effects, and consulted with organizations concerned with the historic property. This may be surprising or even off-putting to some, but it is an important aspect of the law for two important reasons.

Because our modern world needs things like safe roads, access to reliable energy, clean water, and other projects that tend to impact the landscape, we would need to either, (1) be very selective about what was designated as historic, or (2) place historic preservation above all other interests. Neither option is desirable.

As currently structured the Section 106 process provides an opportunity for the important places in our communities to receive some consideration along with the other aspects of project planning.  If Section 106 coordination is required for your project avoid falling victim to some of these most common myths and misconceptions.

It's the Little Things

Last week we needed some repairs made to our septic system.  I called the company who performed the original installation, but since this was the second major problem we had in just over two years, I also called a different company to get a second opinion.

What transpired over the next several days showed me that no matter what services or products your business provides, poor organizational culture will damage your business. Here’s a summary of what happened.

Company 1 - When I finally reached someone (I had to call twice…) the person speculated about all the ways the problem might be my fault before agreeing to send someone out after I emailed them a photograph of the problem.

The employee who arrived at my house did so without tools (you need to borrow my shovel?) and worked without gloves (gross…). After trying to convince me to repair it myself, he admitted he doesn’t normally do the repairs, but rather drives the truck. He agreed to return to the shop, relay what he saw and follow up the next day.

I called the office the next day (they didn’t call me) and they suggested I call distributors about possible equipment warranties. The person I spoke with again began speculating on the cause of the problem – despite never having been onsite. Most of their responses focused on how others were responsible – the electrician, the health department, me..., but nothing about how the company might share some accountability, or how best to proceed. They promised to have the Company President come out to see the problem for himself.

I received a voicemail later that day from the President promising to “fix this mess” -  but no visit. The company emailed the next morning asking how we would like to proceed (You mean other than fixing the problem?!!). I replied that I had already hired another company to do the work. I’ve had no other response from them.

Company 2 – The person who answered the phone asked me a few questions to help diagnose the problem and scheduled someone to take a look. The employee who showed up diagnosed the problem, and offered additional guidance about replacement and warranty options. They also provided a written estimate for the repair.

They called the next day with the information about the available warranties and replacement options, and I scheduled them to perform the work. They arrived on time and fixed the problem (using their own tools…).

I understand that sometimes equipment breaks and projects don’t go how you may have hoped. But the difference between two companies illustrates an important point. Both companies would have purchased the same replacement parts from the same distributor, so there was essentially no difference in the product they provided.

But while Company 1 missed calls, deflected accountability, and arrived unprepared, Company 2 won the job, simply by being responsive and solving my problem. The disparity in customer service and professionalism between the two was incredible. 

There’s nothing new under the sun – in most cases your competitors can offer the same product or service as you do. What are you doing to differentiate yourself from them? Believe it or not, simple tasks like returning phone calls will move you automatically to the top tier in almost any industry. Listen to your clients, provide what your customers need. They’ll thank you for it.

Perspective from 3 Billion Miles

Consider a bit of perspective the next time you face a challenge at work (perhaps you’re in the middle of one right now). The New Horizons space probe completed its closest approach to Pluto this morning after travelling for over nine years across three billion miles. New Horizons arrived at Pluto one minute ahead of schedule, travelling through its target window in space which measured approximately 60 by 90 kilometers – “the equivalent of a commercial airliner arriving no more off target than the width of a tennis ball”.

Unless you actually work at NASA, or are a brain surgeon, you’re not working with those sorts of constraints or margin of error. Step back, take a deep breath and deal with your problem in a thoughtful, intelligent manner. What’s the worst that could happen? In reality, most of the time, it’s a bruised ego. 

To reach Pluto, New Horizons is the fastest space probe ever made – travelling at over 30,000 MPH. At that speed, impacting a particle the size of a grain of rice could incapacitate the probe. It’s unlikely the same could be said about your project.

It's Pronouced "Atlatl"

When people learn I’m an archaeologist they often ask me about the artifacts I find, and many of these questions are about arrowheads. It's not surprising – they’re interesting, easy to identify, and fairly common.

