The Great Debate: Does Expertise Trump Attitude?

  

In today's professional landscape, we often weigh the relative importance of technical skill against interpersonal qualities. While expertise represents the hard-won knowledge and capabilities built through years of study and practice, attitude encompasses our approach to challenges, our willingness to learn, and our ability to work with others. But which matters more?

 

The Expertise Argument

 

Technical expertise serves as the foundation of professional competence. It's what enables surgeons to perform life-saving operations, engineers to design safe bridges, and programmers to create robust applications. This deep knowledge, built through years of dedicated study and practice, can't be replaced by mere enthusiasm or a positive outlook.

 

Moreover, expertise builds confidence – both in ourselves and in those who rely on our services. When facing complex challenges, clients and colleagues naturally gravitate toward those with proven capabilities and demonstrated knowledge. A friendly demeanor alone won't fix a critical system failure or solve a complex legal dispute.

 

The Attitude Advantage

 

However, expertise without the right attitude can be surprisingly ineffective. We've all encountered brilliant individuals who struggle to collaborate, resist adapting to new approaches, or dismiss others' perspectives. Technical skill, while crucial, exists within a broader context of human interaction and continuous learning.

 

A positive attitude manifests in several critical ways:

-       Adaptability in the face of change

-       Willingness to learn from mistakes

-       Ability to collaborate effectively with others

-       Resilience when facing setbacks

-       Openness to new ideas and approaches

 

Perhaps most importantly, attitude often determines how effectively expertise can be applied and developed. Someone with strong technical skills but a poor attitude may find their expertise gradually becoming obsolete as they resist learning new methods or adapting to changing circumstances.

 

Finding the Balance

 

The reality is that both expertise and attitude are essential, but they operate on different timelines. Expertise represents our current capabilities, while attitude shapes our future potential. A positive attitude combined with moderate expertise often yields better long-term results than supreme expertise paired with a poor attitude.

 

The most successful professionals cultivate both. They maintain high standards for technical excellence while embracing growth, collaboration, and adaptability. They recognize that expertise provides the tools for success, while attitude determines how effectively those tools are used and how they evolve over time.

 

Practical Implications

 

For organizations, this insight suggests a need to evaluate both technical capabilities and attitudinal factors in hiring and development decisions. While technical skills can be taught, core attitudes about learning, collaboration, and resilience tend to be more fundamental to an individual's approach to work.

 

For individuals, it highlights the importance of developing both areas in parallel. Technical expertise should be continuously developed, but equal attention should be paid to maintaining an attitude that promotes growth, resilience, and effective collaboration.

 

The Verdict

 

In the expertise versus attitude debate, there is no clear winner because they serve different but complementary purposes. Expertise determines what we can do today, while attitude shapes what we might achieve tomorrow. The most successful approach is to treat them not as competing priorities but as essential partners in professional development.

 

Remember: expertise opens doors, but attitude determines how far through them we'll go.

Want to know more?

If this struck a chord with you, let’s talk. I’m a business problem solver and leader dedicated to helping brands prosper through practical strategic thinking, organizational design and counsel, and focused implementation. 

2025 Sports & Business Trends: The Evolving Landscape of Sports, Media, and Leadership

As we settle into 2025, several transformative trends are reshaping the sports and business landscape and, by extension, my clients' and prospects' businesses. From the revolutionary changes in college athletics to evolving workplace dynamics, here's a deep dive into the key developments defining our current moment and ones that I’m watching closely.

The New Era of College Sports

The collegiate sports landscape will continue its dramatic transformation in 2025. The transfer portal and NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) deals have fundamentally altered how programs recruit and retain talent. Major conferences are evolving into what essentially amounts to professional leagues, with revenue-sharing models that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

Freshman Darian Mensah, the former Tulane quarterback ranked as the No. 7 transfer QB by 247Sports, received a two-year, $8 million deal from Duke. According to CBS Sports, his reported $4 million average annual salary makes him the unofficial highest-paid player in the history of college football. Player pay could rise further depending on the House v. NCAA settlement that will trigger revenue sharing between schools and players.

Traditional powerhouse programs are adapting to survive in this new ecosystem, while some smaller schools are finding innovative ways to compete through strategic NIL collectives and regional partnerships. The Big 12 conference is reportedly investigating a naming rights deal with Allstate to close the conference's revenue gap with the Big Ten and the SEC.

The gap between the haves and have-nots in college sports is widening, raising important questions about the future of athletic programs at all levels of public and private institutions.

Streaming's Stranglehold on Sports Content

The streaming revolution in sports content has reached new heights. Traditional broadcast networks are increasingly partnering with or being outbid by streaming platforms for major sports rights. (Need an example? Check out Netflix’s $150M investment for two NFL games on Christmas Day 2024.) Fans are now juggling multiple subscriptions to follow their favorite teams, leading to both opportunities and challenges in the industry.

What's particularly interesting is the rise of sport-specific streaming services that offer deep analytical content, multiple camera angles, and interactive features. The personalization of sports viewing experiences has become a key differentiator, with platforms leveraging AI to deliver customized highlights and commentary based on viewer preferences.

Professional leagues can now deliver high-quality streams globally while collecting valuable viewer data and controlling content distribution. For fans, these services provide features like multi-angle cameras, real-time statistics, and archived games.

The trend is accelerating. The NFL’s Game Pass is evolving into NFL+, while FIFA+ launched to serve soccer fans worldwide. Even college conferences are developing streaming strategies through partnerships with major platforms.

Challenges remain, including regional blackouts and fragmented viewing experiences across multiple subscriptions. However, revenue potential is driving continued investment. Morgan Stanley projects sports streaming revenue will reach $23 billion this year.

Looking ahead, expect enhanced personalization, AR/VR integration, and likely consolidation among services. The future of sports viewing is increasingly direct-to-consumer. However, traditional broadcasts will remain relevant for marquee events and brands, e.g., 72 of the 100 most-watched live TV events in 2024 were NFL-related. (Note: This is down from previous years, but remember that last year was an election year.)

What’s clear is that sports streaming is no longer supplementary – it’s becoming the primary way many fans consume their favorite leagues. Unfortunately for consumers, the cost of being a sports fan has never been higher. From ticket prices to seat licenses to streaming packages, following your favorite teams now comes with an astronomical price tag.

Women's Sports: From Momentum to Mainstream

Women's sports have transcended the "emerging market" label to become a highly-valued powerhouse. Investment in women's leagues has grown exponentially, driven by record-breaking attendance figures and broadcasting deals. The WNBA's expansion, the continued growth of women's soccer, and the emergence of new professional leagues demonstrate the sustainable business model that women's sports now represent. 

Last year, women’s sports generated $1 billion in revenue (per Deloitte), a 300% increase from 2021.

Brands are following the money, with dedicated marketing budgets for women's sports rising significantly. The authenticity of female athletes' connections with fans (e.g., Simone Biles, Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese, Livvy Dunne), particularly on social media, has created unique opportunities for sponsors looking to engage with younger, socially conscious audiences. 

 

The Content Conundrum: Brands Still Searching for Strategy

Despite years of digital transformation, many brands continue to approach content creation with a "spray and pray" mentality. The pressure to maintain a constant presence across multiple platforms has led to quantity often trumping quality. This approach is becoming increasingly ineffective as audiences become more discerning and platform algorithms become more sophisticated.

The most successful brands are those taking a step back to develop coherent, platform-specific strategies that align with broader business objectives. The era of posting content for content's sake needs to give way to more thoughtful approaches focused on meaningful engagement and measurable outcomes.

Redefining the Employer-Employee Contract

The relationship between employers and employees continues to evolve in unprecedented ways. Remote work has become permanently embedded in corporate culture, but the real transformation is happening in how companies approach employee well-being, development, and purpose.

Organizations are moving beyond traditional benefits packages to offer more holistic support systems. Mental health resources, professional development opportunities, and flexibility in work arrangements are no longer perks but standard expectations. The most forward-thinking companies are embracing this shift, recognizing that employee satisfaction directly correlates with business success.

Compassionate Leadership Takes Center Stage

Perhaps the most significant shift in 2025's business landscape is the elevation of compassion as a core leadership competency. This isn't just about being nice – it's about creating sustainable, resilient organizations that can weather uncertainty and change.

Leaders who demonstrate genuine empathy, emotional intelligence, and the ability to balance business objectives with human needs are seeing better outcomes across all metrics. This trend reflects a broader societal shift toward valuing human-centric approaches in business, with companies that embrace compassionate leadership showing stronger employee retention, higher innovation rates, and better financial performance.

