If I Were Running A Company…Innovation

The department known as human resources has grown a lot in 20+ years from being administrative, to tactical, to strategic, to now being part of the business plan.

There have been a lot of articles lately of HR’s transition to being part of the business plan. The Harvard Business Review has several coming out of a factory, including this article from Ron Ashkenas, where he states some people bash HR, but shouldn’t be. This is the money quote about the transition,

So HR’s evolution… does not just concern changing HR. It’s also about helping managers take more accountability for people and culture, and eventually blurring the rigid distinction between “HR” and “management.”

I mostly agree with what Ron says in the article that HR is transitioning and it will take time for employees (and HR) to get use to it. Another aspect is in these past twenty years, HR was trying to define who they are and just recently, the profession discovers what their purpose is in business. However, some in management and executive teams still have a difference of opinion what HR’s role is in their company. This leads to confusion within the HR department, which in turn leads to frustration to managers and employees. In essence, companies need to define what HR plays in their business immediately.

This leads to today. There is another transition period going on where HR went from admin people, to tacticians, to business people, to business people who knows the industry and culture. Right now, the HR profession has a lot of business people and that’s great, but do they understand who are they working with and what industry they are in? Most assume HR will be same across industries, but the reality is HR are human and have personalities (in a business front). Would you want an uptight HR person fit in a creative environment or a free nature person in a machine-like setting? That depends.

Two weeks ago, I attended several DCWeek events. Two events I was interested in was the Capital Technology Management Hub Startup Challenge and Tech Cocktail. It was the first time I have been to these events. To summarize, these events is to give publicity to these startups. In CTMH case, a competition, while Tech Cocktail is a showcase. It’s great these startups are getting publicity for taking bold steps of making and marketing their product, but innovative? That’s tough to tell.

According to Wikipedia, innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. By that definition, there were a lot of “innovative” startups, but are they truly innovative? To that end, of all the startups I saw that week, probably only one was innovative to me.

To me, innovation is changing people and market trends. What most of these startups I seen is more of an update to the predecessor like you keep downloading updates on your computer. I’m not knocking renovatoions because people are trying to make the experience better for the long-term. However, businesses use “innovation” loosely, in my opinion, as a sales and marketing tactic.  I ask any business this: are you updating your model or shifting people’s habits? If it is the latter, you are innovating.

What I am asking startups and new businesses is basically this: if your business is really innovative, what are 3 things that differentiate the other competitors? There will be a lot of imitators in every sector from the products to your people, but how does your business set apart? If you can’t answer that, you’re screwed.

There is nothing wrong of updating your business, but people will see innovation when they change their ways, not from a gimmick.

If I Were Running A Company…HR’s Future

The department known as human resources has grown a lot in 20+ years from being administrative, to tactical, to strategic, to now being part of the business plan.

There have been a lot of articles lately of HR’s transition to being part of the business plan. The Harvard Business Review has several coming out of a factory, including this article from Ron Ashkenas, where he states some people bash HR, but shouldn’t be. This is the money quote about the transition,

So HR’s evolution… does not just concern changing HR. It’s also about helping managers take more accountability for people and culture, and eventually blurring the rigid distinction between “HR” and “management.”

I mostly agree with what Ron says in the article that HR is transitioning and it will take time for employees (and HR) to get use to it. Another aspect is in these past twenty years, HR was trying to define who they are and just recently, the profession discovers what their purpose is in business. However, some in management and executive teams still have a difference of opinion what HR’s role is in their company. This leads to confusion within the HR department, which in turn leads to frustration to managers and employees. In essence, companies need to define what HR plays in their business immediately.

This leads to today. There is another transition period going on where HR went from admin people, to tacticians, to business people, to business people who knows the industry and culture. Right now, the HR profession has a lot of business people and that’s great, but do they understand who are they working with and what industry they are in? Most assume HR will be same across industries, but the reality is HR are human and have personalities (in a business front). Would you want an uptight HR person fit in a creative environment or a free nature person in a machine-like setting? That depends.

