Blinded by the Sun? Celebrity-Tie Bias Effects on NFL Coaches' Careers - Martin Kilduff, University College London Craig Crossland, University of ...

Blinded by the Sun? Celebrity-Tie
Bias Effects on NFL Coaches’ Careers

       Martin Kilduff, University College London
     Craig Crossland, University of Texas at Austin
               Wenpin Tsai, Penn State
     Matthew Bowers, University of Texas at Austin

Why do people get ahead?
 Appropriate
                              The right social
 experience
                              network
 and record of
                               connections
 achievement
                              (particularism)
 (universalism)

Network ties as lenses that bias decision-makers’
    assessments of candidates observable
                  qualifications

Social Network Theory
• Hard-to-achieve network connections can
  signal underlying quality to observers.

• High-status network connections function as
  prisms through which the quality of the
  individual is assessed (cf. Podolny, 2001).

Prior cognitive social network
               research
• Cognitive social network research has been
  limited to the use of data concerning
  perceived networks (Brands, 2013)

• The sociology of social networks uses
  cognitive theory applied more generally to
  understand how actual social network
  connections affect appraisals (Podolny, 2001)

Research Questions
• How do celebrity ties distort decision-makers’
  views of applicants’ qualifications?

• How do celebrity ties affect employees’ career
  outcomes over time?
  – Scapegoating
  – Demotion

Contributions to Theory
• Celebrity-tie bias concept
  – Industry stars bring beneficial gains to colleagues

• Social ties as lenses
  – distort perceptions of other attributes –
    contribution to networks as prisms

• Balanced perspective on social capital
  – the debate over benefits and drawbacks of social
    connections

Celebrity Ties: a connection between a star manager, whose
name is known and renowned to everyone in the profession, and
a subordinate member of the star manager's team

• weak ties (distant and sporadic connections – Granovetter,
  1973).
• interorganizational latent ties (ties between organizations
  that are currently inactive – Mariotti and Delbridge, 2012).
• interpersonal dormant ties (former social ties that have
  lapsed – Levin, Walter, and Murnighan, 2011).
• career imprinting (the stamp of a distinctive organizational
  culture on individuals' careers – Higgins, 2005).

Celebrity-Tie Bias
People:
• see others through the halo of perceived
  high-status friends
• use cognitive reference points (such as
  high status people) to make sense of
  complex environments
• exaggerate the importance of high-status
  others

Celebrity-Tie Bias

Affiliation with high status actors is a positive predictor of career
   advancement (Halgin, 2006).

Hypothesis 1: Possessing a workplace tie to a
 celebrated manager is positively associated
 with the likelihood of being promoted.

How is celebrity-tie bias magnified or
                corrected?
People get ahead because others distort their
  value based on celebrity ties?

People get punished if the great expectations
  aroused by celebrity ties are not fulfilled?

Celebrity-tied promoted people reach their level
  of incompetence?

Magnification: The celebrity-tie positive effect
  on promotions is enhanced for individuals…

…with less rather than more industry experience.

…with a record of affiliation with successful
 organizations.

Celebrity tie weakens the importance of
           career experience (H2)
Biases affect judgment under uncertainty (T & K,
  1982).
Celebrity ties are likely to prove most beneficial
  for individuals with little relevant work
  experience.
Celebrity ties confer cognitive social capital that
  substitutes for experience.

Celebrity Ties Makes Good
     Performance Count More (H3)
Performance of junior coaches hard to assess.

Confirmation bias will tend to attribute team
  success more to coaches with celebrity ties.

Celebrity coaches as cognitive reference points.

Easier to answer: “Is this person associated with
  someone whose performance is easy to
  assess?”

Correction of celebrity-tie bias
• Scapegoating: Celebrity tie magnifies the
  negative aspects of bad performance

• Peter Principle: People rise to their level of
  incompetence

Organization’s leader is fired 
 celebrity-tied
    subordinates exit the industry (H4)
Violation of positive expectations leads to
  disappointment and unwillingness to work
  with the “great expectations” individual (Rink &
  Ellemers, 2012)

Individuals, not teams, are blamed for failure
  (Naquin & Tynan, 2003).
High profile individuals “sacrificed” for the
  collective good (Boeker, 1992).

