Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

AC: Bobby Knight Article (Rebuttal to Kyle Shanahan control freak non sense)


KDawg

Recommended Posts

No link. Took this off of my summer graduate studies class course reserves from SUNY Brockport. It was compiled by Athletic Clips.

Bob Knight: Bully for him, or just a bully?

Our guest author comments on – and he quotes several leadership experts on – the, er, vigorous style of coaching by the newly retired Bob Knight.

By John Jeansonne

NOW THAT BOB KNIGHT apparently has left the coaching scene for the last time, the sports world again is mulling an existential debate not unlike a central question in the nation's lively presidential campaigns: Whether it is better (as Machiavelli himself asked) to be feared or loved.

Knight clearly put himself in the former camp of pre-emptive strikes and non-negotiable policy-making. His enormous success in producing winning college basketball teams was matched only by a conviction that he was surrounded by enemies - game officials, fans, reporters, Puerto Rican policemen and various minions to be intimidated at his whim - forever plotting imminent attacks.

Many colleagues and a few sycophants insist that Knight's private displays of a caring nature and basic respect for fair play balanced the many occasions when he publicly weirded out. But the collateral damage he inflicted by taking his in-your-face, disciplinarian, my-way act beyond the locker room prompt a provocative discussion.

Is winning the only thing in sports? And, even if it is, is dictatorial bullying the only means to the end?

Florida-based sports psychologist John Murray acknowledged that he is "definitely of the view that a coach needs to make the calls and be strong," recalling the style of former Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula. "My point, as a psychologist, is that there are many ways to win and you have to be sophisticated and tap into the individuality of players. But you do have to have a unified message to the team, and you have to have authority, though you don't need to be a tyrant."

Every successful coach, argued sports author and commentator John Feinstein, "is a control freak. To me, the question is, what's authoritarian? When [North Carolina's] Dean Smith blew his whistle to start practice, every player ran to the circle and stood with his toe on the line. But Dean Smith didn't curse, didn't raise his voice hardly ever. His methods of authority were very different."

Feinstein, whose in-depth 1986 study of Knight, "A Season on the Brink," is one of 23 books he has written on sports, concluded that "all great coaches are authoritative. That's not the same as authoritarian. To be successful, when you say the sun will rise in the west in the morning, you want your players all getting up and looking west.

"But the only guy in sports I've ever met who I'd compare to Knight is John McEnroe. A tormented genius who, in his heart of hearts, wanted to do the right thing. Funny thing: I ran into McEnroe when I was working on 'Season on the Brink,' and when I told him I was writing a book on Bobby Knight, McEnroe looked at me and said, 'Isn't he kind of crazy?'"

"Much of sports comes out of the military. Really, that's one of the attractions of sports in our society, that it has a sort of clarity in a very complex world. Economists with Nobel Prizes can't decide if we're in a recession or not, so I think people love sports for the black and white, as opposed to gray and nuance. And people attracted to sports have that attitude."

Still, Sperber said he easily could cite a number of fabulously successful coaches who "believed in discipline but never intimidated anyone," starting with UCLA's John Wooden. Notre Dame's Knute Rockne, subject of another Sperber book, "didn't believe that might is right; he was a short guy, in a time of football line plunges, who believed in speed and deception."

Harvard University business professor Scott Snook, in challenging his students to think about assumptions of motivation and leadership style, has had them examine the divergent approaches of Knight compared with Knight's former player and longtime Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski.

"If you believe people are fundamentally good," Snook wrote, leadership will aim at "empowering them, getting obstacles out of the way and setting high goals while maintaining standards ... If you believe people are fundamentally bad," management will be "built primarily around rewards and punishments" and entail a "tight supervision, a controlling ... style characterized by a great deal of social distance between leaders and led."

Just this month, a point of emphasis to the Giants' surprising Super Bowl success was how head coach Tom Coughlin extracted better performances from his players by softening his authoritarian style, though Feinstein was among the observers who "don't buy into the idea, all of a sudden, that Tom Coughlin has become Weeb Ewbank," the famously casual leader of the Jets' 1969 Super Bowl champions.

Sperber said it "didn't seem like [Coughlin had become more tolerant of imperfection] when that guy Tynes missed the field goal [in Green Bay]. That's a kind of key moment, and to ream the guy out on national TV doesn't exactly build his confidence."

Then there is Bill Belichick, victory-obsessed victim of the Giants. "What's that disease Dustin Hoffman had in 'Rain Man'?" asked Feinstein, who has known Belichick's father for years. "That's Belichick; he's a genius."

Although, as Charles Pierce, in an essay for the online magazine Slate, described it, Belichick's post-Super Bowl lack of social skills produced "a series of public interviews so grim and boorish that they made the collected oeuvre of Bob Knight look like Mardi Gras."