In HR’s future, we will see businesses outsource the transactional aspects of HR like documentation and paperwork and HR departments will focus on the strategic side of business and become the all-around people some envision twenty years ago. As Ron Ashkenas mentioned, this is another transition time for most HR departments, so they’re getting used to the “new HR.” I think employees and managers will get HR until management will hire “their” HR people, meaning they understand business, as well as the industry, willing to go to a variety of meetings, and get the culture. Of course, everything will change when there is a new executive, then companies could start from scratch, but if ain’t broke, don’t fix it; just have a succession plan to keep it going until it is broke. Like in many business infrastructures these days, HR has become multi-faceted and although employees might be frustrating, it is also frustrating HR and it will take time to adapt and when they do, your company will be heading for big things.

If I Were Running A Company…Accelerating Social Entrepreneurship

(Disclaimer: My company, Tran Recruiting, was a sponsor at the Accelerating Social Entrepreneurship Conference)

Last week, I attended the fourth Accelerating Social Entrepreneurship (ASE) Conference (they didn’t have the conference last year) where 300 attendees from academic, government, public, and private sectors to discuss the role of social entrepreneurship in the age of austerity. This was a lively, transparent discussions throughout the day and am amazed by the brute honestly from speakers, especially Senator Mark Warner. Here are some highlights at the ASE Conference:

• Managing Director of the Mason Center for Social Entrepreneurship, Greg Werkheiser, mention the ASE Conference is to make you happy.
• From Sen. Warner, “85% of the 2011 federal budget cuts came from 14% of the budget came from discretionary domestic spending.” Basically, they cut out education, transportation, lunch meals, etc.
• “Nonprofits not only need to collaborate, but compete.” - Bill Shore
• Nearly everyone agrees collaboration between social entrepreneurs and public policy is a must.
• “We need more ‘creative destruction’ in the nonprofit world.” – Sen. Warner
• It is alright to fail, but don’t go rock bottom if you have to borrow money from your parents’ retirement fund.
• According to Michael Chodos of the Small Business Administration, rural and under-served communities are the fastest growing businesses in the U.S.
• Three plans you need: spiritual, financial, and a business plan.
• Most important thing to go into social entrepreneurship: Start!
• “I drop ‘run like a business’ because it doesn’t make sense. You just have to be a good executive.” - Mario Morino
• “There is no difference between social entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs in general. It’s about execution” – Morino.
• “It’s a great moment in the world that people are challenging cultures that have been held for a long time.” -Muslim Lakhani.
• “Leaders need a new social contract when they hold the position.” – Lakhani.
• “Social Entrepreneurship isn’t about creating a nonprofit, but businesses that do good for society.” – Paul Carttar.
• “If you own a Kindle, you’re adding to the trade deficit.” – Terry McAuliffe.

There are hundreds of themes, but the one main thing I want to take away is actually a quote from Mitt Romney from his campaign telling that “corporations are people.” In hindsight, that was kind of true when Occupy Wall Street happened because protesters, in my opinion, wanted jobs in the corporate world and are getting the shaft, hence all this attention. Fast forward to this conference, Senator Warner mention that colleges need to do a better job on creating better social entrepreneurs, for which he hasn’t seen any good program, yet. This is where institutions need to do a better job to change the mindset of people.

If Occupy Wall Street is about getting an opportunity, a natural-minded entrepreneur would be surrounding him/herself in a gold of potential workers locally. There are only a few cases of this, but if, for example, the Mason Center of Social Entrepreneurship educate people who want to good, the Center has to educate on the choices that are out there. Some people want to be social entrepreneurs, some want to work within a nonprofit, or some want to be a consultant to work for numerous nonprofits. Institutions need to give these “do-gooders” options instead of one mindset that after college, they have to go to the “corporate” world to learn. Universities have to step to the plate to make a smooth transition for students going into the real world and that’s giving them options.

If there is one thing that I would improve about the conference, it’s not about the conference but more about timing, is put this a day before the DCWeek core conference and do something with “Give To The Max” Day. You would see the inner workings of a wonderful conference even better.

I might sound bias since I’m a George Mason alum and a sponsor, but if you want an honest, lively, engaging, and transparent conversation on social entrepreneurs, nonprofits and how the public and private sector can help, this conference is meant for you. If you’re a nonprofiteer, social entrepreneur, nonprofit of setting up your conference schedule next year in the DC area, this is a must.

