Every organization knows who the planet is. But who can't afford to lose? It's often someone else. They may not be the best salary or the most visible, but they will bring you the expertise that will make even more of your MVPs barely inexpensive.
In sports, that person was Dennis Rodman.
As one former NBA executive reportedly said about Dennis Rodman, he was not always loved in the locker room, whether he was the best scorer or leader. However, his team will not win the championship without him.
In business, that person may be on your team now.
Rodman's paradox describes counterintuitive phenomena in which the organization's most valuable contributors are not necessarily the most talented or best-performing members, and are not the most difficult members to replace professional skills. It is named after NBA player Dennis Rodman, who clearly improved his team's winning percentage in the late '80s and '90s.
This is called the Rodman Paradox.
What is the Rodman Paradox?
While traditional assessments focus on overall performance or leadership quality, true organizational resilience often relies on identifying and retaining these professional contributors that cause disproportionate disruptions of absence. In the context of healthcare to technology to manufacturing, this principle challenges traditional hierarchies. It suggests that unique experts in seemingly supporting roles can be more important to operational success than even exceptional generalists in leadership positions.
It is named after Dennis Rodman. This is a player who has never scored a team, and is not the team's captain, but has created two All-Star teams over a 14-year career.
A role player who changed everything
Dennis Rodman never led a team on points. He wasn't the face of the franchise. He was traded, fined and famously unconventional. For most of his career, he was considered the third best player, even by his coaches.
But there is another truth. Rodman's team won five NBA championships, reached six NBA finals, consistently recording a higher win rate when he was on the floor. He is one of the highest win rates in NBA history and has the highest win rate in NBA playoff history.
When the Detroit Pistons drafted Rodman, they went from a team that could not pass the Boston Celtics to a team that celebrated their first championship in two years.
Rodman then joined the Chicago Bulls in 1995-96, Michael Jordan was already back, Scotty Pippen with his prime, and the team jumped from “champion” to “historically great” to go 72-10 and start two three-peats.
When Rodman signed with the San Antonio Spurs, the team went to the NBA Finals for the first time in its history, with Spurs' David Robinson being his only MVP award.
In their only season with the Los Angeles Lakers, they won the game at a 60-win pace when they played, falling to .500 when he didn't.
That was not a coincidence. That was the Rodman effect.
Rebound as a superpower
Rodman didn't shoot. He didn't score. But he grabbed the rebound like before or after.
Statistical analyst Benjamin Morris has written for his blog's skeptical sports analysis and found that Rodman's rebound performance ranks six standard deviations that surpass the league's norm in rebounds. (Rodman led the NBA with 18.7 rebounds per game in the '91-92 season, an unparalleled feat in 33 years.) Morris claimed he could now be the most underrated player in NBA history.
I'm good at data analytics, but the six standard deviations sound like the sci-fi territory to me. I asked ChatGpt to give a real example and help me grab my head around. It told me it was like getting a 600-mile car per gallon. I requested a few other examples, but created this table.
| category | usually | Equivalent to Rodman level outliers |
| Car mileage | 30 mpg | 600 mpg (20x improvement) |
| Typing speed | 60 wpm | 1,200 WPM |
| Stock return | 10%/yr | 200%/yr with no risk |
| Employee output | 5 tasks/day | 100 high quality tasks per day |
| Olympic Print | 100m for teens | 100m in under 5 seconds |
Rodman at work
You worked with Rodman. Maybe you're one.
These are people whose titles do not reflect their influence and their impact is not recognized or fully appreciated. But their absence quickly puts strain on the team, delays results, and wobbles key accounts. They are often overlooked – until they leave.
I contacted my network and sought real-world examples of role players being more valuable and highly compensated than older people. The three stick out.
The CFO shared that his team had a second-year financial analyst and the only financial analyst in the company that understood generation AI. He had a controller with over 20 years of experience. Still, he felt that losing an analyst was more problematic than losing a controller. Because replacing analysts would be virtually impossible in today's workforce. The controllers were better overall performers, but the only thing the analysts did was invaluable.
Account Manager only has two accounts, making up almost 20% of the company's revenue. The president confessed that if he was forced to choose between this person and his vice president of sales, he would choose an account manager. He also said the Vice President was the best performer of that role he has ever seen. The account manager played Rodman as VP Jordan.
Partners at CPA companies across the country shared that his top recruiter, one of the city's most connected people, was instrumental in finding early career talents that are essential to the growth of CPA companies. He thought she was more valuable than the head of HR or the Office Managing Partner (OMP). He believed that at least 12 people could step into the role of OMP, but no one replaced such well-connected recruiters.
These are not outliers. They are everywhere – if you know how to see.
Why we overlook them
Rodman has the following trends:
- Specializes in messy, niche or sexy things
- Rather than seeking spotlight, it makes others better
- Keep quiet and capable while loud voice earns credits
- Don't get “Employees of the Month.” They don't seek promotions. They show up, do work, hold everything together
- It implies a simple quantification. In basketball, there are no rebound statistics. Rebound leads to a quick break that leads to assists. Rodman's influence is misconducted, ignored, or misunderstood. Until they're gone.
My own experience: Help VCs find Rodman
A few years ago, I worked with a VC company that carried out major restructurings at multiple portfolio companies. When forced to make difficult decisions, these investors realized something profound. The most expensive people were not necessarily the most consequential. In some cases, it was a data engineer, license manager, or a mid-level biochemist who supported the actual value of the company and supported that its absence would most overlook the organization. Those were the people we built. The executives were easy to replace.
How to identify Rodman
Want to build a resilient organization? Start here:
- Audit by impact, not title. Ask your department lead: Who is your team person who you want to never leave? Next, ask why.
- Rethinking performance metrics. Some contributions are difficult to measure on their own, but combinations are important. Create space for people to appreciate who make others better.
- Redesign your perception. Most recognition programs reward visibility. Add a mechanism to honor quiet enablers.
- Protect them strategically. Rodman rarely is irreplaceable on paper, but in reality it takes six months to replace them and requires three. We will handle it accordingly.
Greatness and ignorance
Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time. At least I've seen it before. But even he needed Dennis Rodman and other role players.
Rodman did what Jordan couldn't do. He handled the work that others don't do, like they never did before. And while Jordan was better overall, Rodman had better rebounds than Jordan had scored, and had a Jordanian skill set.
The Jordan vs. Rodman discussion was a central point in Morris' article above. After reading Morris' analysis, I concluded that Rodman is a more irreplaceable player due to his unique skill set. In this case, irreplaceable means no better. If there was a Jordanian clone (Bulls fans can only hope), it will not reduce his greatness. It just makes him exchangeable.
To test this theory, I imagined the impact of selecting players with a skill set similar to Jordan and Rodman and replacing them with those players. I only thought of the players who saw the game play. For a Jordanian alternative, I chose Kobe Bryant and Ben Wallace for Rodman. Both players are members of the Basketball Hall of Fame, and are therefore replaced by other elite players in this hypothetical scenario.
From Jordan to Kobe? It's a step back.
From Rodman to Wallace? It's falling off a cliff.
This is why your Rodman might be more important than your Jordan, if you're your company, no one beats the MVP.
