Finding Your Michael Jordan: Leader Lessons from the 1984 NBA Draft

By Sgt. Maj. Brian M. Disque, Chief, Nominative Sergeants Major Program Office

Office of the Sergeant Major of the Army

May 26, 2026

Download the PDF

The 1984 NBA draft class is generally regarded as one of the greatest of all time, producing several hall of famers including the subjectively greatest of all time — Michael Jordan. But did you know Jordan, a prolific college star, was passed over — twice — before the Chicago Bulls selected him as the third pick in the draft?

How could two teams miss this generational talent, a player who even after retiring continues to define the sport for future generations? And is there a lesson for Army leaders in how we evaluate and select talent for critical positions?

What the Heck Happened in the 1984 NBA Draft?

At the risk of oversimplification, the teams with the first two draft picks, Houston and Portland, had gaps in the center position. The center in basketball is usually the “biggest/tallest” person on the court, performing as the team’s most powerful force, scoring at will while patrolling under the rim to prevent easy baskets.

With the first pick, Houston drafted Hakeem Olajuwon. Olajuwon had a stellar career, leading the Rockets to multiple NBA championships and earning a spot in the conversation as the greatest center of all time.

Portland, with the second pick, selected Sam Bowie to be their future center hoping he could lead them to victory. At 7 feet, 1 inch tall and weighing 235 pounds, he had all the physical attributes he needed to succeed. Bowie had a great college career, though he suffered injuries that came back to haunt him during his NBA career.

Portland must have considered drafting Jordan, the 1984 player of the year and national championship winner, over Bowie. But the Trail Blazers already had a solid player, Clyde Drexler, in Jordan’s position so they assessed the center position gap as having a greater impact and thus decided to pass on Jordan.

The rest is history. Jordan went on to be the greatest of all time while Bowie had a career marred by injuries and obscurity who failed to live up to expectations and is regarded as one of the biggest draft busts of all time.

How did Portland miss this once-in-a-generation talent? Jordan certainly had tangible indicators of future greatness, but listening to fellow players and coaches talk about him, they consistently referenced his drive, characterized by an indomitable will to win. That less tangible trait did not show up on any stat sheet, but it’s widely acknowledged as the thing that truly made Jordan great as both an individual player and teammate.

Takeaways from the 1984 Draft

NCOs are in the talent management business. Every day, whether doing routine training, conducting interviews, providing recommendations to officers on NCO talent, writing evaluation reports, or serving on promotion boards or selection panels, they are always concerned with talent.

When leaders evaluate talent for leadership opportunities, beware an overreliance on “tangibles.” Portland liked Sam Bowie because he filled a perceived gap for them in the center position, so they drafted the person they considered the best center available — he was a natural fit to fill the gap. But perhaps they asked themselves the wrong question.

Instead of asking “Do we want the best center?” they should have asked “Do we want the best player?”

After nearly 30 years in the Army, it occurred to me that Army leaders are susceptible to over relying on tangible talent indicators because, frankly, they like “tangible” things they can see and measure: fitness scores, schools and degrees, career management fields, experience, previous positions, etc.

These tangible accomplishments are indicators of success and help measure character traits the military finds important. But how many times have we seen the top graduate, who excelled in an academic environment, struggle when the dynamic variables associated with human interaction are introduced? High aptitude does not always indicate potential success.

I don’t suggest physical fitness scores or other important qualifications should be disregarded, but we need to dig a little deeper into “intangibles” — things that are harder to measure — if we want to recognize and advance true talent.

Below are five key points to help you identify intangibles that could have an outsized impact on unit success and maybe help you draft the next Michael Jordan.

1. Define which “intangibles” are most relevant to your organization and find ways to detect and measure them.

I define intangible qualities as the innate mastery of certain skills that may be hard to measure. Some indicators I value include critical thinking, adaptability, problem-solving, resilience, and perspective-taking.

I consider elements of personality as part of this discussion, and think it’s an important consideration both in terms of the job duties and a person’s “fit.”

Each position has nuances and particular intangible qualities that would be most useful — there’s no “right answer.”

So how do we figure out who has these traits? It’s not as easy as adding a filter to a database to see who has a particular qualification.

This is where your experience comes in. Think about the attribute in the context of the job. If we zero in on problem-solving as a desirable attribute, what types of problems would these leaders have to solve?

If we visualize the situations to which prospective leaders would be exposed, maybe we could define a performance range using a rubric scoring guide. What does superior problem-solving look like? Let’s describe it. And let’s think through what under-qualified answers might sound like. A rubric will help leaders see the intangibles.

2. Zero in on the “intangibles.”

An interview is one of the best ways to discover candidates’ intangible qualities. Sadly, many interviewers waste time asking questions about tangible information readily found in Soldiers’ talent profiles. These questions don’t reveal anything insightful about intangible qualities.