Peter-Principle Effect
• People rise to their level of incompetence due
  to mismatches between job requirements and
  skills
• Observers are prompted to correct their
  celebrity-tie bias by penalizing the celebrity-
  tied individuals.
• Celebrity-tied promoted individuals are more
  likely to receive demotions relative to non-
  celebrity-tied promoted individuals (H4).

Competition for new
knowledge

 •Sign stealing

 •Payment for injury

28-32 team National Football League
1980-2010, 1298 coaches, 10,269 coach-team-years

                           • NFL draft
                           • Revenue sharing
                           • Salary cap
                           • Schedule adjustments
                           • Free agency restricted
                           •Head coach like CEO
                                of 3 divisions
                           •NFL valued at $33B

Methods
                      Sample
•   1298 coaches entered the NFL between 1980-
        2010: our sample
•   10,269 coach-team-year observations
•   Data from NFL Record and Fact Book
•   College and/or non-NFL coaching and playing

2010 Indianapolis Colts Coaching Roster
  Name                Position
  Jim Caldwell        Head Coach
  Clyde Christensen   Offensive Coordinator
  Larry Coyer         Defensive Coordinator
  Jim Bob Cooter      Offensive Assistant
  Richard Howell      Assistant Strength and
                      Conditioning Coach
  Gene Huey           Running Backs
  Pete Metzelaars     Offensive Line
  Tom Moore           Senior Offensive Assistant
  Mike Murphy         Linebackers
  Rod Perry           Special Assistant to the
                      Defense
  Ron Prince          Assistant, Offensive Line
  Frank Reich         Quarterbacks
  Ray Rychelski       Special Teams
  Bill Teerlinck      Defensive Assistant
  John Teerlinck      Defensive Line
  Ricky Thomas        Tight Ends
  Jon Torine          Strength and Conditioning
  Ron Turner          Wide Receivers
  Alan Williams       Defensive Backs

Coaching Positions for 1298 coaches in Sample
1.   Head Coach (86)
2.   Assistant head coach (80)          Senior
3.   Coordinator (140)
4.   Position coach 565)
5.   Assistant position coach / other (427)

1st head coach = 1 in year Smith attains level 1.
Promotion = 1 in year when Smith moves up.

Celebrity tie
1. Winning 1 or more superbowls (23).
2. Appearing in 2 or more superbowls (18).
3. Winning 5 or more playoff games (30).
4. Appearing in 10 or more playoff games (24).
5. Winning 100 or more regular season games
   (24).
6. Being named Coach of the Year in 2 or more
   years by AP or Sporting News (13).
celebrity-tie inter-item correlation = .67, α = .92

Career Performance, etc prior to
         start of focal year
• Individual’s Career performance = # NFL wins
  prior to focal year / total number of games
  coached
• Career experience = # of NFL years coaching
• Senior coaching tenure = # of years coaching
  at levels 1, 2, 3
• Head coaching tenure =total # of years at level
  1

Head coach dismissal (180 left)
• the dismissal of a head coach will lead to
  assistant coach’s exit? (11 others on the
  roster)
• 2 independent coders, (ICC .91), 142 =
  dismissals, 38 = voluntary
• Tested on sub-sample of all individuals (not
  head coaches) on rosters where head coach
  left during or just after the season
• NFL exit = 1 if assistant coach never coached
  again

Post-Promotion Outcome
• We coded the outcome of every promotion in our data (N =
  630).
• An individual could conclude a promoted role in one of four
  ways: 1) a further promotion with the same or another team
  (N = 86); 2) a lateral move to another team (N = 133); 3) a
  demotion with the same or another team (N = 204); or 4) exit
  from our sample (N = 83).
• We therefore coded outcomes into positive category including
  a further promotion or a lateral move, and negative category
  including demotion.
• In addition, 114 coaches were still in their original promoted
  roles (i.e., with the same team and at the same coaching
  level) in 2010, at the end of our sample frame.

