MACHIAVELLI...Feared or Loved - Choose One...?

Preference is key, based on personality (meaning there won't be a 'right' or 'wrong' answer here).

However, we might want to put this into a little perspective. Machiavelli and what he felt was necessary to gain power, then stabilize generations of the Medici rule, might.....JUST MIGHT be different than leading a high school sports program.

Part of the Machiavellian brilliance came with the ability to use psychology and emotional triggers for synergistic effects to sway momentum. If anything can be gained from, The Prince, it should be those nuances. He was no Alexander the Great, or Napoleon.

Clearly, most coaches that last, that are in it for the long-haul, work to endear themselves to their players (knowing the coach has THEIR best interest at heart) will get the most out of their players....and at the end of the day, that is where the SATISFACTION of coaching comes in (it is the reason we coach, though it isn't necessarily the reason we stay employed).

as an aside, Kurt, you may enjoy this (and message board)
www.powerseductionandwar.com/

I really believe coaches could learn more / gain more from reading books from economists like Friedman & Stiglitz than war commanders and philosophers, because it seems most don't grasp the concepts of analysis and management very well - they don't need more pointers on coercion

Right on.

If players fear me, they won't turn out.

fyi - Machiavelli's books had more to do with political strategy of courtiers, rather than soldiering (ala Sun Tzu or Clausewitz), but your point is relevant. Shouting and hollering works if there is a life-death situation - if there isn't one, sooner or later people will stop listening.

This is truely a wonderful thread and YES, I do understand the need to be "feared = respected" in modern times, and of course Loved by your players.

Just looking for well seasoned replies from around the globe when push comes to shove what gets a lot of coaches through the terrible times when things are totally going to ----!

KB

;D

I agree...some might remember I have made several comments saying that the best coaches I have been associated with are those whose academic/work background includes, business degrees or corporate/small business operations experience.

I agree with what has been said about "The Prince"...

From a purely HISTORICAL standpoint, "The Prince" was written in the early 16th-Century when political intrigue, instability, and war was widespread. Given that set of circumstances, what Machiavelli wrote about made complete sense...establishing stability, order, and consistency were of paramount importance to ensuring that a royal figure stayed in power.

Also, Machiavelli DID say that that "it is better to be feared than loved", but the quote has been taken out of context. The quote is actually, "it is best to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved".

I don't think that Machiavelli has much to teach football coaches...leaders of 3rd world countries or non-democratic states, yes, but not leaders of high school football programs.

I am assuming we're not talking about the exit 2pac enter Makaveli theory.

I may be in the minority, but I believe Machiavellian principles give a great blueprint for dealing with the administration and boosters.
previous thread

It isn't necessarily outright manipulation, moreso a sensitivity to managing personalities ( don't kid yourselves if you don't think all our politicians use these techniques ).

I just wouldn't recommend or reference his stuff for LEADING (a team) - there are other sources one could point to draw practical wisdom, that relies less on ego and pride, but more on an economy of efficiencies to work toward a common end.

Easy - both.

I want people to fear how much they love me.

-Michael Scott

For Greene, I substitute Gray:

www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?q=44





...and here I definitely prefer the (economic) Austrians to Los Chicago Boys, much less paleo-Keynesians like Stiglitz:

mises.org/

Since most coaches won't be facing a coup, do we want to identify how a (HEAD) coach can lose control of his team (the rationale behind this question), prompting the choice in this scenario?

It may be easy to justify these views "loved" / "feared" in a vacuum with no visualization of the situation you (?) are referring to.

Dwight Shrute would agree!

I appreciate the commentary on Milton Friedman and Stiglitz by Ted and Chris. Although find Friedman a particularly vile figure, he is nonetheless somebody whose thought needs to be studied and appreciated.

In regards to our dear friend Machievelli, my views are rather mixed. After all, a book that the infamous "turdblossom" Rove and Lee Atwater allegedly carried on their person at all times and read at least once a year is extremely suspect, particularly on moral and ethical grounds. That said, THE PRINCE is a fascinating read and is something that should be on everybody's bookshelf.

In regards to football, particularly at the high-school level, its applicability is somewhat more questionable. To a degree it may have been more applicable back in the "day," but now it simply will not fly. Why do you think that football is losing kids all the time to baseball and soccer? Why are more parents enrolling their kids in soccer than football, especially in affluent, white-collar communities? The answer is complex, but their are a few red threads. First, kids (and their parents) want to have fun. Competition and victory mean very little. Kids today just want to show up and play. Second, football is considered to be a consuming sport, one that demands twelve months of preparation for a mere twelve games. For many people, the sacrifice is simply too much. Most parents and kids today can't deal with the fact that many players may ride the pine for three years before they actually get any meaningful action. The fact that they are essentially a danger to themselves and their teammates until that point is not important. Sacrifice, commitment, being a part of something bigger than yourself is something that most people, unfortunately, do not understand. They say that soccer teaches all the same things without all the baggage that the sacrifice the football demands.

Why am a rambling about this? The reason is that you cannot be a Bill Parcells type whose motivational tactics are inpart motivated or inspired by Machiavelli. Unlike yesterday, in many communities, particularly those outside of the South, football is just a sport and one at that that many parents are inherently suspect of. Most kids don't feel that they have to play football these days, there are plenty of other options that satisfy their glucose craving without the sacrifice - sports that in many instance simply role a ball out there and say have fun.

Ask yourself this question: Where would you rather coach? A) Affluent, suburban community where most parents work white-collar jobs; B) Inner-City, urban environment; C) Rust-Belt, blue-collar, industrial; D) Agricultural, farming. Even though I am an academic who lives in a liberal, progressive, and economically healthy community, I certainly would not want to coach here. My answer would be first C and then D. These are communities where kids not only have to still play football, but its also in their DNA.

I don't know about Friedman being vile - though much of his advice to developing nations didn't pan out and his consulting with Pinochet was smarmy, even if we accept his good natured explanations. Friedman obviously did much great work with monetary policy, though much of it superseded by later work.

The reason he needs to be studied is also one of the reasons I don't ultimately find him persuasive, at least in the extreme. By the end of Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose, his arguments are not economic, but more traditional libertarian arguments exalting "liberty" as an inalienable right in the John Locke sense. Friedman is compelling but ultimately not persuasive; Robert Nozick made these arguments more persuasively and even then I cannot sign on completely. Ted may find some of this heresy, but I find too many grays to exalt abstract liberty to the degree that they do, though I'm squarely on that end of the spectrum, just not all the way.

Sorry for the digression, but it has at least some relevance to this Machiavelli point. In a world of diverse ideas and conceptions the necessity of being both is heightened. Unlike Machiavelli's distant Prince lording over the land, the coach - even of a large time - is up close and personal with his "subjects" every day. So you have to be able to customize your approach to your individual kids. Some of them need to respect you, others will work hard for you because of love and loyalty.