Saints or Sinners - NO's Bounty Scandal

When one thinks of a leader, many adjectives come to mind...someone one looks up to, who is poised, genuine, honest, strong, passionate, dedicated, influential...the list goes on and on. Overall, a leader is someone who has influence over a group of 'followers.' Though typically being a leader is thought of as a positive thing, it is important in management (and life in general) to realize that being a leader can be a fabulous opportunity to do a wide spectrum of bad and good things. When thinking of great leaders that made an enormous impact, names like Martin Luther King, Theodore Roosevelt, Mother Theresa, etc. come to mind. However, in order to have good there must be bad, and a prime example of bad leadership is a current event we discussed in class last week: the New Orleans Saints Bounty Scandal. 

Background

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans demolishing the city, taking hundreds of thousands of peoples' sense of home and leaving only sadness. Just one year later, the New Orleans Saints returned from a lousy season in Texas to the slowly recovering city, aiding in igniting a sense of community once again. Though usually not a threat in the NFL, the Saints hired head coach Sean Payton with the hope of transforming the team not only into a successful one on the field, but making these 'sub-par' players feel empowered, and empowering the city of New Orleans as a result. Miraculously, Payton succeeded. He led the Saints to their first franchise Superbowl title and two divisional titles as well. The video below elaborates on this:

“Leadership. . . is a process. . . by which one member influences and controls the behavior of the other members toward some common goal”  ()


The Saints win the Superbowl and Payton is a hero, a leader to his players, his staff, the city of New Orleans, and numerous people around the country who just watched him courageously take risks in a poised manner and succeed. Payton was thought of as such a great guy, that he was marketed to be an inspirational speaker on leadership. Just watch him demo tape--I am sold. He completely embodies a vast array of leadership qualities ... mission ... change ... motivate ... hope...glory ... succeeded beyond expectations...goal...no shortcuts." 

Regardless of his personality, Payton's powerful role as a head coach gives him the title of leader. According to Judith Bowker's descriptions in the article, "Leadership as Shared Dignity," a traditional masculine definition of leader is, "one who braved fierce physical conditions, singled himself out as a winning competitor, and won battles of all kinds" (Bowker). A football player successful to play in college, the NFL, and then become a successful coach easily fits these criteria. As we continue, it is important to note that not only does Payton have power and the title of leader, but his coaching staff and players do as well. 

The Scandal

In 2010, the NFL started investigating the New Orleans Saints for having a bounty system--paying out bonuses for taking certain players on the opposing team out of the game. Defensive coach Gregg Williams proves to be the instigator in the operation, often times putting amounts of money on opposing players' heads. Paying players to do these things is against NFL regulations. Listen to Williams' graphic pre-game speech used as evidence here. As a result, Gregg Williams has been suspended from football indefinitely, and Payton has been suspended from the Saints for one year, as he knew of the scandal and didn't follow through on shutting it down (Menck). 

Leaders?

Where to start? Two of the main things given to a person that makes them a leader are power and influence. Williams and Payton had these tools and failed at being "good" leaders. Some different ways one can fail at leadership are as follows: abuse of power, corruption, complicity, lack of vision, and ethical/moral (Menck). 

Williams failed in all of these ways. He abused his power as coach to pressure players to be a part of his scheme using influence. He enabled corruption because the injuries he plotted is against NFL rules. He was complicit. He lacked vision, as he did not see the potential consequences of his actions as large enough threats. We'll focus on the ethical dilemma more later. 

However, it is important to note that even though Williams failed as a leader, he also fulfilled the duties of leadership as follows:


   -Set the vision and mission:Williams mission was pretty clear, to take out players, to "play the way we have to play."
  
  -Read the environment (internal & external): Williams repeatedly said in his pre-game speech that, "the NFL is a production business, don't ever forget it." He followed through on providing drama for the audience. 

  -Make Decisions: obvious. 

  -Explain courses of action: Did you listen to the audio? I think he explained what they were going to do and how they were going to do it pretty well. 

  -Establish culture and values: Though they're not values many people would approve of, Williams establish the lack of values. 

Even though Williams was a leader gone wrong, the question of whether what he did or not is unethical to NFL standards is frighteningly questionable. 