But many of the objects that look like this – aren’t arrowheads at all.

What I mean is – many of these sharp, pointed stone objects, were never intended to be propelled through the air using a bow.

The bow and arrow was invented by different groups of people at different times, but it appears in the Midwest U.S. by around the year 700 AD.  Before the invention of the bow, there were two primary means of launching a sharp projectile.

The first, and most basic, is throwing the object by hand, similar to a javelin or spear. This method, while simple, has obvious limitations of speed and distance. The second approach uses a similar throwing motion, but employs a tool called an atlal, which increases the velocity and distance a person can launch a projectile.

Note the dart flexing to store and release the energy provided by the atlatl

An atlatl is a short shaft that holds and propels the butt end of a spear or dart. A person holds the shaft opposite the end holding the dart, which adds leverage to the arm during the throwing motion.  This allows the dart to be launched further than with the arm alone. Skilled individuals can reach speeds approaching 100 mph, but as you can see in the sequence below, the atlatl can assist younger throwers as well.

Atlatl demonstration at a recent archaeology outreach event

The term atlatl comes from the Nahuatl Aztec language, but this tool appears in cultures all across the world. Most archaeologists agree that the atlatl was invented approximately 20,000 years ago, during the Upper Paleolithic period, but various indigenous groups continued using the tool after the invention of the bow, well into the 20^th century.

So can archaeologists tell if a sharpened stone point was used on an arrow, spear, or an atlatl dart? 

It depends.

Based on what we know about a particular culture or time period we may be able to say that a particular point was probably used as a spear, dart, or arrow. Generally speaking, smaller points would tend to perform well if shot by a bow, while larger points would do well at the end of a spear or dart, but some experiments have shown that darts can be very effective using small points, and bows can shoot arrows with large points, so the size of the point is helpful guide, but it’s not definitive.

Also it’s important to know that many cultures have used spears, darts, and arrows without stone tips, but rather by simply sharpening the shaft, or using other materials, like bone, as pointed tips. The difficulty comes from the fact the point is part of a system -  shaft, bow, atlatl - but since the stone point is only part that tends to survive, it's easy to lose sight of the rest of the system.

So remember the next time you see something like this –  

Understand that its history might just be a little more complicated than you might think.

Scientists have extracted DNA from a Neanderthal skeleton found embedded in calcite deposits in an Italian cave. The remains may be up to 170,000 years old, making this the oldest Neanderthal DNA ever found.

New research shows that typical European traits of pale skin, tallness, and the ability to digest lactose as adults, are relatively new developments, appearing only within the last 8,000 years. 

Why are humans the only primate species with a chin? Researchers from the University of Iowa suggest that the chin became prominent as modern humans evolved smaller faces. This contrasts other arguments that the chin developed in response to mechanical processes related to chewing. 

Work in Kenya has yielded the oldest stone tools ever found. These tools, found near Lake Turkana, date to 3.3 million years ago, that’s 700,000 years older than any other recovered stone tools.

Adapt, Evolve, or Be Left Behind

As archaeologists we think a lot about adaptation and evolution – from analyzing fossils of our early ancestors to studying changes in pottery styles over time. But the ability to adapt and evolve doesn't just apply to people or objects in the past.

Case in point – Last night the Duke University Men’s Basketball team won the NCAA championship, the fifth title for their legendary coach Mike Krzyzewski. Hallmarks of Duke’s previous championship squads included older, more established players, like Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, and Shane Battier. The landscape of college basketball, however, began to shift, with rules allowing schools to rely on highly talented young players who would often leave college early for professional basketball, sometimes after only one year, earning these players the label of “one-and-done’s”.

Duke’s Coach “K” has criticized this system, but he has also recognized that his industry has changed and he and his team must adapt to remain successful. Sports has more in common with other professions than you might think. The successful teams like Duke are particularly skilled at tracking their progress toward specific goals while also monitoring and adapting to significant trends. 

We each face challenges in our personal lives and careers. If we can learn to adapt to these challenges, we improve our chances of being successful. Doing things simply because “that’s how it’s always been done”, puts us at risk of missing opportunities, and falling behind as our industry evolves.