[OutsiderFan]

Irrespective of David Shaw’s urgency level, it is Stanford as a university and his employer for whom it is most incumbent to demonstrate having it.

The only way anyone ever performs is when they have pressure on them to succeed. If David Shaw doesn’t feel the urgency of now himself, it is up to the university and Muir to create it. If they don’t, they adopt a laissez faire attitude about the importance of winning, which permeates the culture.

I have argued David Shaw is already more concerned with his own comfort than winning because that’s what the evidence shows. If Stanford doesn’t remind him he’s making $4 million per year to win games and if he doesn’t they will find someone who will, he has no reason to make changes.

The way this stuff is suppose to work is the employer or board of directors sets the performance standard and the executive in charge is given what he says he needs to perform. If he performs, the executive stays. If not, someone else is found who can do the job. The issue is what the urgency is. Does it take another 4-8 season for Stanford to replace Shaw? Three losing seasons in a row? Four? Everyone has their threshold. But the more patient you are and the more you tolerate below what you set as the bar for performance, the more you risk enabling failure and falling further behind.

So sure, want Shaw to act with urgency to make changes when things aren’t working, but Stanford as his employer should be the one who’s feet you hold to the fire.

[OutsiderFan]

Irrespective of David Shaw’s urgency level, it is Stanford as a university and his employer for whom it is most incumbent to demonstrate having it.

The only way anyone ever performs is when they have pressure on them to succeed. If David Shaw doesn’t feel the urgency of now himself, it is up to the university and Muir to create it. If they don’t, they adopt a laissez faire attitude about the importance of winning, which permeates the culture.

I have argued David Shaw is already more concerned with his own comfort than winning because that’s what the evidence shows. If Stanford doesn’t remind him he’s making $4 million per year to win games and if he doesn’t they will find someone who will, he has no reason to make changes.

The way this stuff is suppose to work is the employer or board of directors sets the performance standard and the executive in charge is given what he says he needs to perform. If he performs, the executive stays. If not, someone else is found who can do the job. The issue is what the urgency is. Does it take another 4-8 season for Stanford to replace Shaw? Three losing seasons in a row? Four? Everyone has their threshold. But the more patient you are and the more you tolerate below what you set as the bar for performance, the more you risk enabling failure and falling further behind.

So sure, want Shaw to act with urgency to make changes when things aren’t working, but Stanford as his employer should be the one who’s feet you hold to the fire.