Published on: February 4, 2022
I did a piece yesterday about the Rooney Rule controversy enveloping the National Football League, and business lessons that can be learned from it.
One MNB reader responded:
First, the speed with which the NFL responded with the "Without Merit" language. I'm not sure why that raises suspicion on your part, as it quite likely was limited only to the components of Flores' suit against the league, not the Giants, Dolphins, etc.
And as it relates to the Giants specifically, having been in hiring roles myself, it is not uncommon to favor one candidate, even to the extent of making that candidate an offer, and continue to interview others who have already been identified as potential fits, and may have already had their interview scheduled. As we all know, a deal is only a deal when all i's are dotted and t's crossed. Daboll may not have, at the time of Flores' interview, actually accepted -or even received- an offer from the Giants. And if he had been made and accepted an offer generally, it's quite likely it had not been formalized with signatures, and likely had not gone through the inevitable back and forth with revisions, redlines, etc. In my experience, continuing to interview is more or less standard operating procedure until done is actually done.
And so, if this is the only thing Flores is hanging his hat on, (Again, related strictly to the Giants) it would seem to be a slim case. And given the Giants' sterling reputation in the League, (Recall their GM Jerry Reese was one of the few black GM's), I'd be very surprised if their actions were as cynical as Flores contends. We shall see.
What is most concerning though, are the reports which seem to hold water, of some teams offering bonuses to coaches to tank games at the end of a season.
I can think of some Giants fans who might question your "sterling reputation" reference.
Referring to another story, an MNB reader wrote:
As a native Texan, I can tell you that the least interesting thing about a Buc-ee's is the gas. I imagine they will need to add charging stations to accommodate electric cars, sure. But the store is the draw, not the pumps.
And, on another subject, from an MNB reader:
There is no question that Unions had a positive impact on safer working conditions and fair wages over time. My question is do they really bring that same value today? Companies (including Amazon) already offer competitive wages, Industry standard benefits and safe working conditions – the very tenets that Unions were built on and historically fought to provide. However, the Union model does not support benefits that enrich employee work experiences such as opportunity for advancement, role mobility or merit based compensation. At the same time, workers are leaving their companies voluntarily at a historical pace due to a lack of job satisfaction. When you add the required cost of Union membership dues into the equation, I’m not sure that the Amazon employees are really looking through a wide enough lens when considering this opportunity.
MNB reader Gary Breissinger had a thought about my FaceTime video in which I talked about the grand ambitions of Amazon and Google for their personal voice assistant technologies, compared with those of Apple, which seems to have more modest, and yet maybe more acceptable aspirations:
I think it comes down to a matter of corporate vision, capability and strategy.
These are very different when comparing Apple to Google and Amazon.
Allocation of resources in line with strategic priorities makes all the sense in the world. In this case, it appears that Apple has a more limited/focused strategy for what it aspires to be in this area than either Google or Amazon.
There is certainly nothing wrong with that…and deciding where and how you play the game is really important.
But in this case, it seems to be more of a case of deciding where to compete rather than a difference in how to compete.