In six months of "essentially spending day and night" with him in researching "A Season on the Brink," Feinstein found Knight to be "brilliant. He was often caring, he was a great storyteller, a great dinner companion. He was also a bully, had a hair-trigger temper and was intollerant of anybody who did not see things his way. He loved his players and he abused his players - not physically - but emotionally abused them.

"He was a dictator. The last of the great dictators."

The opinions, intimations, conclusions and inferences contained within this commentary are solely those of the author; they do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of College Athletics Clips.

newsday.com/sports/football/ny-sphot105571896feb10,0,7372254.story

I bolded and underlined a portion of the article. This is not the entire article. I removed bits and pieces. But nothing that affects the tone or meaning of the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When reading articles about Shanny, what past players have said about him, radio interviews, etc, Shanny for the most part seems enjoyable to talk to and be around for the London Fletcher types, players who work hard and do the right thing. Whereas, he's a relentless pain in the neck for the non disciplined types and perhaps also players who are on the bubble like a Devin Thomas. He definitely has a my way or the highway attitude in terms of players falling into his regime/strategy -- he's not a Clinton Portis can take himself in and out of any play he wants when he wants type ala what happened under Jim Zorn. And all of this he doesn't sound that far apart from Jimmy Johnson in that regard who would cut players for falling asleep in meetings, etc. So yeah I agree the be feared and not loved approach works.

IMO the operative thing though to be a winning coach in the NFL ISN'T what form of toughness a coach puts forward but the GM/coaches ability to procure talented players with good attitudes, building an overall well rounded and talented team and having the right game day strategy. Spurrier you can argue is the anti-Shanny as to how he handles a team but IMO it didn't represent either his overriding strength or weakness as a coach -- IMO it was having mediocre QB and RB play, shaky at times defense with the fun and gun which might not be the best approach in a league which is all about bringing pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the article I posted whole heartedly. Any good coach is a control freak. I read an article the other day about John Wooden. He said he'd spend the first 30 minutes of his first practice of the year at UCLA teaching the players how to put a sock on. And once that sock was on correctly, he'd have them put the other one on. Literally, 30 minutes. Wish I saved that link.

Every coach worth a thing is a control freak. I can't name a good coach who didn't like control. I can bet our very own Joe Gibbs, although kind, caring, and considerate had a specific way he wanted his offenses run and demanded excellence from his athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yeah I agree the be feared and not loved approach works.

I think it depends on the environment too. How much fear realistically can a HC at the NFL level, especially in today's league, really instill in a player? After the contract is signed and the guaranteed money is in the bank a lot of things can change signficantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the environment too. How much fear realistically can a HC at the NFL level, especially in today's league, really instill in a player? After the contract is signed and the guaranteed money is in the bank a lot of things can change signficantly.

But it's not just about fear, persay. It's also about control. NFL coaches still have ONE power play... Playing time. So if they want to be a control freak, they have to use playing time as their advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to define terms here.

The term "control freak" when applied to a football coach to me is synonymous with the derisive Business term "micromanager." This describes a manager who goes too far when giving orders. His much too detailed orders end up hindering the better judgment of subordinates when they are confronted with situations which could not have been foreseen.

So, Feinstein's conclusion that all successful coaches are control freaks is , to me, like saying that all great CEOs have to be micromanagers. That's an absurd statement. So, I suspect that Feinstein has his own peculiar definition for "control freak."

The successful football coach, like the successful CEO, wants to control the outcome, but he does this through hiring good assistants, delegating his authority to them, and monitoring their work.

As for the person who would prefer to be feared rather than admired, at the extreme we are describing the malignant narcissists: Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, every tyrannical leader who ever lived, and most serial killers. The coach who prefers to be feared is not the guy that motivates players to try to run through walls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the environment too. How much fear realistically can a HC at the NFL level, especially in today's league, really instill in a player? After the contract is signed and the guaranteed money is in the bank a lot of things can change signficantly.

True IMO to an extent. The article refers to Machiavelli, in the Prince, he expounds about whether leaders are more effective everything being equal if they are loved or feared. He contends that feared is more optimal and if i recall correctly he uses examples of military leaders to back his point with Atilla Hun among other examples.

Fear can take on many forms though and it affects players differently depending on their goals. If players are just about money AH style, then yeah agree its tough to get them in line. But even there you can manipulate that emotion some depending on whether they are looking for the next big contract. But its tougher i agree if a player gets so much money that they never have to worry about it again, and money is their only motivator.

Belichick isn't a scary persona but he also has no tolerance for nonsense or things that he believes works against the team. Randy Moss was a key cog in his team but as soon as Randy hit contract year and starts alluding in press conferences during the season to the idea that he wants the team to show him the money, he's traded. You can say Belichick is so clinical about players with so little emotion that it makes him in a sense scarier than a fiery type like Ditka. When it comes to contracts and willing to discard veterans while they are still good -- players know if they want to remain with the Patriots, it might not happen anyway, so arguably you are never totally comfortable. Andy Reid arguably is another guy like that, mild mannered, but clinical. For example, leader/key player types like Troy Vincent and Brian Dawkins were let go to find jobs elsewhere.

