I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
AP Photo.
OR:
Lowell: Ballplayer AND businessman.
Let me start by saying, I apologize. I apologize to all of you readers for picking I/O (Industrial/Organizational) Psychology as my major.
Frederick Herzberg: Or, WTF does he have to do with all of this?
Herzberg was a psychologist, born in Lynn, MA. Herzberg's main contribution to the field of psychology, and especially I/O psychology, is called the two-factor theory (Wiki article, which actually isn't a poor reference even given wikipedia's nature) or sometimes the two-factor theory of motivation.
What are the two factors? ...I'm getting bored.
The two factors are pretty easy to understand. There are motivators which are what really drive the individual to perform/enjoy their job/increase satisfaction. They are:
- Achievement/Recognition
- The work itself
- Responsibility
- Promotion/Growth
- Company policy
- Physical environment (including cleanliness and safety)
- Supervision
- Status/job security
- Pay and benefits
- Co-worker relationships
What does all this mean for Mike Lowell, and for the Red Sox?
For one thing, we know, obviously, that Lowell is not in baseball absolutely for top dollar/years. He could've gotten that somewhere else. But does this mean he's not a businessman? Business isn't just about $$. When you think about your job, aren't those motivators also important to you?
How much higher achievement and recognition, in MLB, can you have than winning the WS and winning the WS MVP? The highest (inter)national stage that MLB has to offer, and you've gotten there. Wouldn't you be motivated to remain with that club?
In terms of the work itself, this is why I felt that Lowell would never play for the Yankees. I think it's clear he enjoys playing 3B, and that has value to him. Would playing 1B hold the same value? (ed: could this apply to Alfonso Soriano's initial unwillingness to play the OF? Was it really as unreasonable/money-driven as it was painted by the media?)
How about responsibility? On the Yankees or the Phillies, Mike Lowell is a face in the crowd. A well-respected veteran, but not a leader. Not the guy who's able to converse equally with his Spanish and English-speaking teammates, and who is expected to do just that. On the Yankees in particular, he doesn't serve as the #5/backup cleanup hitter. He hits 6th or 7th. I don't think there's any way to see the Yankee offer as including more responsibility.
Promotion/Growth? Well, promotion isn't a cut-and-dried process in MLB, so I'm not sure if that particular tenet is applicable as the others are. But growth? Where else is there a wall tailor-made for Mike Lowell's swing? Where else could Mike Lowell threaten to join the 50-2B club, now, at his age?
As to the fence-straddlers, relationships and $$+benefits? It's clear that Lowell is well-liked and respected by his teammates. (ed: Varitek's sign at the parade above) Did this play a part? I think so, though it might not be as easily acceptable as the others. $$? Well, we can say at the very least that this deal (3/$37.5M) at least takes care of the hygiene side of things for Mike Lowell. Hard to determine whether it increases his job satisfaction.
Final Thoughts.
I've had this kicking around in my head lately. MLB is a business, and I think treating it otherwise gives us unrealistic expectations about the individuals who wear the uniforms. But looking at it that way, I think, doesn't have to be a cold process of numbers. Business and the working world isn't all about that anyway.
Questions? Criticisms? Sox FO personnel interested in offering me a job? Let's hear it.
0 recs |
12 comments
Comments
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
There are outliers to everything. I'm sure you could find guys who don't fit these rules, or who at least don't seem to. On a similar note, interested in how a certain player may fit into these categories? I'd be happy to try to answer any of those questions, and if it's a Sox player, at least semi-likely to devote a post to the answer assuming I know it/can figure it out.
It's not a situation where all the motivators have to be present. Take Keith Foulke for example. Noted for not being that interested in baseball (the work itself), he nonetheless took his job seriously and performed. On the flip side, any of the hygiene factors being out of sync can cause a lot of problems. (see: Torre, Joe and "job security")
by Allen Chace on
Nov 21, 2007 4:13 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
Many people I know claim they don't view money as a goal in and of itself, but as "the way the score is kept." By that standard, I would imagine a ballplayer would see more important scoring factors to be personal recognition (e.g., MVP awards) and championships (cf. the current malaise among NE Revolution players).
On the other hand, many of the people I meet in my business (investment banking) seem willing to change jobs at the drop of a $1 bill (probably in their case, more a $1,000 bill). Certainly some ballplayers fit into that mode. However, most of the other people I know (such as my wife, an elementary school teacher, or many of the health professionals I meet) seem to choose their career paths more for the satisfaction of the work itself and the quality of the employer (including colleagues) -- the Herzbergian "motivators". We're so caught up in the media-driven drama of the contractual tug-of-wars between players and management that we tend to forget that before Curt Flood (a different sort of antediluvian tipping point), there were just as many men playing baseball even without the big monetary rewards.
PS: I didn't know about Herzberg, but had studied Maslow's "hierarchy of needs." It sounded very similar and in fact, a short web search found a number of articles linking the two, as well as McGregor (e.g., http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadhb.html)
by MJMcC on
Nov 21, 2007 10:20 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
I think where Theory X and Theory Y make a difference is in the owners and/or in the managers. Peter Angelos and Steinbrenner, of course, have Theory X management styles. Generally (not always) these aren't the best way to manage people and get the best results. Which, to some degree, makes the success the Yankees have had under Steinbrenner even more amazing.
I also had planned on writing a little on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, especially in regards to playing baseball and the impact that has on performance and effort.
by Allen Chace on
Nov 21, 2007 10:43 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
by Allen Chace on
Nov 21, 2007 10:44 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
by fishfarmr on
Nov 21, 2007 3:27 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
by Allen Chace on
Nov 21, 2007 3:44 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
by fishfarmr on
Nov 21, 2007 4:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
by Allen Chace on
Nov 21, 2007 5:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
by SoxAcumen on
Nov 21, 2007 4:26 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
If not, I have failed at life...
by Randy Booth on
Nov 21, 2007 6:33 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
Every time I am on OTM, I do learn some piece of useful knowledge, this time I can actually use the words of wisdom outside of my baseball/drinking buddies normal conversation.
by SoxAcumen on
Nov 21, 2007 8:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I don't owe you. I/O the Red Sox. Part 1.
by Allen Chace on
Nov 21, 2007 7:13 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs













