Development Arcs & How Organizations Need to Get it Right

What happens when NHL teams don’t understand their athlete’s individual development arcs? Well, simply you see the 1st round draft pick flame outs and mid to late round picks never seem to fully materialize and talent funnels seem to be dry (see the Toronto Maple Leafs). How can this be addressed? Firstly, I think how talent is identified and developed needs to be done differently.

I’ll discuss this issue on an on-gong basis, but my theories are tied to the following principles:
Athletes need to be viewed holistically
Athlete’s talent arcs need to be identified in context of the organization the are joining, but this is only valuable if it is done objectively.
How and more importantly when do you expect to realize the athlete’s talent? This relates to when you anticipate realizing on your asset (this requires you to have a strong view and understanding of your current assets)

From a talent perspective, athletes can be categorized into one of the following groups:
Long Arcs
Those athletes who will need a long (or longer) time to mature into professional athletes.
Short Arcs
Those athletes who are able to bridge into professional athletics faster.
Flatliners
Those athletes who may not have the capacity to play at the elite level.
Blips
The most frustrating group ‘Blips’, are those that may have the capacity to play at the professional level but only for short bursts. Although, frustrating, they can be profitable to the astute holistically trained GM.

However, it is important to note that unless GM’s and coaches know which group their athletes fit into they risk damaging the athlete and limiting his total game potential (TGP) and consequently his organizational and overall asset value.

It is also critical to note that the above categorizations relate to skill only. They do not speak to the mental aspect of athlete development. Many Short Arc athletes have the physical skill to play at the highest level but may not have the mental capacity. If this isn’t recognized, talented athletes can be shredded by an organization before they are ready. There are too many cases of this to even bother outlining. Conversely, many athletes have the mental toughness and maturity to be professional athletes, but need time for their skills to develop. Organizations can lose these athletes by not giving them the direction they need to develop from a skill perspective. Speaking with professional athletes anecdotally this issue seems endemic.

If athletes can’t see a development track that is clearly communicated to them, why would they ‘buy in’ to an organization. In my opinion, this is costly not only from perspective of the lost asset, but because of how that individual may impact other organizational assets.

Providing clear development tracks is difficult of course. Scouting is not objective and neither is how coaches utilize their roster. Unless GM’s & coaches are integrated with respect to the use and development of talent any initiative undertaken at one level and not another is useless. Pushing more objectivity into how athletes are evaluated is a crucial first step to truly identifying where these athletes fit in terms of the previous four categories.

Honestly, its honesty. The number of former professional and/or elite athletes who feel they haven’t been dealt with in a forthright manner is staggering. Those athletes who do have forthright interactions with management regardless of their individual outcomes speak very highly of those experiences. If athletes know how they are viewed by the organization, what needs to be improved, if they are making the requested improvements and they understand the implications of both positive and negative development organizations can flourish.

Ultimately, the pressure for the GM is to properly identify his assets. Cull the Flatliners, realize maximum market value for Blips and create individual development plans for Long & Short Arc athletes that increase the chances of the asset realizing.

The next blog will focus on the concept of TGP as a methodology for developing talent at the NHL level.