Looking Ahead

As we progress through 2025, these trends will continue to evolve and intersect in unexpected ways. The organizations that thrive will be those that can adapt to these changes while maintaining a clear sense of purpose and values. The future of sports, media, and business leadership is being written now, and it's increasingly clear that old playbooks may no longer apply.

 

Want to know more?

If this struck a chord with you, let’s talk. I’m a business problem solver dedicated to helping brands prosper through practical strategic thinking and focused implementation. 

Compassion vs. Empathy

 

Compassion. Empathy. Two words that are very similar. Two words that are, in reality, significantly different.

 

I was struck this past Friday when two separate quotes on compassion showed up in various ways in my email inspiration feeds. The first came from the Dalai Lama, who said, “If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.” 

 

The other was from the very reliable quote machine – Seth Godin – who wrote, “Compassion is more resilient than empathy. It is always available and it usually works.”

 

I’ve thought a lot this weekend about these two words and what we, as leaders, should consider in our focus on compassion and/or empathy.

The Subtle Yet Significant Difference Between Compassion and Empathy

While often used interchangeably, compassion and empathy represent distinct psychological and emotional experiences that shape how we relate to others' suffering. Understanding their differences can help us respond more effectively to both others' pain and our own.

Empathy: Feeling with empathy is our ability to share and understand another person's emotional state. When we empathize, we essentially step into someone else's shoes, experiencing their feelings as if they were our own. Picture a friend sharing news of a job loss – with empathy, you might feel their anxiety and disappointment coursing through your own body, their emotional pain becoming temporarily yours.

This emotional resonance has tremendous value in human connections. It helps us build deep relationships and understand others on a profound level. However, empathy can also have a darker side. When we fully absorb others' difficult emotions, we risk emotional exhaustion or what psychologists call "empathy fatigue." Healthcare workers and counselors often experience this phenomenon, where constant emotional alignment with others' suffering leads to burnout.

Compassion: Caring action compassion, while related to empathy, takes a different approach. Rather than merely feeling what others feel, compassion combines awareness of suffering with a motivation to help. It's the difference between feeling someone's pain and being moved to alleviate it. Compassion includes a degree of emotional distance that actually enables more effective support.

Consider a doctor treating a patient in severe pain. Pure empathy might paralyze the doctor with shared distress, but compassion allows them to acknowledge the patient's suffering while maintaining the clarity needed to provide treatment. It's a more sustainable approach to caring for others.

The Buddhist perspective offers particular insight here, describing compassion as the wish for all beings to be free from suffering. This definition highlights compassion's outward-focused, action-oriented nature. While empathy draws us into others' emotional states, compassion propels us toward constructive responses.

Finding the Balance: Both empathy and compassion play vital roles in human connection. Empathy helps us truly understand others' experiences, while compassion gives us the strength and clarity to help effectively. The key lies in developing both capabilities while recognizing when each is most appropriate.

In our increasingly complex world, where we're constantly exposed to others' suffering through media and digital connections, understanding this distinction becomes crucial. We need empathy's depth of understanding, but we also need compassion's resilience and action orientation to avoid emotional overwhelm and make a meaningful difference.

Perhaps the most powerful approach is to let empathy inform our understanding while letting compassion guide our response. This combination allows us to remain connected to others' experiences while maintaining the emotional stability and clarity needed to offer genuine help.

The next time you encounter someone in distress, notice the difference between feeling their pain and feeling moved to help ease it. This awareness might just help you become both a more understanding and more effectively supportive presence in others' lives.

The early adopter

Those of you who know me and/or follow me on LinkedIn know that I'm a big fan of Seth Godin. And, what's cool is that every so often, one of my colleagues will email or text and ask "did you see Seth's blog this morning?" That's what happened today with his post about the early adopter and the dilettante. That's when I know that it's content worth posting or blogging about given the impact it's had on others that I respect.

For the uninitiated, Godin is an author, former dot com business executive, speaker and teacher. I have some of Godin's books and had the good fortune to hear him speak. He is one of those people who I marvel at in their ability to cut through the noise to get to the heart of a problem...and always with a solution or cogent point-of-view.