If I Were Running A Company…Again with Jobs

You know it is serious that when a politician starts with the topic, jobs. Jobs boost the economy, bring confidence to employees to spend on goods, and help growth. The problem is there are not a lot of jobs out there and the field is limited to mostly tech and cubicle jobs. There are many different theories as to why the unemployment rate is above 9%, but there are many more questions on how to solve it. Here are the most popular answers from experts:

Create More Jobs

It is easy to say that you’re willing to provide jobs; it is hard to execute them. In my opening, politicians mention jobs because not only it is an important issue; it gives them points heading up to signing a bill or for elections. Politicians can say they can create more jobs, but in reality the can create more government/government contracting jobs and that’s it. Jobs are basically in sole discretion with the private sector if they someone or not. Businesses can decide to create jobs if the environment fits their bottom line. Even if businesses create jobs, will the position last for a long time? With new technology coming out quicker and global competition, jobs can be shifted or be eliminated at any time. Although having a job is fine for now, the long-term ramifications could be damaging if you don’t adopt or pick up the pace to the changing environment.

Training

I always preach training inside your business so they can keep up the pace on current trends and how they can adapt with these new tools. Paul DeBettignies points out in his post the benefits of training and tend to agree businesses need more internships and apprenticeships, and to adapt. Then again, the same thing as creating jobs, training only works with the resources given and it has a small payoff as only it can prolong their job until something new comes in that people need to retrain again on the newest thing, which takes a lot of resources (money, time).

Education

This is where, to me, is the primary reason there are not enough skilled workers working in the workforce. Part of it is cause of our school system being broken as funding in that area gets cut. Some argue the diverse (race, to be specific) workforce could be a cause because of the language barrier. However, the main factor of why education is the leading cause of the shortage of skilled workers is from an article that SAT reading scores are at its lowest in four decades. I don’t specifically blame teachers, the school system, or politicians for the low scores…everyone should share the blame.

The real problem is we haven’t teach to others why the subject matter is important. Let me take an example of a simple phrase, “being green.” For some, it means the environment, but for others, it could mean paint yourself green or surround yourself with green materials, or make money. This is why some people have trouble defining “net neutrality” or “broadband” because some or most have no idea what it is, even politicians. That is why comprehension is important to have workers and the unemployed understand why they business made these changes and they can get behind the meaning. I think the “skills gap” is more about people going way ahead on their field, and then telling us this is important, instead of why this is important. We, as individuals, forget to tell them why they should need to learn this stuff.

You don’t need a degree to understand, just have a network surround you to keep up what’s going on. Of course, the difficulty is each individuals’ comprehension is different. Some can comprehend very quickly, some can comprehend in the next year, but for others, it might take them a long time to get it or not. Education won’t solve all the problems since it varies from each person, but it could resolve why job seekers need to step up their game.

Conclusion

Creating jobs is a great way to boost the economy, but only for the short-term. Training can enhance an employee/job seeker skill set, but only for so long. Educating our workers and job seekers the meaning for the changes should help them with the purpose of the job. What I mean by educating, I don’t mean spending money on courses, but we can teach others, who are in need, on their field. No sound bytes or snippets; give them an explanation why these changes are important. It is up to them they’re content where they are or they’re willing learn and develop these new skills.

People have to realize the world is on a very fast pace that we have new technologies every day it seems, global competition where companies can outsource to save money, and our environment is making us feel we are in a rush with a variety of options. It seems that we don’t have enough time educating others, but that’s the conundrum we’re facing: do we want everything in the short-term with jobs and training or we look long-term and teach kids and our peers about what’s going on? To that, I don’t know if there’s a right answer based on who you ask.

If I Were Running A Company…Mel Kiper Award (August 2011)

I haven’t done the Mel Kiper Award since January because…well, I’m very busy with work and other ventures and couldn’t think of anyone to do a solid blog post. Recently, I have found that someone. This person has change the industry just by being himself and it took a company a long time to figure this out. The 12th recipient of the Mel Kiper Award is…

CM Punk

If you do not know the story of CM Punk, he has been a wrestler for over 11 years. He work in independent wrestling organizations and was named, “King of the Independents” for his work in the ring and his mike skills. In 2005, he signed with the WWE. During his time at the WWE, he was an Intercontinental Champion, a World Tag Team Champion, and a World Champion, but wasn’t respected within the front office, mainly Vince McMahon. However, in the past two months, CM Punk moved the needle that is defining not only himself, but the wrestling industry.

In late June, Punk won a four-way match to become the number one contender for the WWE against John Cena. At the same time, CM Punk’s contract with the WWE was going to expire on July 17th. Between that time, Punk exposed WWE’s behind-the-scenes politics and giving shout-outs to people who were fired by the WWE.