Right or wrong approach, I recall in Elam's book where he talked about Shanny, he seems to throw out there that Shanny doesn't like players to feel comfortable, that he doesn't care what they are getting paid, their past performance, etc. Though per my previous post, I don't think its the overriding factor in the success of a coach, there are definitely examples of coaches who are loved like Dick Verneil who are successful. the Yankees won with nice guy Joe Torre, and the tough/feared guy Billy Martin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of it depends on the people you have. You can be hard but still be in control and be more of a mentor type and still be in control too. It just depends on pushing the right buttons for the guys you have. I remember in 91, Gibbs said all he had to do was draw up the game plans....the guys motivated themselves. Pushing those guys too hard probably would have messed it up. There is no one right way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a control freak can lead to incredible results as long as two things are in place:

1) The control freak actually has the talent and knows what the hell he's talking about and doing;

2) The control freak has talented people who buy into the program

And endeavor that requires an abundance of discipline could use a control freak of some type at the helm. And every management method, from extreme control freak to extreme hands-off types, will work with the right types of people in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If competitive sports have any social value at all, it is in their ability to teach self-discipline and teamwork. You don't learn self-discipline from bully leaders who rule by fear.

One of his former black players said of Lomarbdi, "He's the only white man I ever thought of as a father." The man was tough, demanding, but his players knew he cared about them.

---------- Post added June-21st-2011 at 12:00 PM ----------

Being a control freak can lead to incredible results as long as two things are in place:

1) The control freak actually has the talent and knows what the hell he's talking about and doing;

2) The control freak has talented people who buy into the program

And endeavor that requires an abundance of discipline could use a control freak of some type at the helm. And every management method, from extreme control freak to extreme hands-off types, will work with the right types of people in place.

The flaw in your thinking is that the "right types of people" are self-motivated and won't work for control freaks. It's demeaning to be treated like you can't do anything without close supervision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to define terms here.

I would define control freak simply as someone that you know is in charge and wants things done the 'proper' way as they define it, to the smallest detail. Not necessarily authoritarian or democratic in nature. Can have different forms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaw in your thinking is that the "right types of people" are self-motivated and won't work for control freaks. It's demeaning to be treated like you can't do anything without close supervision.

The flaw in your thinking is that there is only one type of "right people" lol..."right types of people" is defined by whether or not they best fit the style of management you are utilizing. There ARE people, believe it or not, who become their best only when pushed by a "bullying" type of manager/coach/whatever. Those types of people will flounder under a more lax, "fatherly" superior just as much as you say self-motivated people won't do well under control freaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with OF - I think the author isn't talking about a micromanager when he uses the term control freak. Probably he means someone with an obsession for detail and the self-confidence and drive to make sure things are done the way he wants them done. A coach like that doesn't have to micromanage, but can spot-check areas of concern to monitor progress and make corrections as needed.

As for the fear/fuzzy motivation, you want someone who you can relate to and who you feel cares about you, but whom you also fear a bit - or at least you fear disappointing them. Bullies tend to get short-term success followed by burnout, while warm and fuzzies tend to make everyone happy without delivering results. Your ideal leader combines those two elements to ensure things are getting done and done right, and that people feel they are respected and valued. Corrections need to focus on the problem not the person. If the person is the problem, that person needs to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would define control freak simply as someone that you know is in charge and wants things done the 'proper' way as they define it, to the smallest detail. Not necessarily authoritarian or democratic in nature. Can have different forms.
Can the need to control "to the smallest detail" be overdone in your opinion? If so, what term would you use to describe someone in authority who deals with subordinates that way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the need to control "to the smallest detail" be overdone in your opinion? If so, what term would you use to describe someone in authority who deals with subordinates that way?

I'm not sure if it can be overdone. If you hire a guy who you know is like that, then you get what you asked for. I'd have to think about that. It's a major philosophical point.

John Wooden literally had his players learn how to put on socks for 30 minutes in his first practice. I'd say that's overbearing... Yet he wasn't a cusser, and I don't think he ever had a single player who didn't like him.

Good question, OF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the message you'd take away from the Wooden sock exercise?

I'm thinking this: "There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. I expect you to do it the right way and to ALL do it the right way, together. I'll let you know what that is, you'll do it and we'll be just fine."

Does that sound about right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaw in your thinking is that there is only one type of "right people" lol..."right types of people" is defined by whether or not they best fit the style of management you are utilizing. There ARE people, believe it or not, who become their best only when pushed by a "bullying" type of manager/coach/whatever. Those types of people will flounder under a more lax, "fatherly" superior just as much as you say self-motivated people won't do well under control freaks.
We won't resolve this difference of opinion. I just can't accept your implication that a subordinate who needs to be pushed and prodded to deliver the goods can be as effective as his self-motivated competitor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the message you'd take away from the Wooden sock exercise?

