External Relationships

Preface: I was told that at least one (current) GM, does not allow their scouts to travel with anyone from outside their organization. This includes carpooling, and I believe they were also not able to engage in conversation at the rink aside from pleasantries.

Based on the results discussed so far, internal communication and synergies between departments is the largest struggle these NHL teams face in terms of talent management; however, external communication posed a threat but for different reasons. For instance, it was discussed how other scouts communicated too frequently with scouts outside of their organization causing misinformation. One item identified was the idea of a consensus or confirmation bias that 3 of the scouts touched on when discussing their actual scouting process:

“I think the biggest mistake guys can make in my opinion is . . . when guys are too, too casual or too friendly at games, and they're shoulder to shoulder at, you know, watching games and oh, talking about all but a play this guy made or what did you think of that guy? And you get it all the time where I really think that when other scouts are saying, hey, what did you think about, you know, Joe Smith? And when they say that, I think they're, they're, not confident in what their assessment or their evaluation that players been. And they're kind of looking for a consensus . . . And it's like [hockey executive] once told me, you know, when I first started getting into it, he goes, it's good to ask questions, just don't answer any. And so then, you know, there's guys that, you know, there might be two or three or four guys you consistently see all at the same games, and they're jumping in a car together. You know, so that they can all put in their gas, mileage, per diem and all this stuff. But I know, some guys like that and you just know, from being around them that they're openly talking about the game and the players, so, everybody's got same list basically [players they are interested in]. Like, that's not what it's all about your you know? You're not helping your team; you're helping their team.” (Scout 1, Director of Amateur Scouting).

The information presented by Scout 1 is important as it introduces two themes: the idea of a consensus, and the zero-sum mentality.

Quick definition: A zero-sum game is the belief that if there is a winner than there must be a loser.?A zero-sum game is considered a confrontational game where there is no possibility of cooperation of any party involved in the game. Zero-sum games are considered strict competition where a participant’s gain must equal that of the other participant’s loss.

This theory emerged from the data because:

1.????Hockey’s competitive nature may surface in NHL teams’ organizational operations.

2.????Some scouts interviewed discussed how scouting was a competition.

3.????The theory was explicitly brought up by one scout interviewed.

Firstly, a consensus is referring to scouts all having the same opinion on a player, which is where they fall victim to confirmation bias. This happens when others express opinions and those opinions are more likely to be agreed with, by the scout, if they are similar to their existing beliefs. Scout 1 explained that some scouts are not confident in their assessment, which results in each person discussing their thoughts to try to confirm what they were believing. Secondly, the zero-sum mentality also emerged in this scenario, as the unnamed hockey executive (refer to quote above) advised Scout 1 that they should keep opinions to themselves because it is a competition, and in order for them to win the other scouts must lose. Scout 5 reinforced this belief but added in as to why this is such a common occurrence:

“And I think that I think one of the biggest thing scouts make mistakes on and I think this is a huge problem in scouting in all sports. This idea that there's a consensus view on players . . . you go with what the consensus says. And I think part of building really good scouting staffs is instilling really strong confidence in the player and the people scouting that their opinions matter. [NHL executive], a long-time executive at the NHL, who I worked with was a great mentor for me, he always said, I'd rather be wrong with my opinion than right with somebody else's. Not that he wants to be wrong, but we're gonna stand on our own two feet. And you have to instill that confidence because, you know, I know this for a fact, 100% fact, teams put players on their list, and they go oh, I will put them on our list [because others say they should be]. Right. And then all of a sudden that player falls. And then he's the next player on their list. And they take them.?They didn't want the player, they weren't crazy about the player, but they had them on their list. So, they took them, it happens. And like 100% fact it happens . . . I looked at it as a straight competition. I wouldn’t tell a scout on another team if his pants are on fire, if it meant that I could get a player a better player than him. I never told anybody, it's a competition . . . I think lots of the scouts at large are really good at evaluating, and, but it's that confidence.” (Scout 5, General Manager).

Scout 5 sees scouting through a zero-sum lens, where the scout felt the need to win otherwise it would be a loss. They also discussed the idea of a consensus and that scouts do succumb to this; however, they offered a solution to upper management through instilling confidence in the scouting staff by trusting their opinion and allowing mistakes.?Scout 3, however, did not wholeheartedly share this opinion.

“It happens, the thing is, is that your co-workers when you're in this life, whether you're traveling with them or not, become scouts from other teams that are your role. So, what happens is you go, you know, when you get to arena, typically the first thing you do is go to the scouts and media room (before COVID) . . . And inevitably you're [basic conversations that make it] a moot point. But yeah, there's definitely conversations that are borderline. I try and I guess, I'm coming at, personally, I come at this role from a bit of a different background. So I don't know a lot of like, the ex-players per se, that are in those tight circles and that yet, you know, but certainly there are peers and friends that I speak to and, you know, once in a while something will come up where you make a comment on a player. And yeah, it's not, you know, ideal, but it's, I wouldn't say it's like rampant. You know, guys are trying to do their best and be professional . . . I haven't really found myself in that situation yet.” (Scout 3, Amateur Scout).

The differentiator between Scout 3 results versus the results from Scout 5 and Scout 1, who were adamant of this phenomenon being prevalent, is that Scout 3 has the least amount of experience by a large margin.?This point is not to invalidate the experience of Scout 3, as their experience is valid, but that they have not yet been exposed to it yet, as mentioned in their quote above. Scout 3 indicated that it does not happen in all circles, but they did discuss the level of comfort they may have with other scouts since: “the thing is, is that your co-workers, when you're in this life, your co-workers, whether you're traveling with them or not, become scouts from other teams that are in your role” (Scout 3).

These quotes allude to three important ideas: 1) that this scout may be confident because of their own beliefs or it was imparted on them by their manager/organization, 2) there are some tight-knit groups within scouting departments that may be more likely to share information (ex-players), and 3) even scouts that consider it unprofessional to share confidential information still feel a certain level of comfort with scouts from other teams. ?These three ideas are important as they demonstrate that not all scouts experience sharing of information externally, while the second and third concepts can guide the direction of future research. Overall, these quotes introduce and discuss the idea of a consensus and how it can impact the opinions of scouts and in turn, organizations' drafting decisions. This results in inefficiencies as scouts waste energy and time affirming their beliefs with others’ opinions (outside the organization), instead of affirming their beliefs with their own methods.