1. Celebrity tie        13. Non-NFL experience
2. Promotion            14. NFL playing tenure
3. First senior         15. NFL playing success (AP All-Pro
                        Team
4. First HC
                        16. QB college
5. Career performance   17. QB NFL
6. Career experience    18. Roster size = # coaches
7. Senior tenure        19. Team total (# diff. teams)
8. HC tenure            20. NFC (vs. AFC)
9. Team performance     21. Team age (# years in NFL)
10. Exit                22. Team past performance
11. Team HC dismissal   23. Team super bowls
12. Age of coach        24. Super bowl recency
                        25. Previous HC co-working
                        26. IMR (inverse Mills Ratio)
                        27. Calendar year

Endogeneity
• Coaches seeking employment are likely to
  perceive all 32 teams as potentially successful.

• Probit model to regress the binary celebrity tie
  variable on variables likely to affect coach hire.
• Includes predictors not included in second
  stage model: QB NFL, QB College

• Inverse Mills ratio (IMR) used in our second-
  stage model.

DV: Celebrity tie
Constant                  -2.96** (0.18)
Age                       -0.14** (0.01)
Playing experience         0.00 (0.00)
Playing success            0.05 (0.10)
QB college                 0.15** (0.05)
QB NFL                     0.22* (0.11)
Career experience          0.09** (0.01)
Non-NFL experience        -0.02 (0.02)
Career performance         2.19** (0.13)
Roster size                0.04** (0.01)
Team total                 0.23** (0.01)
Log likelihood            -4392.09
Chi-squared               3785.18**

   First-stage Probit Model for Selection
   Bias Correction

Analyses
• Binary DVS, so we used random-effects logistic
  regression, fixed effects logit models after
  omitting all coach-level variables (that don’t
  change year to year.
• interaction effects: we created interaction
  terms by mean-centering and multiplying,
  respectively, career experience and career
  performance with celebrity tie.

Results
• The longer an individual stays in the NFL, the
  greater the chance of attaining a celebrity tie
  (r = .53, p < .01).

• Positive team performance protects people
  from industry exit (r = -17, p < .01)

Celebrity Ties and Career Success (H1)
Possessing a celebrity tie to a successful head
coach is positively associated with:
  - being promoted (β = 0.39, p < .01);
  - attaining first senior coaching position
      (β = 0.55, p < .01);
  - attaining first head coaching position
            (β = 1.11, p < .01).

Did Celebrity Tie Facilitate Promotion?
• Overall promotion probability increased 45%.
  – mean probability of being promoted in any given
    coach-year was 3.81% for individuals without
    celebrity ties and 5.54% for those with celebrity
    ties.
• probability of receiving a first senior
  promotion increased by 73%

• probability of receiving a first head coaching
  position increased by 200%

Did a celebrity tie weaken the importance
       of career experience? (H2)?

–being promoted (β = -0.02, ns)
–1st senior coaching position (β = -0.09, p < .01);
–1st head coaching position (β = -0.09, ns).

Did Celebrity Tie Make Good
        Performance Count More? (H3)
Having a celebrity tie boosted how career
performance affected:
      –being promoted (β = 2.18, p < .01);

        –1st senior coaching position (β=2.47, p <
.05);

        –1st head coaching position (β=5.55, p < 05).

Did celebrity tie enhance the negative
     aspects of bad performance? (H4)
The dismissal of a head coach predicted
  assistant coach’s exit (β=0.54, p < 05).

• Probability of exiting the NFL was 59% higher
  for those with celebrity ties
    • probability 15.4% vs. 9.7%

Peter Principle? Celebrity-tied promotions
  more likely to end in demotion? (H5)
                   Coaches with           Coaches without      Total
                   celebrity ties         celebrity ties
 Promotion or      71 (46.1%)             158 (56.6%)          229
 lateral move

 Demotion          83 (53.9)              121 (43.4%)          204
 Total             154                    279                  433

Chi-square test (χ2 = 4.413, df = 1; p < .05), Fisher’s exact test (p < .05).
At coach-year level, pairwise correlation between celebrity-tied promotion
and positive outcome was negative and significant (r = -.07, p < .01).