I'm thinking this: "There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. I expect you to do it the right way and to ALL do it the right way, together. I'll let you know what that is, you'll do it and we'll be just fine."

Does that sound about right?

I'm thinking this: "There's a right way and a wrong way to do things in every aspect of playing this game, all the way down to how you put on your socks. No detail is too small or unimportant. I expect you to do it the right way and to ALL do it the right way, together. I'll show you what that right way is, even if you think you already know..as long as you do things my way we'll be just fine."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the message you'd take away from the Wooden sock exercise?

I'm thinking this: "There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. I expect you to do it the right way and to ALL do it the right way, together. I'll let you know what that is, you'll do it and we'll be just fine."

Does that sound about right?

I'm thinking this: "There's a right way and a wrong way to do things in every aspect of playing this game, all the way down to how you put on your socks. No detail is too small or unimportant. I expect you to do it the right way and to ALL do it the right way, together. I'll show you what that right way is, even if you think you already know..as long as you do things my way we'll be just fine."

I agree with both of you. But that's kind of micro managing, isn't it? (Please be aware, I'm not mocking Wooden. The guy is one of my top inspirations)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won't resolve this difference of opinion. I just can't accept your implication that a subordinate who needs to be pushed and prodded to deliver the goods can be as effective as his self-motivated competitor.

I can, because I've worked with both and have been both. And I've had both types of superiors/supervisors, and have needed both types at different points in my life. As a business owner, in one instance I managed 120 people, and trust me, if I only staffed my company with "self-motivated" types it would have taken me 7 years to get enough employees together to run my business :ols:...my management style was consistent but I did have to tweak it here and there depending upon the type of individual employee I was managing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if it can be overdone. If you hire a guy who you know is like that, then you get what you asked for. I'd have to think about that. It's a major philosophical point.

John Wooden literally had his players learn how to put on socks for 30 minutes in his first practice. I'd say that's overbearing... Yet he wasn't a cusser, and I don't think he ever had a single player who didn't like him.

Good question, OF.

That socks story was obviously meant to convey a message. It couldn't possibly be an example of how Wooden tried to control everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you. But that's kind of micro managing, isn't it? (Please be aware, I'm not mocking Wooden. The guy is one of my top inspirations)

I think there can be a difference between "micro-managing" and what's being described about coaches. Micro-managing, at least to me, tends to be when you give someone a responsibility and they know how to do it, but you insist on constantly looking over their shoulder and making them check in with you an inordinate amount of times because you don't trust that they'll deliver their work in the way you want it by the time you need it. What "control freak" coaches often do, though, is try and break players from their life-long playing habits and get them to take on the coach's way of playing instead. That may very well end up requiring a re-learning of a lot of fundamentals, not just learning new plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We won't resolve this difference of opinion. I just can't accept your implication that a subordinate who needs to be pushed and prodded to deliver the goods can be as effective as his self-motivated competitor.

When your self-motivated person is self-motivated to do things his way - not the way the superior wants it - and refuses to change to fit, then you go with the people who will do what you want.

Perfect example: I was in the Marines. The structure of the Corps is set up so the "head coach" (the officer) gives his orders to his three direct subordinates, giving what's called a "commander's intent" - basically, what you want the final picture to look like - along with a "scheme of maneuver" - how you want it done. His subordinates generally then have freedom of maneuver to accomplish what the superior wants, within his scheme of maneuver and commander's intent.

If a subordinate didn't perform within the scheme of maneuver or commander's intent, he would be replaced - sometimes with someone less experienced - and either the new guy would have to be shown the ropes, down to the smallest tidbit, or the "self-motivator" would have to have his hand held through the exercise. Basically your "pushed and prodded"

That basic setup is how the Corps is organized, from Divisions, Battalions, and Regiments, all the way down to Platoons, Squads, and Fireteams. Granted, it's not always perfect, but that's how it's supposed to be organized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you. But that's kind of micro managing, isn't it? (Please be aware, I'm not mocking Wooden. The guy is one of my top inspirations)

For me, a control freak wants everything done exactly their way whereas effective managers know which tasks require only the same end result and which ones require exactly the correct method in order to produce the end result.

So, if Wooden did that all the time, yes he'd be a control freak; but if he only used it to get across a point about his authority and your need to respect it, then no, probably not a control freak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your self-motivated person is self-motivated to do things his way - not the way the superior wants it - and refuses to change to fit, then you go with the people who will do what you want.

That's another good aspect to this debate...whether or not the self-motivated individual is also flexible and agreeable to learning and doing things in a different way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...