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

[Oldfan]

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 ...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.

I had little patience with employees who needed to be pushed, stroked, or to have their hand held. I gave them guidelines, made sure they understood them, and then threw them into the deep end of the pool. I did them a favor by forcing them to be self-disciplined in order to keep their jobs. I did myself a favor by freeing up my time from the pushing, stroking, or hand holding of employees.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I had little patience with employees who needed to be pushed, stroked, or to have their hand held. I gave them guidelines, made sure they understood them, and then threw them into the deep end of the pool. I did them a favor by forcing them to be self-disciplined in order to keep their jobs. I did myself a favor by freeing up my time from the pushing, stroking, or hand holding of employees.

Just depends on what type of management style you employ.

I did a favor to a number of my "less self-motivated" employees by tapping into their potential and seeing them take much greater pride in their work and they ended up being ridiculously loyal to me in gratitude (and yes, I was a hard-ass, not a fatherly type lol...but I held a sense of humor as well). I've also seen self-motivated types come and go as they held far less loyalty to me as they felt they could be employed pretty much anywhere, and probably could. I did myself a favor by adding one more employee to the ranks that I don't have to replace, because if I did I'd have to go about training someone new all over again, and the cost of hiring and training new employees ain't cheap.

[Oldfan]

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.

A self-motivated person is just as likely to be a good team player as someone who needs to be pushed.

[Hitman21ST]

A self-motivated person is just as likely to be a good team player as someone who needs to be pushed.

Never said that he wasn't.

The opposite side of that coin is that he's also just as likely to not be a team player.

That's a logical counterpoint to what you just posted, so you'll probably call that a strawman.

[MassSkinsFan]

I had little patience with employees who needed to be pushed, stroked, or to have their hand held. I gave them guidelines, made sure they understood them, and then threw them into the deep end of the pool. I did them a favor by forcing them to be self-disciplined in order to keep their jobs. I did myself a favor by freeing up my time from the pushing, stroking, or hand holding of employees.

Here's an interesting article about managing employees: http://www.newdirectionsconsulting.com/2011/06/situational-leadership-the-4ds-of-your-employees/

In a nutshell, employees go through stages (D1-D4):

D1 - Low competence, high commitment. Typically new to the job, thrilled with the opportunity and motivated to succeed, but desperately in need of guidance. Use a teaching style to manage these, being directive.

D2 - Mid competence, low commitment. The honeymoon is over, adjustment to the job is made, and the employee is looking around to see how others handle things. Often bad habits/behaviors of others influence the employee. Use a coaching style, e.g. provide immediate feedback to praise proper behavior and correct bad behavior, encourgaing the employee to do well. You need to be able to deal with problem behaviors effectively.

D3 - High competence, variable commitment. These employees have been passed over for promotion or gone unrecognized when they were successful. They're disappointed, but because they're competent and take some enjoyment from that, they still perform well on occasion. This can become permanent. Make time for this employee to discuss and work out past wrongs. Help them press "re-set" and formulate new goals and behaviors.

D4 - High competence and commitment - stars. Empower them.

Ultimately, D4s become D1s when they are promoted, and the cycle begins again.

These are the management challenges of a first-line manager. Management above that shouldn't be bothered with this unless it's to provide guidance to the first-line manager.

[Oldfan]

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.

Self-motivated people don't need to be pushed to do what they are supposed to do. That's the only difference between them and others.

As an NFL coach, I would try to draft this type as opposed to drafting players who need more supervision to reach their potential. Example: I saw the tag "has great potential" as a red flag on the scouting reports of Trent Williams. It implied to me "Didn't produce up to his potential in college."

[DC9]

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.

I agree with this whole-heartidly. Look at guys like Rex Ryan and even BB up in New England (to an extent), they are *** holes to everyone else but they are all about their players. It's a mentality you see a lot, these days. "I can beat the crap out of you, I can put you through hell...but in the end, I will take care of you and show you that nothing is too good for one of my players. Just leave it on the field and I'll reward you." That's the type of coach that a player is going to want to play for. 10 years ago it was different, and 10 years from now will be different. Much of coaching is how well a coach can relate to his players....the window for that is small in the NFL, we are talking about 10-15 years. College is much different, but when you are dealing with atheletes that get paid, there is a different kind of motivation they need.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Isn't Bellichick considered a control freak?

[Oldfan]

Isn't Bellichick considered a control freak?