I think the reason there is so much debate about this question of ethics is because there is two types of leadership: masculine and feminine. Bowker discusses the differences between the two by showing the transition from masculine to feminine ideals as a result of women taking an equal role in society throughout recent history. She describes feminine leadership as valuing, "concern for other, focus on the collective, attention to process or means rather than solely on product or ends, and an eye toward care and responsibility" (Bowker). Let's face it, if we're evaluating Payton and Williams on masculine leadership, their 'crimes' seem less severe. However, society tends to think of leaders in a more feminist way at this point in time, and this scandal is a prime example of the difficulty in transitioning between these two mentalities. If we are evaluating them based on feminist leadership ideals, they failed miserably; the staff had a lack of concern for others' well-being, they didn't focus on the collective of the NFL, they did not evaluate the way they used to short cuts to obtain their end goal (ironically, since Payton states in his demo video, "no shortcuts"), and they didn't act in a caring, nor responsible way. Interestingly, Bowker shares the idea that when a leader tries to balance between masculine and feminine ideas of leadership, it hinders progress to the end goal. Therefore, Williams was right in choosing one mentality ruthlessly to obtain a Superbowl. 

However, I think this thought is a great way to analyze Payton's role in the scandal. Payton knew about the bounty, tried to put an end to it, but failed to follow up and make sure it had stopped (Menck). It is safe to say that when faced with making a decision about how to handle this situation, Payton was torn between the masculine and feminine way to look at Williams' leadership. As previously stated, through a masculine lens versus a feminine lens, the crimes seem slightly less horrific. In addition, Payton could probably see that William's actions were going to get the team towards their goal quicker than taking a feminist approach.   

In addition, the element of money is a crucial one. It would be one thing for Williams to be encouraging his players to hurt other players, but putting $10,000 on Brett Favres' head is bringing the violence to another level. Nevertheless, according to Bowker,  this still fits within a leader's relm, as a, "leader as empowerer toward relational morality is no the end; leader as empowerer is a means toward profit...that is the end" (Bowker). This raises the question of how common is it, actually, for someone to use money to receive their desired results in order to obtain their goals?

Then there is the question of the players. How much of the responsibility do they share? They didn't have to participate, right? But their job is to hit Brett Favre, for example, and if they are getting paid extra for doing their job, what would you want them to do? Bowker discusses the role of followers and leaders. She explains how it is the role of the follower to bestow power to the leader, and the leader's role to, "assume responsibility and for the follower to submit" (Bowker).  

Then there is the question of why didn't someone who knew what was occurring come forth with it to the NFL earlier? This relates to Hirscman's theory of exit and voice. Exit is the fact that stakeholders of a firm can simply leave when they're dissatisfied, and voice refers to the, "expression of discontent," that someone can protest when they are dissatisfied and be heard (Sethi). One would think that at least one individual involved in this scandal would be dissatisfied with the immorality of it and use their voice. However, Sethi uses a good example that can be used as a metaphor to this case. He describes a neighborhood that experiences a "decline in quality" and explains how it could be devastated if people choose to pick up and move elsewhere. Imagine this on the Saints' level...if one were to come forward with the details of the scandal, though they could feel good about protecting the safety of other players, the downfall of the Saints would be resting on their shoulders. They would be blamed by the participants in the bounty for the loss of players to other teams, coaches, and ultimately--money.  

Reaction

I have a lot of contradicting thoughts when it comes to the ethical dilemma of the Saints' bounty. My main reaction through learning and researching this case is that I'm sad and dissatisfied with the way that one can demount the definition of a leader to such a technical aspect. When I think of a leader, the first thing that comes to my mind is not a list of adjectives, it is a feeling. A leader is supposed to be someone that inspires you, someone with integrity, someone whose actions contribute to the greater good even when no one is looking. So if the question were whether or not Payton and Williams were good leaders, though they both have admirable qualities, my answer would be a definite no. However, there is the completely different question of whether these coaches, Williams in particular, abused their power in an unethical way. My first reaction to the audio was, "yes this is unethical, he is trying to hurt others...." However, I then took a step back and analyzed the game of football...a sport where players like defensive linemens' sole goal is to hit other players. Then, I defended my previous thought with, "okay, yes, they are supposed to hit other players, but they were getting paid to harm people...bingo...unethical." Nevertheless, the obvious hit me: "defensive linemen get paid millions and millions of dollars every year to lay players out." Therefore, the question seems to be about the NFL as a whole and the things that it values. The level of violence needs to be evaluated, so that if the leaders of the entire organization set standards, hopefully the coaches and players will follow. 

Bowker , Judith . "Leadership as Shared Dignity ." Forum on Public Policy . n. page. Print. 


Menck, Jessica . "Issues of Leadership: Power & Corruption." Management 3001 . Marquette University. Marquette University, Milwaukee. 11 April 2012. Lecture.

Sethi, Rajiv. "The Astonishing Voice of Albert Hirschman ." Rajiv Sethi. Blogger.com, 07 Apr 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2012.

---