In the pro wrestling world, what happens in the ring stays in the ring and no one will discuss the backstage politics. The only time both reality and fantasy intersect was in 1997 when Shawn Michael beat Bret Hart when Vince McMahon called off the match and handed the title to Michaels. This time around, the WWE and Punk agreed to do a “worked shoot” to work around Punk’s expiring contract and Punk is showing why he is the “Best In The World.”

The new angle has attracted two different audiences: kids and families, and the hardcore wrestling fans. The wrestling fans were frustrated when Linda McMahon made her Senate run in 2010, wrestling lost its soul because the product was aimed at families. When McMahon lost her Senate race, wrestling fans wanted to return to the “Attitude” era where anything goes and people can do whatever they want in front of a camera. The problem was the WWE was making a lot of money from families who bought a lot of merchandise and tickets, mostly for John Cena. How could they stray away from a money-making machine of families buying merchandise and tickets to give what the hardcore fans want? Enter CM Punk.

Since the “worked shoot” was established, CM Punk has won the world title in his “final day”…and then came back, he’s been guests of radio and television shows around the country as one of the faces of the WWE, he has become an internet sensation with his Twitter account and the Colt Cabana podcasts , his “Best in the World” t-shirts have been selling out, and his “impromptu” appearance at Comic-Con got huge buzz:

What does CM Punk represent in the HR department? Two things: the first is CM Punk said in his many interviews, “you have to facilitate change from the inside.” Either working in an organization (or SHRM), if you want to change something, you have to do it from the inside. Let your voice be heard if you think something is not right with your business and become the “Voice of the Voiceless”. The second thing CM Punk represents that HR should learn is a quoteDave Lagana sums up best about Punk:

“…being yourself and never compromising what you believe will make you successful.”

People should know the rules when working with the organization, but if you know all the rules, then game the system to your benefit. Most businesses have one identity and that one identity trickles down to your organization, but a long-term and strong organization should have multiple identities to optimize your audience. Although John Cena establish himself as a top WWE guy because he brings what the WWE wanted, CM Punk brought back the hardcore wrestling fan and brought wrestling to a new era…”The Reality Era” as he calls it.

Congrats CM Punk on being the 12th recipient of the Mel Kiper Award

Side Note: Read Dave Lagana’s terrific three-part piece of how CM Punk climb the ranks of the WWE. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

If I Were Running A Company…The Extra 2%

If you ask many HR professionals who love sports, most of the people would put Moneyball in their top 5 HR sports books of all-time. I’m not going to argue that since it introduce to the world of saber-metrics, looking at quantitative and qualitative statistics for sports and business, and thinking outside the box. The book was so good, Hollywood is making a movie with Brad Pitt (which is out on September 23). HR professionals here and here crave of the book and suggested HR should look into more data/statistics driven for their business. It was a great book and I considered being a top 5 sports book…until a few years ago.

Moneyball was a coming out party for statisticians and economics as math and business as it coincide with sports and real-time. It was a breakthrough in sports and in business. However, there were two problems why Moneyball has been devalued. The first problem is the Oakland Athletics only went far as the American League Championship Series in 2006. From 2003 (when Moneyball was published) to today, two teams with a lower payroll than the Oakland A’s that went to the World Series: the 2003 Florida Marlins (which won the World Series by beating the New York Yankees in 6) and the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays. The other (and primary) problem why Moneyball devalued is three words: the human element.

People praised Moneyball because it was innovative and became the new Bible for businesses to find talent and resources with limited funding. What most don’t know is the person behind Moneyball, Oakland A’s General Manager, Billy Beane. Before the book was released, Billy Beane was an up and coming GM who was the toast of MLB when he brought the Oakland A’s, with a small payroll and limited resources, to the playoffs in the late 90s-early 2000s. Since the book was released in 2003, the A’s have made one playoff appearance. The problem: Billy Beane. Beane had a philosophy to have almost everything based on statistics. Beane would only look at a few like how many pitches you take and on-base percentage. Beane’s other philosophy is that the field manager just manages and plays sidekick to him. It worked with Art Howe until he bolted to manage the New York Mets in 2002. It was likely going to work with Ken Macha until Beane fired him after the 2006 season when the A’s were swept by the Detroit Tigers in the ALCS. Then, Beane hired Bob Geren in 2007, who the players hated, and was let go this year. In that 2007 year, the A’s did have and internal candidate with Ron Washington. When the A’s passed on him, the Texas Rangers hired him as their manager. In 2010, Washington led the Rangers to their first World Series ever.  Simply put, Moneyball made Billy Beane from a rising star in baseball to an egomaniac that had several interests.

