|
Post by kurtbryan on Jun 23, 2008 9:33:10 GMT -6
Coaches: For those of you that have read Machiavelli's "The Prince" truly one of the greatest books of all time about obtaining a leadership position, and then How to Retain it; for the past 5 centuries, many leaders have memorized certain passages of that book, and/or governed by many of its principles. When the timeless author puts forth that most any leader wants to be feared and loved at the same time, BUT then asks the question: "If a leader has to choose between being Feared or Loved?" Which one should he settle upon if only one option is real at that moment? Machiavelli believes when push comes to shove: Being FEARED will enable the leader to guide his legions through terrible and difficult times AND enable that Leader to retain his power. What do you coaches believe if you must choose one? Feared or Loved? KB
|
|
|
Post by coachnichols on Jun 23, 2008 10:03:52 GMT -6
"If a leader has to choose between being Feared or Loved?" Which one should he settle upon if only one option is real at that moment? Machiavelli believes when push comes to shove: Being FEARED will enable the leader to guide his legions through terrible and difficult times AND enable that Leader to retain his power. What do you coaches believe if you must choose one? Feared or Loved? KB Loved. I don't know if I like the word loved, but this reminds me of the quote teachers hear a lot..."They don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." Remembering back to my days in college, I would have done anything for my coach because I cared for him and I know he cared for me, not because I was afraid of him. I don't know about the teenagers you guys coach, but many kids that I'm coaching right now would just quit rather than work for a Parcells-type (no offense to Parcells or the Parcells-types).
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 23, 2008 10:22:48 GMT -6
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
|
|
|
Post by k on Jun 23, 2008 10:26:40 GMT -6
I don't think The Prince is an appropriate guide for leaders of state let alone leaders of children...
|
|
|
Post by coachjoe3 on Jun 23, 2008 10:34:28 GMT -6
I don't think The Prince is an appropriate guide for leaders of state let alone leaders of children... Right on. If players fear me, they won't turn out.
|
|
|
Post by rip60zgo on Jun 23, 2008 10:34:51 GMT -6
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. I agree. I think this is a difficult translation due to context. The "fear" of a medieval soldier does not equate well to a 16-year old in 2008 being afraid of his coach. The soldier's dilemma was: if I go into battle, I may perish. If I shirk my duties, I will be killed. The lesser of the two evils for the individual in this case is to enter combat and fight for your life. The threat of retribution is not the same for the football player. I don't ever recall reading about a high school football player being slaughtered for grading out too low. I would think the parents might go to the AD on that one. If you coach your guys through fear, they will only play hard enough not to get yelled at, and you better not miss anything. If they play because they want to make you proud or because they want to please you, they will endeavor to do the right thing all the time. And I don't feel there is anything wrong with the word "loved". The problem is that we only have 1 word to express different levels of the same experience. I love my wife, I love my dog, and I love pizza. I would not put those 3 things into the same category, however. Love, on an interpersonal basis, should be a verb.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 23, 2008 10:41:43 GMT -6
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. I agree. I think this is a difficult translation due to context. The "fear" of a medieval soldier does not equate well to a 16-year old in 2008 being afraid of his coach. The soldier's dilemma was: if I go into battle, I may perish. 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.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 23, 2008 10:44:18 GMT -6
I really believe coaches could learn more / gain more from reading books from economists like Friedman & Stiglitz than war commanders and philosophers. I agree with this wholeheartedly. (Belichick has an advanced degree in economics!) This is sort of tangential, but I saw a great pragmatic quote that I think comes up when people talk all about their philosophy, or being innovative, or this style or that style. "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice." Anyway, per the Machiavelli thing, and kurt doesn't really deny this, but Machiavelli takes pains to say that as a leader you should not be "hated," (which should be obvious), and for whether to be feared or loved he says it is best to be both. So at this point it becomes an odd metaphysical Q but I think I would agree that you'd rather be "feared," but "fear" in this context is something of an older concept more akin to a sort of "solemn respect." It doesn't mean you're tyrannical in any way, because as Machiavelli says being hated is self-defeating. But I do think that I'd rather be respected than merely loved. I want people to do exactly what i tell them, and people - young boys - do not always react purely out of love.
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Jun 23, 2008 11:22:42 GMT -6
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
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on Jun 23, 2008 12:58:02 GMT -6
I really do not believe that fear is a useful motivator over the long haul. If you are going to try to get your players to perform better because they are afraid of you, then you have to make sure they are MORE afraid of you than they are of anyone they will ever go against on the opposing team. Otherwise, fear works against you. Then, when you've made sure they are enough afraid of you, they may just be too afraid to play for you next year.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 23, 2008 16:56:06 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Jun 23, 2008 18:50:26 GMT -6
Better to be loved then feared. People will go the extra mile for some one they love. People will do only what is required for some one they fear. when people fear you they will hide things for fear of being yelled at. While fear might control those with out a spine it will make those how do have a spine stand up or leave.
