Boris Groysburg, Lex Sant, and Robin Abrahams’ article “When ‘Stars’ Migrate, Do They Still Perform Like Stars,” investigates portability of corporate jobs and employees. What is portability? Portability defines whether one’s skill is transferrable to another employer. What they concluded is, it depends. Attributes of the person, team, organization, and position factor into portability. Understanding which roles can be built from within the organization versus bought externally, the way in which employees interact, and the extent to which success in that role is dependent on coworkers or management all factor into whether a job or employee is portable or non-portable.
So why do sports teams trade as if most, if not all (depending on the sport), roles are portable? The apparent assumption is if player ‘X’ scores incredible metrics on team ‘A,’ then they should continue to produce equally impressive statistics on team ‘B.’ Or, great leaders will continue to be great leaders on a different team. What if any consideration is given to why that player succeeded in their role, in their environment? Which attributes of portability were measured, or even looked at? To some degree, sports analytics is so output driven, the results are superficially classified and compared. These granular performance metrics determine drafting and trading decisions while person, team, organization attributes are negligibly factored in.
Ryan and Deci (2000) explored self-determination theory (SDT) examining self-motivation, social functioning, and personal well-being effected by varying environmental factors. They determined athlete’s need to feel they are in competence, have autonomy, and relate to their environment and peers in order to maintain a balanced integration of different types of motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Competence in their ability to execute, autonomy in decision-making, and assimilation to teammates and norms. Skinner’s theory goes on to look at the agent-mean-end triangular relationship calling into play the athlete’s self-efficacy (or confidence) as it relates to their sport. All of these cognitive factors are influenced by the combined nature-nurture effect, including feedback and self-feedback when learning a new skill. Ok, so why is this relevant if an athlete’s performance is excelling? Nature-nurture, in professional sports accounts for the past and the present - what did they experience growing up, and what are they experiencing now? What environment enabled or inhibited the growth and evolution of self-efficacy?
By recognizing athletes’ cognitive and personal growth, teams understand if this person will conflict with teammates, fit the culture, and respect for coaches, the organization, and sport. Enhancing the player’s statistical or output profile provides greater success in recruiting, drafting, or trading. Organizations are also able to identify resources for athletes before problems arise, promoting performance consistency.
Being the best or having the unreal sabre metrics data in your role isn’t inclusive of what determines your success in a different environment. There is a need to transpose corporate talent analytics research increases predictive probabilities of an athlete’s portability. Success derives from combining quantitative and qualitative personality and organizational analytics. This is exactly what my F.A.S.T. platform provides for teams and organizations.