|
Theo Epstein had a tough decision a couple of weeks ago.
The President of Baseball Operations for the Chicago Cubs had a choice between two loyalties.
He had a manager, Rick Renteria, who had done a reasonably good job in his first year. At least he had done nothing to get himself fired and Epstein had said that Renteria would be back managing the Cubs next year.
And then Joe Maddon, the very successful manager of the Tampa Bay Rays became available. Maddon is considered one of the two or three best managers in baseball.
Now the dilemma: Does Epstein abandon a manager, who, Epstein acknowledged, had done nothing wrong, to go after Maddon, a proven manager with a far better track record?
Epstein said that it came down to a choice between loyalty to one man and loyalty to an organization.
Of course, an organization is made up of people. So, in reality, it was a choice between loyalty to one man and loyalty to many people.
It is true that his job is to put those people in the best possible position to be successful.
If Rentaria had been an obviously bad manager then there would have been no dilemma. One way a leader demonstrates his or her loyalty to the people of his or her organization is by removing the poor performer if they can't get him to perform better.
In this case the manager was performing reasonably well. He hadn't shown managerial brilliance necessarily, but it had only been one year-he was just getting started. As I stated, Epstein was all set to bring him back.
There is another psychological layer to this that needs to be examined. If Epstein jettisons Renteria, a reasonably good employee, what message is he sending to the people of his organization he said he was showing loyalty to?
Though his intention is to show loyalty to the people of his organization by being disloyal to one, does that action cause a fear of disloyalty to ripple through the organization? After all, if he can do that to one person, what would prevent him from doing it to others?
Paranoia could seep into the organization and paranoia paralyzes a workforce. A paralyzed workforce is an unproductive workforce. Indeed, some could even jump ship because they feel less secure.
Further, what would this do to Epstein's reputation as an employer? Would it prevent others from wanting to come to work for him?
In the end, presumably after weighing all the variables, Epstein chose to go after Maddon.
I will say this-they could not have handled it any better.
They were not cowards about it.
When they decided to pursue Maddon, Jed Hoyer, the Cubs general manager was dispatched to California to inform Renteria in person. No hiding behind a phone call, or email, or text message. Renteria didn't have to read about it in the newspapers. He was told man to man.
Indeed, they kept Renteria informed throughout the entire process.
In Chicago they know how the story ended: Maddon accepted the job offer from the Cubs and Renteria was fired as manager and offered another position within the organization.
Renteria has yet to publically comment up to this writing, and has not announced whether he will stay with the Cubs.
Either way, the now former manager will be paid the remaining two years of his contract. So it's a soft landing for him financially, not so soft for his ego.
You know this had to hurt him...really bad.
Epstein knew it would.
Was it the right call?
Time will tell.
In the light of what we know now, I think it was a sound business decision made under exceptional circumstances.
And if Epstein has not made a habit of being disloyal to individuals within the Cubs organization then his integrity will stay intact as this will be considered the exceptional exception to the ironclad rule.
Sometimes tough decisions have to be made; even decisions with consequences that are not all ideal.
It takes a certain strength to make them.
And it's not always clear as day, neat as a pin. I wish it was...it's just not.
| 
