It is still hard for me to believe that my beloved Philadelphia Eagles won the Super Bowl just 3 short years
ago. It seems like a distant memory for so many reasons…
As plans are now underway for the 2021 NFL season, the Philadelphia Eagles organization is in a state of total chaos and they are about to trade their franchise quarterback, who not coincidently isn’t on speaking terms with the key members of his Front Office including the General Manager who accomplished the near impossible to bring him to the team through trades and other maneuvers.
There are many great lessons about leadership from the world of sports and what is happening with the Eagles brings up an issue that I know faces many leaders as we hear about this issue from leaders participating in Business Leadership simulation workshops.
The issue I am referring to is the creation of a double standard. A double standard is when there are two different sets of rules for different employees. The rumors about Eagles quarterback Carson Wentz and a fractionalized locker room started to come out several years ago, but nobody paid them much attention because he was the star and savior of the franchise capable of leading them to multiple Super Bowls. But, just last week, one of the most respected leaders in the entire NFL, Malcolm Jenkins who was a Captain on the Eagles’ Super Bowl team with Carson Wentz, shared his insights about the team and how team management and the coaches of the Eagles had two sets of rules for accountability: one for Wentz, and one for everyone else.
The Role of a Leader
Leadership is about making decisions. It is about setting a strategy and then making the decisions needed to execute that strategy to win. In business, like football, leaders make hundreds of decisions a day. Some are easy, some are hard. Most of the time there are layers of both complexity and ambiguity. The one thing for certain is most leadership decisions are not black or white or have easy “yes” or “no” answers.
As leaders make decisions, they are perceived by their direct reports, peers, bosses, stakeholders, customers, and others. Are these perceptions fair, just, and objective? How leaders are perceived, especially in difficult times, directly correlates to their foundation of trust and inspiration. Which is the fuel of good and effective leadership. The challenge is that in most “technical situations” like deciding on how to price a new product, or which play to call on 3rd and long, can be based on facts, data, and insights. It is when people come into the equation that subjectivity and perception come into play.
The Fairness of Leaders
How fair are leaders? Do personal preferences, experiences, biases, and culture impact leadership actions? When faced with the same situation does a leader favor one person on the team over others? And how aware is the leader of doing that? Do leaders have rules for themselves, and then rules for others?
In the case of the Philadelphia Eagles, there seemed to be two sets of rules. One for Carson Wentz and one for anyone not named Carson Wentz. For example, it is customary in the NFL to review the game film and provide feedback to players when they make mistakes. Usually, the entire team is together because it is an integrative learning experience. But something wasn’t sunny in Philadelphia. Players who were consistently being called out and held responsible for their mistakes started noticing that the Quarterback, Carson Wentz, the leader of the offense and the team, was rarely if ever called out in front of the team because the coaches were sensitive to his feelings and were coddling him. Instead of providing the coaching he needed, they hid from it to avoid hurting his feelings. And that was the beginning of the end.
Trust and Inspiration in Fairness
To the team, a leader who displays a double standard is not trustworthy and not inspiring. It is as simple as that. The leader who creates wide double standards can’t establish a culture of collaboration and this behavior will slowly erode the camaraderie and work ethic as employees will soon say to themselves and then aloud, “Why should I put in that extra effort when that person who is the “Leader’s Pet” doesn’t have to? Working in an environment like this is disappointing, dejecting, and demotivating to most employees. I believe the worst situation in all of business is when you have a team of people who have checked out but refuses to just quit. Over the long term, leaders who are fair and treat everyone the same can earn and keep trust as they are better equipped to motivate and inspire employees to go above and beyond.
The harder the decision, the more people will look for biases and double standards. Early in 2020 when many businesses had to make layoffs, how were those decisions made? Where “favorites” being played or were the cuts truly on merit?
There are no easy answers. On this topic, I can recall years ago having a conversation with one of my mentors who gave me great advice, “If you were in the shoes of the person being adversely impacted by the decision, would you still make the decision?” If the answer is yes, then it’s the right, unbiased decision. If the answer is no, then you have an obligation to unbundle the reasons why, own them, and fix them.
