What the Industry Thinks About the GM Role
The community has reached consensus on what the NFL General Manager role demands, but not on how to identify or prepare people to do it. That conclusion emerged across conversations with more than 50 NFL industry professionals over the past several weeks. The group included Assistant General Managers, Directors of Player Personnel, Directors of College and Pro departments, Area Scouts, and others directly adjacent to the industry. Across roles, levels, and vantage points, the same structural tensions surfaced regardless of title or organization.
- Role Clarity & Capability Blindness: the industry broadly agrees on the breadth and scope of the GM role, but remains uncertain how to identify, develop, and evaluate candidates who can actually do it.
- Getting It Right vs. Being Right: some GMs/decision makers focus on leveraging all their staff and resources to get to the right answer, while others operate from the position that they have every answer and only need staff to do what they say.
- The Marriage Problem: elite operators invest in the relationship before problems arise, building trust through productive disagreement rather than avoiding conflict. Yet the hiring process often treats GM and coach as separate decisions, which may be where the problem starts.
What follows is a synthesis of those conversations, organized around six questions we posed to each respondent, with implications for those navigating this landscape.
Question posed: “If someone asked you what a General Manager is. What would you say?”
The GM Role Has Become a CEO Job
The modern GM role functions less like a senior evaluator and more like a corporate executive position. That reality was reflected in how respondents described the job. One extended the CEO metaphor further, noting that a GM must function as “a CEO, a CFO, and a COO.” Another put real numbers to it: the GM is “managing hundreds of employees, is responsible for a nearly $400 million payroll on the player side alone, while needing to make sure that players, coaches, and staff are all on the same page.” That is not a scouting job. That is running a business.
Roster Building Isn’t Going Anywhere
Roster construction remains the GM’s non-negotiable output, even as the job expands far beyond evaluation. One put it simply: “All of those responsibilities have one deliverable: building a winning team that competes for championships.” The technical skills matter, but alone are not enough. The CEO runs the business, but the business is still football. That tension shapes every other aspect of the job.
Leadership, Communication, and Vision
The defining constraint on GM effectiveness is not evaluation skill, but leadership capacity. The GM must articulate and sell a coherent direction, upward to Ownership and downward through the staff. One respondent summarized the role as requiring mastery of “people, culture, processes, and vision.” This is especially true in the ‘upwards’ communication, as if you cannot translate complex football decisions into terms Ownership can understand, you will not last long. In the ‘downwards’ communication, the common point was aligning the staff with the vision, otherwise you are building on sand. One unique point was the distinction several drew between “managing” and “leading”. The nuance was in management being about knowing what needs to be executed and getting it done vs leadership resulting in that alignment and investment from the staff in the greater vision. It was also suggested the best GMs do both. The tension here is subtle but real: respondents from scouting backgrounds and those from executive tracks both acknowledged these dimensions, but weighted them differently.
The Job is Not the Same Building to Building
There is no standardized GM job in the NFL, only variations shaped by ownership structure and power dynamics. The specific duties, reporting relationships, and scope differ from building to building. Much depends where the power sits, whether a Team President, an Executive Vice President, or another senior executive. One respondent noted that “the way the role works these days involves a lot of partnership and collaboration, often with an Executive Vice President, often with a Head Coach, and always with Ownership.” For those studying the position, this is critical context. There is no single job description for “NFL General Manager.”
Question posed: “Let’s keep the question the same, but change the point of view. How do you think an NFL Owner would answer the question of: What is a General Manager?”
There is significant overlap between how respondents define the GM role and what they believe Ownership expects. Rather than repeat, what follows highlights the differences.
What Ownership Actually Expects:
Accountability for Outcomes
From ownership’s perspective, the GM is the single point of accountability for football outcomes. One respondent stated it bluntly: “There’s no ambiguity here. The football wins and losses fall on the General Manager.” Owners view the GM as accountable for everything on the football side. They expect GMs to make difficult decisions and to explain those decisions clearly. One noted that “the Owner may not always agree with the decisions, but if given the opportunity to understand, they can support the GM.” This suggests Owners want informed transparency, not just deference.
