USA Track & Field dumps CEO Logan

The board of directors that's in place now has zero accomplishments developing national TV sports products and/or professional sports products. The board that is in place now is suitable for maintaining USATF but is not qualified to lead USATF into new media product development. Either dump that entire board, or split out Elite/LDR into a new company with office in West L.A. and it's own CEO.

This quote sums things up.

"Logan, a former commissioner of Major League Soccer, said making unpopular decisions “just goes with the turf.” and he defended his handling of the money from Olympic trials, saying that when he took the job in July 2008, the federation was underwriting athletes retreats at about $100,000 each to places like South Beach in Florida and Cancún, Mexico.

“I thought those funds were being squandered,” he said. “We would do better to fund true athlete development. Yes, I’ll admit, as far as I was concerned, throwing $100,000 parties was a closed book.”

Logan wasn't great, but he came in and tried to get rid of all the ridiculous perks and wasted money. Stuff like that mentioned above, or the "elite training centers" that were really brooks johnson's vacation spots. The people in charge didn't like losing all those perks, so they got rid of him. Forget about what's good for the sport, they are concerned with what's good for them...

What? That quote doesn't say anything about some sort of quid prop quo. I gather that Flynn's saying, like many here did, that Project 30 was stupid. It was. Whether he deserved to be fired because it was dumb I can't say (I'll admit I'm not an insider, instead of pretending I am like a lot of people here). I tend to counsel for patience in situations like this, since I think that institutional stability and consistency are helpful (think about NFL teams that keep coaches for years, even after losing spells vs. churn and burn organizations). It's possible to not like the USATF leadership cadre while agreeing that Logan may not have know enough of what to do.

From one of the articles linked on the front page: "This is not a headless horse that is running around without any direction," Hightower said.

That quote seems to sum up the problem. You don't bring in a guy to do a job and then oust him the moment he does something you don't like. What's the point of having a CEO if really it's all about what the board wants? Let the guy do his thing, see if it works or not, and then go from there.

Credit where credit is due. The following is from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/sports/14track.html?scp=1&sq=logan&st=cse

I'm putting my money on Steph demanding that an African-American fill the next CEO position.

Jon Drummond, quoted in the NY Times on Logan: "Doug came in during his interview for the job and said he did not know a lot about the sport.”

Yeah, and you hired him!! So that's on USATF, not on Logan.

SomeActualData wrote:

Jon Drummond, quoted in the NY Times on Logan: "Doug came in during his interview for the job and said he did not know a lot about the sport.”

Yeah, and you hired him!! So that's on USATF, not on Logan.

That was supposed to be a positive with Doug. Being an outsider especially in a group like USATF can be beneficial. Not that we have much say on anything here at LetsRun.com but we do have a voice and a platform. When Doug came in, we let him do his thing. We had no contact with him. Let an outsider do his thing and see what happens.

Whereas we used to have some contact with Masback and he'd fill us in on things they were trying to accomplish and we'd voice a few concerns.

With Logan being an outsider, he definitely didn't manage the politics too well. An insider likely would have at least one constituency behind him and can rely on them when times are tough. No one had allegiance to Logan so when the magical things he promised didn't materialize he's shown the door. I'll synthesize my thoughts more, but Logan for sure over-promised. Maybe he had to to get the job. If he said, "I know nothing about track and field, but want to keep the ship running and grow 10% a year" he probably doesn't get hired. Instead he's says, "I'm an outsider, we can double revenues in a few years" and everyone jumps on board. That doesn't happen, he has upset the apple cart with reform, no one has his back, and he's gone.

Maybe it's not that hard to figure out.

Does the CEO of a cheese company need to know how to make the cheese or does he just have to know what cheesemaker to hire?

SomeActualData wrote:

Jon Drummond, quoted in the NY Times on Logan: "Doug came in during his interview for the job and said he did not know a lot about the sport.”

Yeah, and you hired him!! So that's on USATF, not on Logan.