This leads me to the newest book HR and sports fans should have in their collection: The Extra 2% by Jonah Keri. To summarize, it’s Moneyball with more emphasis on people and relationships (and defense). It tells the story of three former Wall St. execs (owners Stuart Sternberg and Matthew Silverman and GM Andrew Friedman) that helped the Tampa Bay Rays from perennial losers to contenders in the American League. What this story sets apart fromMoneyball is how the front office views each department (baseball operations, PR, events, infrastructure) and how to get the right people for your organization. The Joe Maddon chapter from the Extra 2% exemplifies that while you have resources and talent, you need someone who can interpret your culture and information. Joe Maddon was viewed as part of the front office and not as a “middle manager.” With that mentality, the Rays won the AL pennant in 2008 and won the AL East in 2010.

The only problem the Tampa Bay Rays have doesn’t concern baseball, their team, or their front office. Their main issue is real estate. The problem playing in Tropicana Field (“the Pit”) is 1) the ballpark is an arena, hence all the catwalks and fewer seats, 2) their field is at St. Petersburg, where the nearest neighbors are 30 minutes away and 3) the expiring lease on the park is nearly 20 years away. The new ownership wants a new stadium in the Tampa area, but local officials are not willing to do it, which would prevent future free agents to come so the Rays organization have to stick to their plan.

While many HR professionals want our profession to be more data driven, be careful what you asked for. Sure, statistics are important and you want to forward your information to the executives, but it is important your know how to interpret the information and look at all possibilities with this information based on statistics, current culture, and current confidence of your organization. Statistics only plays a part of the decision, human nature makes up for most of it.

In 1999, Billy Beane was the most innovative person not only in sports, but in business. When technology helped neutralized baseball through the years, Beane stayed the course but did not make any adjustments, hence his star status dropped. What HR needs is not innovation, it needs progressive thinkers who look at all possibilities and outcomes and their consequences. If you have executives who go “by the book” from statistics and trends, your organization would do well, but will not reach its optimal goal. If you have executives who go outside the box, it’s a risk-reward but the rewards would most likely be beneficial if planned and executed right.

So HR, don’t be Billy Beane…be a Joe Maddon.

If I Were Running A Company…Jim Riggleman

If you know my writing, I love writing where sports and HR intersects. I always feel the HR department is like your sports operations department: they set the culture, they find and source talent, they develop players/employees, and they oversee the business. Sadly in this case study, this really hits home.

Yesterday, Jim Riggleman decided to resign from his position as manager of the Washington Nationals because he thought Mike Rizzo, the General Manager of the Nationals, and the front office never reach out to him about his contract and he thought he deserves an extension.  Rizzo didn’t give an extension, Riggleman gave his final stand, Rizzo didn’t bite, and Riggleman left. To have an HR perspective on this, let’s look at Mike Rizzo and Jim Riggleman.

Mike Rizzo

Mike Rizzo was considered one of the best scouts in baseball. He started scouting for the Chicago White Sox and Boston Red Sox and then went to the Arizona Diamondbacks on their inaugural season in 1998 and became Director of Scouting in 2000, where he started to make a name for himself. After the 2006 season, he joined the Washington Nationals as an Assistant General Manager. In March 2009, he became the interim General Manager when Jim Bowden resigned after the Dominican Republic skimming bonus scandal. In 2009, Rizzo drafted Stephen Strasburg; traded outfielder Lastings Milledge and reliever Joel Hanrahan to Pittsburgh for outfielder Nyjer Morgan and reliever Sean Burnett; and signed Strasburg to the biggest contract given to a drafted player in the last minute. Those sequences lead to Rizzo removing the interim tag and became a full-time general manager.  Rizzo received a five-year extension after the 2010 season after drafting and signing Bryce Harper and made critical trades such as Matt Capps to Minnesota for Wilson Ramos and other prospects.