Partnership and Representation
There is more potential now for ownership to be expecting a partnership dynamic rather than purely hierarchical reporting. One emphasized that “a General Manager may need to be a partner to an Owner. The Owner may be expecting to be able to bounce ideas, expecting to be able to have difficult conversations, expecting true partnership.” Beyond wins, Owners care about how the team represents the organization. One noted that his “Owner values a GM that understands the need to fill seats; the business and the product go together.”
Question posed: “How do you think the role has changed over the last 5, maybe 10 years?”
How the Job Changed While the Pipeline Stayed the Same:
The Rise of Analytics and Data Integration
The NFL General Manager role has shifted from individual conviction to system orchestration. Over the last decade, analytics moved from the margins into the core of decision-making. Ten years ago, data played a limited role. Today, it is embedded throughout the process. One respondent captured this evolution memorably with a phrase worth writing down: the focus has shifted to “Getting It Right vs Being Right”. This speaks to a cultural shift where ego takes a back seat to process, where updating your view based on new information matters more than defending your initial take. Another noted that “most decision making models have a blended vision between scouting and data, and that’s where the competitive edge really lives.” Another noted “the work now is heavily impacted by the General Manager’s ability to combine intel from different sources and get to the best decision.”
Organizational Growth and Flattening Structures
Modern GMs are managing organizational complexity at a scale the role was never originally designed for. There are more voices. More perspectives. More personalities. Managing that complexity now requires emotional intelligence as much as football expertise. This works in direct relationship to organizational structures. In many organizations the relationship between GM and Head Coach is heavily balanced, operating as a true partnership. Another in vogue structure was labeled the “three-headed monster” by one respondent (The three ‘heads’ being the GM, Head Coach, and EVP. One of the earliest examples respondents cited was Minnesota under Childress, Spielman, and Brzezinski). Versions of it have shown up from Green Bay to Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas City, Detroit, and seemingly Miami. The tipping point seems to be upon us.
Changes in the Talent Pipeline
The reliability of traditional background evaluation has deteriorated faster than most organizations have acknowledged. The college football landscape has transformed with the widespread use of the transfer portal and new compensation structures via NIL. The argument was made that this has changed athlete motivations. One respondent noted there is now “a different type of athlete involved in college football. Their personality, their love of the game are question marks now more than they ever were.” Even if the athlete’s motivation is pure, getting to an accurate answer on that is harder than ever. The transfer portal means players move between programs more frequently, making background research exponentially more challenging.
Shifting Career Pipelines and Scout Valuation
As the GM pipeline diversifies, the industry has quietly devalued the very work that is becoming hardest to do well. The profile of who becomes a GM has expanded. GMs now emerge from salary cap, analytics, and other non-scouting backgrounds. But one respondent raised a concerning counterpoint: in some organizations, scouts are now “treated more like rank and file, like information gatherers, essentially independent contractors.” This tension, between valuing data efficiency and valuing human expertise, is the unresolved debate. What these conversations suggest is that as background evaluation becomes harder, not easier, the organizations that invest most in people capable of doing that work gain a disproportionate edge. Treating background work as box-checking reflects a misunderstanding of where the difficulty now lies.
Question posed: “Let’s flip the timeline, instead of looking 5 years back, let’s look 5 years down the road. What do you think will happen to the role in that time?”
What Is Coming and Who Will Be Ready:
Continued Technology and AI Integration
Future differentiation at the GM level will come from how technology is governed, not whether it is adopted. AI emerged as a specific area of anticipated growth. One noted that “being able to differentiate yourself in these times is about your ability to identify what will be inevitable changes.” GMs will need to become sophisticated technology managers, not just users.
