Avoiding the Draft Bust

What can Army Leaders learn from the 1984 NBA Draft?

This post is an extension of Army writing in that it shows us what we can learn from resumes and talent profiles. Conversely, it shows us the gaps in written communication and explores some ways to discover intangible qualities, like the “it factor”. This article will be featured in the NCO Journal this coming spring. Enjoy!

---

The 1984 National Basketball Draft Class is generally regarded as one of the greatest of all time, producing several Hall of Famers including Michael Jordan. But, did you know Jordan, a prolific college star, was passed over twice before the Chicago Bulls selected him as their third pick in the draft? How could two teams miss this generational talent—a player who continues to define the sport for future generations? And more importantly, is there a lesson to be learned for Army leaders in how we evaluate and select talent for critical positions?

The 1984 NBA Draft…What the heck happened?

At the risk of oversimplification, the teams with the first two draft picks, Houston and Portland, had gaps at the Center position. The center in basketball is usually the “biggest/tallest” person performing as the team’s most powerful force, scoring at will while patrolling under the rim to prevent any easy baskets. With the first pick, Houston drafted Hakeem Olajuwon. Olajuwon had a stellar career, leading Houston to multiple NBA championships and earning a spot in the conversation as the greatest center of all time.

Portland, with the second pick, selected Sam Bowie to be their future center with the hopes that he could lead them to victory on the court. At 7’1’’ and 235 lbs., he had all the physical attributes to be successful. Bowie had a great college career, though he suffered injuries that would come back to haunt him in his NBA Career.

Portland must have considered drafting Jordan, the consensus 1984 player of the year and National Championship winner, over Bowie. Portland’s team already had a solid player, Clyde Drexler, at Jordan’s position so they assessed the center position gap as having a greater impact and thus passed on Jordan.

The rest is history. Jordan would go on to be the greatest of all time and Bowie would have a career marred by injuries and obscurity and is regarded as one of the biggest draft busts. How did Portland miss this once in a generation talent? While Jordan certainly had tangible indicators of future greatness, listening to fellow players and coaches talk about him, they consistently reference his drive characterized by an indomitable will to win. That less tangible trait did not show up on any stat sheet but is widely acknowledged as what truly made Jordan great as both an individual player and teammate.

What can we take away from the 1984 Draft?

Non-Commissioned Officers are always in the talent management business. Every day, regardless of if you are doing routine training, conducting an interview, providing a recommendation to an officer on NCO talent, writing an evaluation report, or serving on a promotion board or selection panel, NCOs are always concerned with talent.

When Military Leaders are evaluating talent for leadership opportunities we tend to be overly reliant on “tangibles.” Portland liked Sam Bowie because he filled a perceived gap for them at center, so they drafted the best center available; he presented a natural fit to fill their gap. But perhaps they asked themselves the wrong question; “do we want the best center…or do we want the best player?”

In my nearly 30 years in the Army, it occurs to me that Army leaders are susceptible to an overreliance on tangible talent indicators because frankly, we like “tangible”, things we can see and measure: fitness scores, schools and degrees, career management fields, experience, previous positions, etc. These tangible accomplishments are indicators of success and help measure character traits that a Service finds important. How many times have we seen the #1 graduate, who excelled in an academic environment, struggle when dynamic variables associated with human interaction are introduced? High aptitude does not always indicate potential for success.

I’m not suggesting a physical fitness score or important qualifications should be disregarded. But, we need to dig a little deeper into “intangibles,” the things that are a little harder to measure, if we want to recognize and advance true talent. Below are some ideas that assist in a selection process to identify key intangibles in an individual that could have an outsized impact on unit success. Apply these to ensure you don’t draft the next Sam Bowie.

1. Define what “intangibles” are most relevant to your organization and how could you observe or measure them?

I consider intangible qualities to be an innate mastery of certain skills that are difficult to measure. Some intangible talent indicators that I value include critical thinking, adaptability, problem solving, resilience, and perspective taking. I consider elements of personality as part of this discussion and think personality is an important consideration both in terms of the duties of the job, as well as how the person would “fit” within the larger organization.

Each position has its own nuances and particular intangible qualities that would be most useful; there’s no “right answer.”

So how do we figure out who has these traits? It’s not as easy as applying a filter in a database to see who has a particular qualification.

This is where your experience comes in. Think about the attribute in the context of the job. If we zero in on problem solving as a desirable attribute, what types of problems would these leaders have to solve? If we visualize the situation our prospective leaders would be in, perhaps we could define a range of performance using a rubric. What does superior problem-solving look like? Let’s describe it. And, let’s think through what an under-qualified answer might sound like. The rubric helps us to see the intangibles.

2. How to Zero in on the “Intangibles.”

An interview is one of the best ways to discuss these intangible qualities. Sadly, many interviewers waste questions on information contained in a Soldier Talent Profile. These questions don’t reveal anything insightful regarding intangible qualities. As an interviewer, try asking questions that might tell you something that you can’t see on paper, something that will reveal this personality trait.

