I consider sports management almost ideal when citing examples of management techniques. In a sports event there is almost always a start, a middle and an end of the game. The business environment by contrast is a continuum. We work on many projects, all in various degrees of completion. Often we aren't sure if we have won or lost because of a multitude of criteria against which a project can be evaluated.

For example, we land a contact, "a win", except we may have underbid either cost or schedule. Our resources may not be accurate, Our technology might be compromised. We may go off in a wrong direction. Etc.

A favorite analog I use is to claim that I can convince my listener that he can select any All Star baseball team, using active or inactive players at their peak, and that this team would lose to a good college team such as the team which Yale will field this year. The one concession he must allow is that he must let me manage the All Star team.

The selected team usually includes Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Lou Brock, Tom Seaver, Ty Cobb, Jackie Robinson, Whitey Ford, Jonny Bench, Etal. We toss a coin to see which team leads off.

Now for my lineup. Let's start with Whitey Ford in center field. Ruth at second will bat second. My shortstop, Jonny Bench, can bat third and Tom Seaver, my catcher, will bat clean up. By this time, my listener would most likely be smiling, but not yet convinced even when I select Ty Cobb as my pitcher. It's when I have Babe Ruth bunt to get on base and let Jonny Bench run for Lou Brock, if he makes it to first, that the listener begins to catch on. I then collect my bet after I insist that all my players use catcher's mitts (to save inventory), wear spats, and have Ray Charles coach at third base.

What has this to do with business management? In baseball it's usually easy to define the characteristics of the game, the player and the position he plays. It is not that easy in business management. Yet, in each baseball game, half the baseball managers lose.

How often do we find a poor or mismatched leader, perhaps a management favorite, running a program? How often do we see good technicians being misused, or a manufacturing engineer refusing to sign drawings because one small cost is too high, perhaps $15 instead of $5, jeopardizing a whole technology when changes are necessary? Is the correct equipment available and in use? Are paperwork and reports overwhelming or aiding the task? Do we listen to our suppliers and customers? Are we overstaffed, understaffed or properly staffed? Is our customer willing to accept an early delivery and pay for it when received or does he prefer delivery when he needs it (just in time)? Is the manager interested in the problems of a project, willing to discuss solutions and help to implement them? Or does he want to paint a rosy picture to his manager? Are meetings held to rubber stamp decisions made? Or do they have a real purpose? Do the department managers all want a project to succeed? Or do some perceive that a particular project will enhance a manager whom they compete with whose success might diminish their own status? Are groups incentivized to prevent jobs from being successful?

My experience is that most firms will fail because they have set up their organizations and manage their people to fail. People do respond to incentive. We just have to make sure that their perceptions of success closely match those of the corporationís.