Organizational Structure and Scouting Staff Evolution
Structural experimentation will continue. Multiple respondents anticipate further movement toward the “three-headed monster” model. One noted that “if the three-headed monster becomes a trend, how teams manage things like accountability, checks and balances, will be critical. When you have that balance right, you can’t tell who’s on top.” Several raised questions about scouting staff size. As one noted, “this is a copycat league. Owners will adopt whichever model is successful.” The uncertainty is genuine. The space is primed for continued process separation where organizations stop adhering to the past playbook and look to build their own (see Los Angeles Rams, even though they may not see it that way). There was a time when hearing names like Eddie Kotal, Jack Vainisi, George Young, Gil Brandt, Bucko Kilroy, and Bill Nunn would generate specific thoughts about process and strategy (similar to coaching ‘systems’ like West Coast, Air Coryell, or Erhardt-Perkins), but as things do, they homogenized over time as folks picked off the best strategies of others. But with that homogenization reaching full saturation and technology being what it is, in the coming years, we’ll be able to point to a handful of true defectors who go ‘off book’.
Expanding Scope Beyond Traditional Duties
The focus on player development, mental health, and sports science will continue growing. One emphasized “we are in a ‘new age’ of college prospects. Relating to this generation is critical.” Another place for massive differentiation is the fractionalized ownership coming to the space. These franchises are so heavily valued it’s incredibly difficult for one person to purchase one and the desire for increased cash flows has led to the sale of smaller percentages to private equity, which will change the size and scope of ownership, shifting things even more corporate.
Question posed: “With so many aspects of the profession similar from building to building, what makes one GM unique vs another? Is it tactical/operational? Is it interpersonal?”
What Separates GMs Is Not What Most People Think:
How GMs Treat People
Culture, not strategy, is the primary differentiator between GM tenures that last and those that collapse. The most consistent differentiator is how GMs treat their staff. The pattern is familiar: some organizations invest in development, others treat people as expendable. The expendable approach creates fear, and Fear Kills Feedback. GMs who lead through fear and fail to create psychological safety stop receiving honest information, which degrades decision quality over time. One described “buildings where folks feel the need to ‘guard their desk’ as opposed to being able to depart when you get your work done… places where it’s not OK to laugh.” The most striking quote came from a respondent who described executives whose “outward confidence is an act, merely a facade. They are actually scared, they are leading out of fear.” What elite operators do differently is create psychological safety. They earn trust by showing trust.
Management Style and Organizational Design
GMs differ in how closely they manage. Some are hands-on with frequent checkpoints. Others operate hands-off, trusting their people. Some GMs are scout-centric. Others are data-integrated. Some silo departments. Others integrate scouts, analytics, and coaching. None are universally superior, but the choice has to match the personnel. One described the difference as “team building” versus “collecting talent,” noting “for many GMs, historically, they were talent collectors.” Where this breaks down is when GMs default to their comfort zone regardless of context. The best operators design their structure intentionally, not accidentally and tie it directly to a roster-building strategy.
Question posed: “Let’s assume Owners are working from their own list of ‘critical factors’ when it comes to GM hiring. If they are hiring for things like leadership, planning/strategy, football acumen, etc., then why do GMs (that theoretically were hired because they have those traits) fail?
Why General Managers Fail:
The Marriage Problem
Many GM failures originate not in talent decisions, but in misaligned leadership relationships. When asked directly about failure, it became the single most cited factor. Respondents described it as “akin to a marriage.” The pattern makes sense: when GM and coach are aligned, decisions reinforce each other. When they are not, the organization fractures. One stated directly: “The Head Coach and GM not being on the same page is a huge point of discrepancy. In an ideal world, the leaders would have no ego, no agenda.” What elite operators do is invest in the relationship before problems arise, building trust through productive disagreement rather than avoiding conflict. Yet the hiring process often treats GM and coach as separate decisions, which may be where the problem starts. Research on executive teams suggests that pairing matters as much as individual quality. Hiring for complementarity, not just capability, changes outcomes.
Ego, Adaptability, and Delegation Failures
The tension between ego and process surfaced earlier when respondents discussed what has changed about the role. Here, it reappeared as a primary cause of failure. The pattern: GMs who need to be right rather than get it right eventually stop receiving honest information from their staff. Trying to showcase competence makes sense early in a tenure when confidence matters, but it breaks down over time as the GM becomes increasingly isolated. This echoes what respondents said when defining the role itself: technical skill is necessary but not sufficient. One noted that “being the best evaluator does not equal being the best General Manager or team builder.” The Leap No One Talks About is the jump from assistant GM to GM. The skills that get you to the door are not the skills that let you succeed once inside. What elite operators do is delegate with trust and hire for skill over familiarity. Another offered a humbling reminder: “For all of us, we need to understand limitations and the impact of ego.”