Robustness Checks
Results unchanged :
• if all individual-level control variables omitted and fixed effects used
   instead of random effects.
• If we used network of all NFL coaches from 1980 onward (N = 1565) rather
   than just those that first entered the NFL during or after 1980 (N = 1298).
• If we replace binary celebrity tie measure with an ordinal measure. For
   each coach-year where celebrity tie was coded as zero, we made no
   changes. For coach-years where the celebrity tie was coded as one, we
   replaced this with the number of years that the individual had worked
   with the sender of the celebrity tie (i.e., the relevant successful head
   coach). If an individual had worked with multiple senders, we used the
   sender that the individual had spent the most time working with. This
   alternative measure provides an indication of the strength of the celebrity
   tie.

Robustness of celebrity tie coding

• If the general celebrity tie measure replaced with, in turn,
  each of the six component measures, results were consistent
  for five of these measures (Super Bowl wins, Super Bowl
  appearances, playoff wins, playoff appearances, and 100
  wins), but were not robust to the use of the celebrity tie
  (coach of the year) measure on its own.
• Instead of including all 36 coaches that had achieved a single
  milestone (Table 3), we restricted our sample to only those 22
  coaches that had achieved at least four of the six milestones.
  Our findings were again unchanged.

Did celebrity ties represent knowledge transfer?
• Assuming rational observers perceive greater knowledge
  transfer when there was a knowledge-match between the two
  parties.
• A celebrity tie in a given coach-year was classified as a
  “knowledge match” if the celebrity tie-sending coach’s
  historical experience was in the same domain as the tie-
  receiving coach. If not, the tie was categorized as a “no-
  knowledge match.”
• both knowledge match ties and no-knowledge match ties
  separately predicted promotions, first senior promotions, and
  first head coaching appointments.
• regression coefficients for the two different types of celebrity
  tie were not significantly different for any of the three models
  (χ2 = 1.20; χ2 = 1.02; χ2 = 0.01; all ns).

Did celebrity coaches continue to pass on expertise to
ex-members of their coaching staff for years after they
                        leave?
• If so, celebrity-tie effects persist for many years.
• We re-coded data to record the length of time (in
  years) that had passed since an individual coach had
  first received their most recent celebrity tie.
• Working under a successful coach has no
  incremental impact on promotion likelihood after the
  first year in which the subordinate coach is out on his
  own across all promotions, first senior promotions,
  and first head coach promotions.

Summary of Results
• A celebrity tie to a successful head coach helped individuals
  earn promotions in the NFL, including to senior positions and
  head coach.
• For those individuals with little career experience (relative to
  individuals with lots of experience), celebrity ties increased
  the chances of achieving first senior appointments.
• The successes of celebrity-tied individuals counted for more in
  promotion tournaments.
• Dark side of such celebrity connections: coaches with
  celebrity ties were more likely to exit from the NFL following
  the dismissal of the head coaches under whom they worked.
• Celebrity-tied coaches tended to get promoted beyond their
  abilities relative to promoted coaches without the benefit of
  celebrity ties.

Discussion
• What is new: celebrity tie as a biasing lens
  that magnifies the importance of human
  capital and exposes the individual to
  scapegoating and demotion

• Does it pay to have connections to people
  who are celebrated industry leaders (cf. Burt,
  2010)?

Contribution
• A new theoretical direction social network
  research: ties as lenses that distort individuals’
  qualities both beneficially and detrimentally

• Different from cognitive social structure
  research that focuses on misperceptions of
  network ties

Contributions
• to the social capital approach that has
  emphasized the effects of social network ties
  on job mobility and achievement (e.g., Lin,
  Cook, & Burt, 2001).

• To executive succession research: an
  executive’s prior associations with celebrity
  managers may help determine whether he or
  she will rise to the top of a firm.

Practical Implications
• celebrity ties may have a “dark side” for both
  organizations and individuals.

• social connections rather than just skills and
  abilities enable people to move into positions
  such as head coach.
• lessons learned concerning recruitment of
  players have failed to be applied to hiring and
  promoting coaching staff.

Limitations
• Special nature of the NFL

• Absence of specific coach performance
  metrics

• No data on cognitive biases

Conclusion
• Affiliation with a successful manager can
  facilitate or damage career progress

• Surprising given that competitive markets
  reduce social network effects

• In making momentous decisions – such as
  appointing a senior executive – judgments
  concerning human capital can be swayed by
  celebrity affiliations