The majority of kids today do not take to hard coaching.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jun 23, 2008 19:06:08 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jun 23, 2008 19:11:24 GMT -6
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 One of the best books I have ever read in reference to coaching is "Winning the NFL Way". It profiles some of the top coaches in the NFL but doesn not talk at all about xs and os...everything is about the RELATIONSHIPS that these guys cultivate with others. It is relationships and management techniques that make great coaches (and leaders), not offensive and defensive schemes.
|
|
|
Post by towtheline on Jun 23, 2008 19:20:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jun 23, 2008 19:33:21 GMT -6
That's hilarious... Two years ago, we were studying "The Prince" in my World History class and I had some excerpts from the the book printed off that I was going to hand out to the kids and we were going to look at it in class. Anyway, after the 1st and 2nd period classes had been through, my 3rd period class comes in and a kid asks me "Coach, I heard that we are talking about rap music in class today." It went both ways...I had to explain to the kids who the "Original Gangster" Machiavelli was and they had to explain to me who the "new" one is... ;D
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 23, 2008 19:39:05 GMT -6
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 may be in the minority, but I believe Machiavellian principles give a great blueprint for dealing with the administration and boosters. previous threadIt 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.
|
|
|
Post by towtheline on Jun 23, 2008 20:26:48 GMT -6
That's hilarious... Two years ago, we were studying "The Prince" in my World History class and I had some excerpts from the the book printed off that I was going to hand out to the kids and we were going to look at it in class. Anyway, after the 1st and 2nd period classes had been through, my 3rd period class comes in and a kid asks me "Coach, I heard that we are talking about rap music in class today." It went both ways...I had to explain to the kids who the "Original Gangster" Machiavelli was and they had to explain to me who the "new" one is... ;D haha
|
|
|
Post by coache67 on Jun 23, 2008 21:04:44 GMT -6
Easy - both.
I want people to fear how much they love me.
-Michael Scott
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jun 23, 2008 21:36:05 GMT -6
the prince has many darwinian principles that i really appreciate in regards to government and economics
however
high school athletics is another story
in reality it all boils down to
do what is best for 1. the program 2. the kids
and sometimes not in that order
with that
be yourself
if you are truly in this biz for the right reasons then hold your ground, stick to your morals and convictions
it might not be the best way to the top but it is the best way and it is the best way for the kids to not only see how you do things, but to be coached by you by
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Jun 24, 2008 5:24:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 24, 2008 7:06:18 GMT -6
ted, Is it that you simply prefer the Austrians to the Chicago boys? I mean I understand that Mises and Hayek are the godfathers, but I always looked at the Chicago guys as the next generation and their successors. Though they were clearly more "political" in the way modern politicians are than broad policy, but that's partially because the debate was different at the time. Road to Serfdom is one of my favorite books. And I agree, that Stiglitz is bright but hardly inspiring or even correct. I enjoy some of the modern behavioral econ guys. I don't think it conflicts with the general Austrian theories, but explores us a bit more and how we react here. I enjoyed Thaler/Sunstein's recent book "Nudge." www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/0300122233
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 24, 2008 7:31:11 GMT -6
"If a leader has to choose between being Feared or Loved?" Which one should he settle upon if only one option is real at that moment? Machiavelli believes when push comes to shove: Being FEARED will enable the leader to guide his legions through terrible and difficult times AND enable that Leader to retain his power. 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.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jun 24, 2008 7:45:58 GMT -6
I think Tony Dungy's QUIET STRENGTH shows a successful approach. He really cares for (loves) his players and asst. coaches, but he also has built a healthy working environment based on respect.
|
|
|
Post by briangilbert on Jun 24, 2008 21:01:36 GMT -6
Easy - both. I want people to fear how much they love me. -Michael Scott Dwight Shrute would agree!
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Jun 25, 2008 5:17:37 GMT -6
ted, Is it that you simply prefer the Austrians to the Chicago boys? I mean I understand that Mises and Hayek are the godfathers, but I always looked at the Chicago guys as the next generation and their successors. Though they were clearly more "political" in the way modern politicians are than broad policy, but that's partially because the debate was different at the time. Road to Serfdom is one of my favorite books. Chris: The differences between the Austrians and the Chicago school are real and fundamental. I'd say the perception that Friedman and his students are libertarians is overstated, at best: mises.org/story/2442Read through this quiz -- it will help give you a sense of the fundamental differences between the Austrian and Chicago schools: mises.org/quiz.aspThat said, there was plenty about Friedman to like, especially compared to Stiglitz: mises.org/story/2393
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 25, 2008 6:01:38 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jun 25, 2008 6:10:31 GMT -6
Although find Friedman a particularly vile figure, he is nonetheless somebody whose thought needs to be studied and appreciated. wow - not a fan of free markets? You need government regulation.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 25, 2008 7:39:26 GMT -6
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. 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.
|
|
kr7263
Sophomore Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by kr7263 on Jun 25, 2008 8:25:52 GMT -6
It seems to me there is both an element of fear and an element of love. We as Americans have a tendency to be black & white - IE love/hate, fear=loathing etc. While many other cultures show have varied concepts of fear & love. It seems to me in military / combat situations there must be both fear & love so that men are able to respond in severe situations. As far as command - many soldiers feared Patton but loved him at the same time. Read Band of Brothers - the company simply loathed their commander - however loved their immediate superior officers to the point many gave their lives defending their unit. Listen to Iraq war vets - they did it for the love of "the guys" or Sergeant etc. Never hear them say they did it for the colonel or general. Most HCs that I have played for or coached under who were hard nosed "old-school" always had one or two assistants that "rallied the kids" together. Call it good cop / bad cop or whatever - the kids feared but respected the HC (they did what he said) but would talk to those assistants when they needed. As stated before - you must be truthful and true to your own personality. You cant play it both ways. You will never "get" all the kids to love you and you will never "get" all the kids to fear/respect you all the time. However, if you are consistent, constant and communicate clearly they will respond.
|
|