Pressure and Patience
The pressure to win immediately undermines sound process. Owners lose discipline and try to “hit the fast forward button” on rebuilds. GMs make decisions they “think they have to make” rather than ones they want to make. One framed it through basic economics: “time in the market is greater than timing the market.” What breaks down is that even GMs who know this intellectually struggle to execute it when the pressure is real. Sticking to the process when year one goes well is harder than it sounds.
Flawed Hiring Process and Owner Dysfunction
Multiple respondents critiqued how Owners hire GMs. The timeline is too compressed. Candidates are sometimes selected because they are “good interviewers” rather than actually qualified. One called the process “fundamentally flawed,” noting “candidates become pulled from agencies with their own built in political campaigns.” Owners struggle to measure the actual impact a candidate had in their previous organization’s success. Over-involved Owners “cut the GM out at the knees.” This is the part candidates cannot control, but understanding which ownership situations to avoid is part of navigating the landscape.
So what are the implications?
For Ownership/search groups running GM searches:
If the hiring process is as flawed as respondents believe, the question becomes whether your process looks different enough to produce different results. The people closest to the work believe compressed timelines, agent influence, and an inability to measure actual candidate impact are systemic problems. If your process looks like every other team’s process, you are likely to get the same hit rate. The research on executive selection is clear on what works. Structured interviews, multi-method assessment, and separating evaluation from advocacy all improve hit rates. The NFL hiring process uses little of it. The emphasis respondents placed on The Marriage Problem suggests that pairing matters as much as individual talent. Running parallel GM and coach searches without intentionally connecting them perpetuates the very dynamic that respondents identified as the leading cause of failure. And the near-universal emphasis on how GMs treat people suggests that cultural due diligence, talking to staff who have worked under a candidate, may be as important as evaluating their draft history. Ownership needs to understand if they are selecting for active leadership or for leadership capability. Some failures are selection failures; others are development failures. The industry currently struggles with both.
For candidates preparing for GM opportunities:
If leadership and adaptability matter as much as evaluation skill, the question becomes how you develop and demonstrate those qualities before you have the title. Technical skill is table stakes, you can’t get in the door without them. The respondents in this study consistently framed the role as broader than roster building. Leadership, communication, adaptability, and ego management came up as frequently as evaluation ability. If you are building a case for yourself, the ability to demonstrate how you have led people, navigated organizational complexity, and adapted when circumstances changed may matter as much as your track record on players. The Getting It Right vs Being Right framing is worth internalizing. It surfaced when respondents discussed what has changed about the job and reappeared when they discussed why GMs fail. Ownership groups are looking for partners, not just experts.
For scouts and executives earlier in their careers:
If the path has diversified but the development has not, the question becomes what you are doing to close the gap yourself. Salary cap, analytics, and other non-traditional backgrounds now produce General Managers. But respondents also raised concerns about scouts being marginalized in some organizations. The implication is that career development requires intentionality. Research on leadership transitions suggests this is predictable. Organizations, in all industries, under-invest in preparing people for the next level. It is not the duty of your current team to prepare you for how to run one of their 31 competitors. So if you want professional development, you’ll have to take on the work yourself. Understanding the business side, developing leadership skills, and building relationships across departments are not optional additions to evaluation expertise. These aspects may be what separate those who reach the chair from those who do not. And the cultural differences between organizations are real. Where you work shapes what you learn and how you are treated. That matters for development as much as title progression.
Closing Thoughts
The industry agrees on what the NFL General Manager role requires. Role Clarity & Capability Blindness persists because the systems for identifying and developing candidates have not caught up to the job itself. The lag is not accidental. Leadership capability is harder to measure than evaluation skill, easier to politicize, and slower to reveal itself. The selection systems are optimized for the wrong outcomes and until the process accounts for that, the hit rate will not change.
Part 2 will drop next week…