Getting a TV contract, filling the stands, getting good press, putting the people who actually know the sport in their correct spots businesswise and firing the guy who wallows in perks are the CEOs job. Finding the funding for the age group hurdles camp is his job while running the agegroup hurdler camp is not.

If the NFL CEO misses the subtle difference between a buttonhook and a short curl does it make him less adept at nailing the sponsor to a contract for 23 million over 3 years instead of 4?

Put Tom Fleming in there...he's extremely knowledgeable and will definitely rile things up!!!

The last page of the Columbus School for Design (Stephanie's employer) indicates a salary of $112,000 per year (at least back in 2009).

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2009/310/820/2009-310820394-05f7bc16-9.pdf

Me thinks the $300-$400,000 that Doug pulled is a strong motivator. My theory is that she (and Brooks and others) let Doug get hired with minimal enthusiasm, let him ruffle some feathers and kill off some things, and then let him trip up. Stephanie was not viable in 2008 as she was not the chair and was coming off the ethics inquiries. Not, seemingly, she is.

To clarify, my point was that it doesn't make much sense for USATF insiders to now cite Logan's lack of track-and-field experience as a reason for his dismissal, since they hired him knowing full well that he lacked that background.

Whether you actually need such a background to be effective as CEO of USATF is a different question, and on that I agree with those who've said "maybe not." Though as Wejo points out, a CEO coming in without a natural constituency within T&F might mean less room for error and a greater need for outreach.

If he didn't reach out to Let's Run at all, well, that wasn't smart.

People get the government they deserve

Having only met Doug Logan once in Berlin and not being on the inside of the boards conversations, influences, expectations, and needs I cannot really make an educated decision about Doug’s dismissal. I do know that it takes 3-5 years for any system to take hold and show its benefits. I don’t think Doug was given a fair shake from that perspective. Now if the board had an MBO from Doug and it wasn’t a biological MBO then that would be the boards fault. Its expectations would be set in the initial plan and not changed according to prevailing changes in the world about us – dumb mistake. As in coaching analyze and synthesize the events around continually and make changes accordingly then inform why – every plan needs to be able to change with prevailing events – just like a marathoner's race plan on race day when they wake up and find out the weatherman was an idiot and it is 30 degrees, wind blowing, and snowing instead of 55 and sunny. Maybe Doug didn’t inform – I cannot say. The business individuals on the board should have been able to recognize any roadblocks to success that Doug had, that the plan had, and counseled him accordingly. Maybe they did! That is board’s role to aid the CEO in the development of the sport in support of the shareholders – anyone that run’s in the US.

A CEO’s role is to first create a viable realistic vision of where the business needs to go, (a SWOT analysis in the business world) but only after an exhaustive stage of researching the current status of all areas. Not sure if Doug took the time to complete that process in an organization with as many stakeholders as USATF. If he knew the sport that process would have been completed already. That would take some grassroots handshaking and conversing that I am not sure Doug had time to achieve or the desire to do. Second is to create the organization to build that vision (which he hired a very capable Mike McNees to do), third go find the money to fund the organization and its future (apparently his downfall -- where was the boards support in this), fourth to report to the board the ongoing (weekly and monthly – that is accountability and transparency) evolution of the success of the plan.

To date I have not seen anyone really take the time to investigate the future. 2011 is on us, 2012 is close, 2013 around the corner, 2014 too close for comfort and 2015, 2017, and 2018 planning should be on the boards already. We do not have a Long Term Development Plan for the ascension of youth athletes to elite status (currently HS and college athletics) and then on to master’s that I am aware of. Do we have a long term plan to keep and develop people in the sport as officials, coaches (coaches education), volunteers, etc? This should be first item for that is the essence of the sport.