A great way to ensure you are zeroed in on intangibles is to ask behavioral based questions. A great indicator of how someone will operate in the future is by considering what they have done in the past. These questions usually start with “describe a time where you” …it is not hypothetical or situational. You should want to hear about how they solved a problem or adapted. Don’t let them off the hook with a situational or hypothetical answer. Insist they describe their actions from real situations they experienced and led through. Perhaps they did not make the best decision at the time – why not and what did they learn?

A good technique for asking behavioral based questions is the STAR method: situation, task, action, result. If you phrase your question and ask the candidate to describe the STAR, you will likely receive a complete answer.

If they can’t answer your question, as in they are unable to provide any answer at all, even a bad one, that is an indicator. An inability to articulate the situation and relate their leadership to an action or result should raise questions about their experience.

Using your rubric, you can evaluate their answer and score it. Below is a generic rubric that could be adapted to any intangible, for example adaptability.

Question: Describe a situation where you were faced with an unexpected situation. What steps did you take to adapt and what was the result?

Since every behavioral-based question requires an example from the past, the question is how to think about time in relation to the job. An answer from many years ago is not necessarily a bad thing. Along our leadership journeys, much of core leadership philosophy becomes crystallized early in our careers, as we are in a formative stage where impressions can really shape how we think about leadership. An answer that references this may not be bad.

However, if you are considering a position of responsibility for a larger echelon and your candidate relates an example from their squad leader time, determine if the scope and scale of the situation is useful.

3. Let’s stop asking people their weaknesses

To me, this is a perfect example of a wasted question. Perhaps the interviewer isn’t sure what to ask, so we throw the old weakness question at ’em.

This is a wasted question because invariably, you will get some form of the “Michael Scott” answer: “I work too hard and care too much”, therefore my weakness is a strength. Or you will get some generic answer about work-life balance (sneak attack of the Michael Scott answer) or something about needing strategic leadership. Rarely will you get an honest answer that indicates a true weakness that could inform a hiring decision.

If you must ask about weaknesses, use the behavioral based approach – ask them to describe a situation where a personal weakness impacted a mission or organization. What was the result? Or better yet, call their references and ask them about weaknesses.

4. Be on guard for your biases

Everyone is subject to biases. These can be a bias towards our own career field, a particular school or qualification, or position, as well as all the many documented biases known to exist. Counter hiring-decision bias by employing a selection panel with varied backgrounds and experiences to avoid over focus in one area.

Avoid getting too wrapped up in what someone looks like on paper. Many things that you see on a resume or biography will lead you down the road of scores, past assignments, schools, etc. None of this will give you any insight into how this person leads or builds relationships or solves complex problems.

For example, I worked with a Soldier who, on paper, didn’t look like a stellar performer. His order of merit list for promotion was relatively low and, frankly, he was behind his peers in terms of leadership experience and other qualifications. He worked for a different section in our headquarters. He impressed me on some projects that we collaborated on, so we brought him over to our team.

I found that this Soldier was a natural born problem solver. He never ceased to amaze us with the results he obtained – far better than I would have expected, even by those who out ranked him or had more experience. He had that special ingredient that made our entire team click and made our lives easier, but I must admit, if I was looking at his Soldier Talent Profile alone, I probably would have passed on him because there was nothing in there that spoke to me. My bias would have steered me away.

True talent management must be holistic and if we form concrete impressions based on what someone’s resume looks like, we can miss intangible attributes that make them a great fit for our team.

5. Be careful about arbitrarily ruling out a population because of an inherent bias

Some Army jobs are coded for a certain career management field (CMF). But many are immaterial. As you picture the right leader for a job, the first thing that might enter your thought process might be a CMF. CMF is useful in informing us of the types of training and experience a person may possess. Training and experience are important and shouldn’t be disregarded as a talent management indicator. –However, an over reliance on CMF may rule out your most talented leader. So, think that one through carefully and go back to the Portland Trailblazers…do you want the best leader from a certain CMF or do what the best leader - period? A willingness to consider other CMFs and backgrounds, especially ones that are different from you own, could help you discover talent that you never even knew existed.

Finding your “Jordan”

Tangible talent management indicators are important. Michael Jordan could have all the intangible qualities in the world, but if he was 5’2” instead of 6’6”, we probably wouldn’t know his name. What was it that made Jordan the best? Unquestionable talent combined with immeasurable drive. Portland missed this opportunity in search of a specific attribute or talent.

The lesson for NCOs and Army leaders is to think holistically about both tangible and intangible talent management indicators, and to recognize that we must work a little bit harder to see intangible qualities. If we know what intangibles we are looking for, and we know what “right” looks like, we have a much better chance of drafting Jordan over Bowie.

SGM Brian Disque is a career Infantryman and dedicated 76’ers fan. He is the current director of the Nominative SGM Program.