Michael D, Moberly St. Louis October 12, 2017 firstname.lastname@example.org ‘A business Intangible Asset Blog Where Attention Span Really Matters’.
Intangible asset strategy and risk… (Part 1)
In a business context, being an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist means my interests and attention are directed – driven largely to…
• determining and unraveling the three (broad) categories of intangible assets applicable to every organization, i.e., intellectual, relationship, and structural capital.
• identifying current-future risks attendant to each asset relative to how they are, can, or will be applied.
o thwarting-mitigating the materialization of risk which can erode – undermine any assets’ contributory role, value, utility, and competitive advantage, etc.
• describing viable strategies how relevant intangible assets can be developed to perform maximally in a designated contributory role, add value, and create (new) sources of revenue.
• execution and specific monitoring of assets’ contributory role, value, materiality, and risk.
Assessing prospective players’ intangible assets for sports…
When talent managers (scouts, position specific coaches, etc.) assess – evaluate prospective players, irrespective of the sport, for transition to the collegiate and/or professional level, there is substantial time, expense, and a multitude of intangibles which are variously – repeatedly dissected, assessed, and monitored. Those conducting and/or engaged in prospective sports player talent assessment process, which include…
• experientially aggregated (physical – mental) parameters related to the belief they are translatable to a prospects’ new field of play environment.
• receptivity – responsiveness to sustained (physical – mental) preparation, development, and improvement translatable to the field of play for an expected duration.
• the recruited prospects’ intangibles assets; intellectual, emotional, and physical attributes, character, leadership, probability of being a good teammate, and various on-field characteristics, ala field vision and sense of the game, etc.
I can’t explain it, but I know it when you see it…
The phrase ‘I know when I see it’ is a colloquial expression which Wikipedia describes as one’s attempt to categorize an observable act and/or event. Such categorizations however, are often subjective, person specific, and lack clearly defined, objective, and measurable parameters or distinctions.
The phrase ‘I know when I see it’, we assume, was initially used in 1964 by Associate Justice Potter Stewart (SCOTUS) to describe his perspective (threshold) for obscenity in Jacabellis v. Ohio. Justice Stewart, in explaining why the material at issue (before the USSC) was not obscene, under the earlier Roth test, as argued by the claimants, and instead constituted protected speech not subject to censoring. In the Court’s opinion, Stewart wrote…
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within the shorthand description of “hard-core pornography”, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But, I know it (obscenity) when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
Assessing the probability (intangibles) of a sports prospects’ future on and off the field of play, aside from prior tangible outcomes…
Assessing the probability of a sports prospect sustaining and enhancing their previous success that translates to future on and off the field of play success can, in part, be correctly and objectively assessed on previous tangible outcomes achieved, i.e., throwing, catching, hitting, kicking, etc.
I suspect Justice Stewart’s perspective of ‘I don’t know how to explain it (obscenity) but I know it when I see it’ is far less applicable insofar as assessing sports talent. Particularly, in light of today’s metric-based methodologies for assessing players existing talent as a consistent or objective projection of their future success, on and off the field of play. We now recognize wins, losses, speed, agility, touchdowns, and homeruns, etc., are contributory (collective, collaborative) manifestations of one’s intangible assets.
Yes, a players’ intangibles can contribute to (tangible) outcomes. It’s a players’ intangibles assets, and how they collectively integrate and apply them, which often make the difference between being nominated for a Hall of Fame, or a player less likely to succeed at a higher level of play irrespective of the tangible outcomes they achieved at their previous level of play or respective combine.
Far less arguable, a significant factor responsible for a players’ intangible assets to more fully and consistently emerge, lies in their emotional intelligence. And like many other sports player traits, emotional intelligence can be coachable when a player is receptive and allow them to improve, says Dr. John Sullivan, Clinical Sports Psychologist.
Defining – assessing prospective players’ emotional intelligence…
One definition of emotional intelligence is a person’s ability to identify (their) emotions, manage them, use them effectively in interpersonal relationships and to increase their situational awareness. For professional sports players, emotional intelligence and situational awareness often play significant roles in defining how and how well they may respond under the various stressors and pressures associated with pursuing and desire to be selected for – achieving professional sports status.
I suspect we all know or have witnessed player exhibitions of what we characterize as emotional intelligence, in various ways and, on various levels. Through my lens, as an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist, emotional intelligence truly runs the gamut. However, I avoid characterizing emotional intelligence as being personified by a single sports player – celebrities’ behavior, actions, or speech. Instead, I believe a sports players’ emotional intelligence is better described on a continuum, not terribly unlike the various processes I have developed to assess if or how a company utilizes its intangible assets.
Much as I do with companies – clients, I think it is presumptuous to identify the ‘left, right, and middle points’ of an emotional intelligence (or, intangible asset) continuum as those expressed – exhibited on and off the field of play by individuals like John McEnroe (professional tennis) compared to Peyton Manning (professional football).
Prospective players’ probability for a successful transition from collegiate to professional sports…
Yes, when assessing a prospective players’ probability for a successful transition from collegiate to professional sports, one’s intelligence, as measured by their IQ (intelligent quotient), may appear as a relatively objective factor, or, at least, consideration. But, that numerical measurement provides virtually no insight to a player’s emotional intelligence.
There is no reason to assume talent management (player scouts) in general, at least to date, have directly (objectively) considered a prospective player’s emotional intelligence as a recruit – no recruit factor. I suspect one reason for not doing so is related, as perhaps it should be, to the strong probability of intentional or unintentional and certainly indefensible discrimination. On the other hand, there is ample evidence, that collegiate and professional athletes alike, are routinely instructed (coached) on matters regarding sports law, media appearances, and actions-behaviors on and off the field of play. Especially today, with each being routinely monitored and distributed with keystroke speed through global social media platforms.
..the person who elects not to read has little or no advantage over the person who cannot read! (Variously attributed to Samuel Clemens, adapted by Michael D. Moberly.)