Athlete Centered (all levels), coach driven, officials, and administration supported. That mantra hasn’t changed and shouldn't! As we sit here today, to achieve elite status, it is still a chance collision (right HS & college and coach) between a good coach (the design), a talented athlete (the gift), a talented agent(business), and some great luck for someone to ascend to the top of their abilities and on to elite level. Of course defining elite level is always a touchy subject. IMHO it is being within 1-3% of the top yearly mark in the world for any given event. Otherwise you are still an emerging elite or developmental athlete whose needs have to be met to bring them to that 1-3% level.

Did Doug have a viable well thought out and well supported long term plan. Not sure if there was a long term plan as we can see he was fired because the short term one wasn’t working! Project 30 plan is a bandaid plan at best! I know some of those around him and they are very capable people, is the board as capable as we are giving them credit for? There are some good people and some suspect powerbrokers/politicians. They are partially responsible for Doug’s failure (anyone familiar with the term team) and should take responsibility. It is interesting to see the lack of transparency in the why as we are the shareholders and should be informed. Hiding behind privacy and legal jargon is a sham – just tell us why he failed-is that too much to ask!

Too many great people have walked away from this sport because of the powerbrokers. Too many of them remain in decision making positions although their connections and insights should not be totally ignored! As we said in the days gone by revolution not evolution. Sometimes we need to revolt –USOC almost led it. Might have been best – never know!

So much for my rant!!!

jhunt wrote:I do know that it takes 3-5 years for any system to take hold and show its benefits.

That is complete bullshit. How long did it take Roy Williams to turn around UNC basketball? 1 year to return to the NCAAT and 2 years to win the NCAAT. History is full of people who have turned around crappy organizations in a year or 2. Care to make up any more facts?

That's a horrible example. That is turning around a TEAM not a COMPANY. It is absolutely not on Doug Logan to get people to run fast. However, if that's what you want to go by, he's done a great job, especially in the middle distance and distance events where we are as competitive as we've ever been.

The problem with USATF if that they are set on hiring idiot ex-runners to run their organization instead of legitimate businessmen. A good example is the University of Michigan's ex-Athletic Director Bill Martin. He was not an ex-athlete, he was not an ex-coach, he was a businessman. And he made business minded decisions and as a result their athletic department was in the black during his entire tenure (not a small feat). Perhaps it's time USATF hired a BUSINESSMAN to do the job instead of someone who is part of the ridiculously clique-y bureaucracy that is the current governing body of USATF. Bring in a CEO who has turn-around experience. Trim the fat (and by the fat I mean people like Stephanie Hightower who is an absolute joke.)

Apparently you have no idea of systems and their functioning. For example --have you ever heard of Deming? The UNC is a very poor example. Doesn't take that much to turn a small team around, try a department, a group, a business, a country for that matter we need a CEO that has experience with these types of models and knows what it takes to make it happen. There is a lot of bad inertia in USATF that needs to be trimmed to make it work efficiently! Fortune 500 is on the money.

From Deming --- Deming believed profound knowledge generally comes from outside the system and is only useful if it is invited and received with an eagerness to learn and improve. A system cannot understand itself without help from

outside the system, because prior experiences will bias objectivity, preventing critical analysis of the

organization. Critical self-examination is difficult without impartial analysis from outside the organization. Also,

insiders can rarely serve as hostile critics who speak frankly without fear of reprisals.

We need to hear this loudly!!! Now!

Some interesting research!! ---Hiring new CEOs with MBA degrees does lead to short-term improvements in operating performance. However, the researchers did not find a significant systematic relationship between CEO education and long-term firm performance. CEO education does not seem to be an appropriate proxy for CEO ability.

"Even though CEO education does not lead to superior performance by firms, firms may rely on CEO education in hiring decisions because they have few other identifiable and measurable criteria to use. All else being equal, they rely on what they believe to be the observable pedigrees of the executive," Bolton says.

"Of course, all else is rarely equal, especially when dealing with something as nebulous and potentially unobservable as managerial talent. Interpersonal skills, leadership ability and strategic vision are among the traits that CEOs should possess; these can be difficult to identify and even more difficult to measure. As a result, boards rely on those characteristics which they may be able to observe: work experience, track record, and education," he says.