Godin's blog post for today is attached below. What hit me hardest was what I tell clients all of the time--you MUST "choose the audience you seek." The one size fits all or "build it and they will come" mentality of organizations is debilitating. It sets false expectations. And, it's flat-out bad business.

Godin's point is spot on--early adoption is one thing but a mandatory is creating the conditions for stickiness (to use a current business buzzword.) In his words, "If you push for trial but don't create the conditions for subscription and persistence, don't be surprised if only the dilettantes show up."

Great and wise stuff, as always, from Mr. Godin.

The early adopter (and the dilettante) 

The early adopter bought an iPhone in 2008 and never looked back. They played a few games of pickleball and then joined a club and bought the equipment. They picked up a new magazine on the newsstand and then subscribed, and they bought the new bestseller and then read the author’s other works.

The dilettante shows up early and often, but then moves on.

The early adopter and the dilettante both try out the new tech, but only one sticks around through the dip, learning from the hard parts.

The dilettante seeks out new experiences, but the early adopter adopts.

Culture needs both.

Marketers need to be aware of the different personas, and plan accordingly.

If you push for trial but don’t create the conditions for subscription and persistence, don’t be surprised if only the dilettantes show up. That might be enough, but we need to choose the audience we seek.

Don't burn bridges

 How much information should you provide when turning down a job opportunity?

Here's the situation: 

- A client is searching for a Marketing Manager.

- An interview is scheduled with a promising candidate.

- The day after the interview is scheduled, the candidate emails to say "At this time, I'm moving in a different direction. Thank you."

- A reply is sent with "Can we get a bit more context? Did you get an offer from somewhere else? Or did you decide that the role...didn't fit what you were/are seeking?" 

- There is no reply to the queries.

I'm interested in what you all think. My belief is that the candidate could have and should have provided context, even if at a minimal level. This not only handles the rejection with grace but also, in good faith, provides the client with input and feedback about the job--is the description too vague, is the job too broad, is the likely compensation too small?

How much information should be provided?

I'm a big believer in not burning bridges. In this case, it feels like a bridge is being burned when a softer response would have kept a line of communication open, whether for a future job or simply for the connection provided as a result of this process.

My bottom line--always opt for the response that will build, maintain or nurture a connection.

Godin's Five True Statements

The daily blog from Seth Godin is one of the first things that I read every work day. Today's post, as many of his do, hit me square between the eyes.

In his post, Godin wrote that there are "five true statements we don't hear very often." Those statements are:

1. "I don't care enough to do what you're asking."

2. "I don't trust you enough to hear you out."

3. "I don't believe it's worth what it will cost in time, money or risk."

4. "I'm afraid of the changes it will cause."

5. "I don't believe that I'm the kind of person who can do this."

In this past year of consulting, I haven't heard any of these statements voiced directly to me. But I absolutely have experienced every one of them.

As Godin writes, people often talk about features, quality or budget, which all may be genuine but usually are a simple way to stall until time runs out.

Wouldn't we all be better off - on both the buy side as well as the sell side - to simply state the truth? 

If we heard any of these statements, we could do a more effective job of counseling and bringing ideas to the table. Or, we could simply say "thank you" and move on to our next opportunity.

Let's push for more true statements.

"Are They Smart?"

I had a work colleague years ago - let's call him "Bill" - who would always ask me "Is she (or he) smart?" when I talked about interviewing and potentially hiring a new member for our team. There was never any other question - only the query about the person's smarts. 

What I found irritating about this was the lack of definition as to what constituted "smart" in the mind of Bill. And why the infatuation with the candidate's IQ when there was so much more to consider related to their candidacy?

I lost touch with Bill but his question has stuck with me these many years. Every time I think about it, I feel the same feelings of irritation and impatience. 

What are the key things that you want to know when considering candidates for an open position? For me, the biggest driver is the fit with the team. Does their prowess fill a gap on the team and/or provide a complement to another team member's talents?

I also look for a sustained record of results that meet and, hopefully, exceed prior work expectations. Is the candidate proven in their ability to succeed? Have they succeeded in a variety of work environments? Do they have proven success in other endeavors in their life?

Finally - and this is very much an intangible - are they someone that you want to work with? Do they challenge convention? Do they make the team better? Are they fun to be around? Do they motivate me and other team members through the way they think and act and achieve?

Yes, "are they smart?" is an important question. It just isn't the question.