There’s no question Rizzo got his job because he was great evaluating talent and can make business deals with agents and other general managers in baseball. Although 80% of his job is scouting players and development, it is the 20% Rizzo is still working on and that’s handling the media. Rizzo did not handle the situation well when reporters wanted to ask Nationals hitting coach, Rick Eckstein, about the Nationals hitting slump earlier in the season. It seems Rizzo wants to control all situations, which makes him look like a dictator.

Jim Riggleman

Jim Riggleman is a journey manager. He started managing for the San Diego Padres in 1992, then went to the Chicago Cubs in 1995, where he led them to a National League Wild Card in 1998. In 2001, after been fired by the Cubs in 2000, he was the bench coach for the Los Angeles Dodgers from 2001-2004. Riggleman returned as bench coach in 2008 for the Seattle Mariners and became interim manager when John McLaren was fired later that year. In 2009, Riggleman was hired as bench coach for the Washington Nationals. In that same year, Riggleman became interim manager when Manny Acta was fired. After the 2009 season, Riggleman signed a two-year deal with a club option in 2012. Although 2009 and 2010 were a struggle, 2011 was looked at as a bridge to 2012, where you have Strasburg returning and Harper called up to the majors. Initially, it looked like a lost year when the Nationals were 27-36 and last place in the National League East. However, Riggleman and the gang won 11 of the last 12 games, are one game over .500 (38-37), and have sole possession of third place and possible wild card talk. In addition, this was Riggleman’s dream managerial job since he went to Richard Montgomery High School in Rockville, MD and went to Frostburg State.

Although Riggleman was at home, his overall record as manager was 662-824 and 140-172 record as Nationals manager. Riggleman was getting gigs all over baseball because he was a “by the book” guy. However, in 1998 when the Cubs faced the Atlanta Braves in Game 3 of the National League Divisional Series, he put Kerry Wood on the mound, although he had not pitch since August 31. The Cubs were swept by the Braves and the following year, Wood had Tommy John surgery, ending the Cubs playoff aspirations in 1999 before the season begins and Riggleman was gone the following year. This propped up the discussion that Jim Riggleman is decent manager who does not make good baseball decisions.

The HR Perspective

The reason I wrote a long description of Rizzo and Riggleman is because you need to see two different viewpoints, where they come from and how Riggleman’s resignation resonate. On the base of communication and goal setting, I fault Rizzo for not communicating well to Riggleman before Spring Training about what were the Nationals team goals during a transition year for not only the team, but for Riggleman. If Rizzo thought Riggleman was not the right fit, he should still talk to him about his expectations and what should be discuss during and after the season. Rizzo failed on that end.

Although Rizzo did not handle the contract extensions/goal settings talk well, he always had a stance that you wait until after the season ends to make your decisions since he had to wait being a full-time general manager.  Rizzo’s negotiations with Scott Boras and making trades that eliminate part of the losing culture put him in the driver’s seat for a full-time position, and then the five-year extension.

Coming to his contract year in 2011, Riggleman knows this was his make-or-break year. He had a new team in 2011 that was young, athletic, and eager; where in years past, the Nationals were getting leftover veterans to make up the roster. If we’re basing by results, Riggleman did a great job since the Nationals are over .500 for the first time since 2005. However, from quotes from both Rizzo and Riggleman, Riggleman wanted a “conversation” of his contract extension. If Riggleman started the question with, “what are the goals and expectations of the team,” Rizzo would of listen and have that conversation. However, Riggleman talked about his contract extension and the rift started. It escalated today when Riggleman gave Rizzo a choice today and that was it.

While Mike Rizzo made some mistakes, he was right standing pat on his values that you have to finish the season to know what you got.  I believe Jim Riggleman wanted to stay in Washington because he founded his dream job. For this dream job, he wanted job security. If it was his last year, it would be likely Riggleman gets that extension because Stan Kasten was still the president of the Nationals at that time since Kasten was a people’s person. Instead, Riggleman had to deal with a baseball person, not a people’s person. Riggleman went all-in on a baseball person…and was called on his bluff. If Riggleman didn’t make good baseball decisions, he did not make a good read on his business decisions as well.

What’s Next?

With Jim Riggleman gone, how does this affect the Washington Nationals this season and even next? No one knows, but there’s one question at the end of the baseball season: Was Jim Riggleman the glue, a contributor, or a standby for the Nationals? We would know where the Nationals are in the next 3+ months.