Interviewers should ask questions that might tell them something they can’t see on paper, something that will reveal personality traits or give them a sense of the strength of candidates’ intangible qualities.

One way to ensure you’re zeroed in on intangibles is to ask behavioral-based questions. A great indicator of future performance is what they’ve done in the past.

These questions usually start with “describe a time when you…” They’re not hypothetical or situational. You want to hear about how they solved an actual problem or adapted. Don’t let them off the hook with a situational or hypothetical answer. Insist they describe their actions based on real events and circumstances they experienced and how they led through — or didn’t. Perhaps they didn’t make the best decision at the time, and if not, why not and what did they learn?

A good technique for asking behavioral-based questions is the STAR method: situation, task, action, result. If you phrase your question and ask the candidate to describe the STAR, you will likely receive a complete answer.

If they can’t answer your question — meaning they’re unable to provide any answer at all, even a bad one — that’s an indicator. Those unable to articulate the situation and relate their leadership to an action or result would raise questions about their experience.

Using your rubric, you can evaluate their answer and score it. Below is a generic rubric that can be adapted to any intangible, adaptability for example.

Question: Describe a time when you were faced with an unexpected situation. What steps did you take to adapt and what was the result?

Behavioral-based questions require examples from the past. Sharing examples from many years ago isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In the formative stage of our careers, core leadership philosophies crystallize as early impressions fundamentally shape our views.

However, if you are considering a position of responsibility for a larger echelon and your candidate relates an example from their squad leader time, determine if the scope and scale of the situation is useful.

3. Let’s stop asking people to list their weaknesses.

To me, this is a perfect example of a wasted question. Perhaps the interviewer isn’t sure what to ask, so we throw the old “what are your weakness” question at ’em.

This is a wasted question because, invariably, you will get some form of the “Michael Scott,” from the mockumentary sitcom The Office, answer: “I work too hard and care too much,” therefore, the weakness is a strength.

Or you will get some generic answer about work-life balance (sneak attack of the Michael Scott answer) or something about needing strategic leadership. Rarely will you get an honest answer that indicates a true weakness that could inform a hiring decision.

If you must ask about weaknesses, use the behavioral-based approach — ask them to describe a situation where a personal weakness impacted a mission or organization. What was the result? Or better yet, call their references and ask them about the candidate’s weaknesses.

4. Bias, be on guard.

Everyone is subject to biases. These can be in favor of our own career field, a particular school or qualification, or position, as well as all the many documented negative biases. Counter bias by employing a selection panel with varied backgrounds and experiences to avoid over focus in one area.

Avoid getting too wrapped up in what someone looks like on paper. Many things you see on a resume or biography will lead you down the road of the “tangibles,” including scores, past assignments, or schools, none of which will provide insight into how the candidate leads, builds relationships, or solves complex problems.

For example, I worked with a Soldier who, on paper, didn’t look like a stellar performer. His order of merit list for promotion was relatively low, and frankly, he was behind his peers in leadership experience and other qualifications. He worked for a different section in our headquarters, but he impressed me with his work on some collaborative projects, so we brought him to our team.

I soon found this Soldier was a natural-born problem-solver. He never ceased to amaze us with his results, which were far better than I would have expected, even from those who outranked him or had more experience.

He had that “special ingredient” that made our team click and made our lives easier. But if I depended on his Soldier talent profile alone, I probably would’ve passed him over because there was nothing in there that spoke to me. My bias would have steered me away.

True talent management must be holistic. If we form concrete impressions based solely on someone’s resume, we might miss the intangible attributes making them a great fit for the team.

5. Be careful about arbitrarily ruling out a population because of an inherent bias.

Some Army jobs are coded for a certain career management field (CMF), but for many others this is immaterial. As you picture the right leader for a job, your first thought might be to consider CMFs, which are useful in detailing the types of training and experience a person possesses.

Training and experience are important and shouldn’t be disregarded as a talent management resource, but relying too heavily on CMF may rule out your most talented leaders.

So, think that one through carefully and go back to the Portland Trail Blazers — do you want the best leader from a specific CMF, or do you want the best leader … period? Be willing to consider other CMFs and backgrounds, especially those different from your own; it could help you discover talent you never knew existed.

Finding Your “Jordan”

Tangible talent indicators are important. Michael Jordan could have all the intangible qualities in the world, but if he was 5 feet, 2 inches instead of 6 feet, 6 inches tall, we probably wouldn’t know his name. But there was no shortage of 6-foot, 6-inch-tall college basketball players back then. What was it that made Jordan the best? Unquestionable talent combined with immeasurable drive. Portland missed this opportunity in search of a specific attribute or talent.

The takeaway for NCOs and Army leaders is to take a holistic approach to tangible and intangible talent indicators, and recognize that we must work a little bit harder to “see” intangible qualities. But, if we know what intangibles we’re looking for, and we know what “right” looks like, we have a much better chance of drafting Jordan over Bowie.

Bio

Back to Top