Not by me, but my definition of "control freak" is reserved for someone in authority who hinders the judgment of his subordinates via excessive meddling. Dan Snyder deciding on which QB to use and calling plays would be an example.

[Rocky21]

By the title of this thread I was expecting this to, uhh, have some, you know, reference to Kyle Shanahan.

[Hitman21ST]

Self-motivated people don't need to be pushed to do what they are supposed to do. That's the only difference between them and others.

As an NFL coach, I would try to draft this type as opposed to drafting players who need more supervision to reach their potential. Example: I saw the tag "has great potential" as a red flag on the scouting reports of Trent Williams. It implied to me "Didn't produce up to his potential in college."

Donovan McNabb. Extremely self-motivated, but did not due what he was supposed to do while he was in the B&G.

[MassSkinsFan]

Isn't Bellichick considered a control freak?

No he's considered thorough. Very thorough. There's a big difference.

[Oldfan]

Donovan McNabb. Extremely self-motivated, but did not due what he was supposed to do while he was in the B&G.

So, are you claiming that self-motivated people are generally uncooperative? Or, are you just proving yourself capable of finding an exception to a general rule (whoopee!)?

[KDawg]

By the title of this thread I was expecting this to, uhh, have some, you know, reference to Kyle Shanahan.

Uhh, by the, uhm, way... It does. Remember, the, uhhh... whole... Kyle Shanahan is a control freak, uhhh article?

Yup.

[Destino]

In sports everything is defined by the outcome. If it works (wins) we'll call it "extremely detailed and hands on". If it doesn't we'll go with micromanaging control freak. It's no more complicated than that.

[Skinsinparadise]

Donovan McNabb. Extremely self-motivated, but did not due what he was supposed to do while he was in the B&G.

Not if you buy the leaks coming out during the season including that he didn't practice hard, played poorly in practice, etc. Actually I've read the same rumor stuff about him in Philly. When Shanny was touting Beck recently that he likes a Qb who is the first guy to come in and the last one to leave, some media types seem to take that as a veiled shot at McNabb because apparently he's not that type of player. What the real truth is, you got me, but its clear to me that one of the big leaks on Mcnabb during the public spitting match is that the dude doesn't work very hard.

Edit: if you go back and look at the spitting match going on between whomever was doing the leaks -- they seem to acknowledge that McNabb is a classy guy and a clubhouse leader. But yeah little if nothing about him being a relentless worker. His work ethic and supposedly inability to grasp the full playbook, and going off script too much -- seemed to be the heart of the critiques.

[Rocky21]

Uhh, by the, uhm, way... It does. Remember, the, uhhh... whole... Kyle Shanahan is a control freak, uhhh article?

Yup.

I said I thought it would reference Kyle Shanahan.

I just can’t help but think that if the NFL weren’t in a work stoppage this wouldn’t be on page 1 of The Stadium.

[Skinsinparadise]

So, are you claiming that self-motivated people are generally uncooperative? Or, are you just proving yourself capable of finding an exception to a general rule (whoopee!)?

I don't think McNabb is an exception to the general rule. We will never know for sure if its indeed true. But we can say definitely that his work ethic was questioned last season.

[Oldfan]

I don't think McNabb is an exception to the general rule. We will never know for sure if its indeed true. But we can say definitely that his work ethic was questioned last season.

I don't think he's an exception either, but that wasn't the point I wanted to make with the poster.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Not by me, but my definition of "control freak" is reserved for someone in authority who hinders the judgment of his subordinates via excessive meddling. Dan Snyder deciding on which QB to use and calling plays would be an example.

Understood.

That brings me to a point that I wanted to make a couple weeks ago. In talking about Kyle Shanahan, the guys on 980 were saying that after this season Snyder might have to insist that Kyle be fired (assuming it doesn't go well offensively). That struck me as odd since everyone wants Snyder to back off and let Mike Shanahan coach. How can you "back off" but also demand how your head coach assemble his staff? Isn't that the definition of meddling? Sorry it's somewhat off topic, but the idea that some are calling for meddling less than two years after the DC area rejoiced that Snyder had ceded control struck me as humorous.

[Skinsinparadise]

I agree with Oldfan, try to sign and draft self motivated players. It's very hard to make somone ambitious and goal oriented when its not part of their make up.

As for McNabb he's a strong defender of himself on his practice habits as is his buddy Michael Vick. he has his critics though too. Obviously there was a point in his career where McNabb I would assume had to work his butt off. But I wonder about if he does the same these days (I know he's a work out fiend) in terms of mastering a game plan and going full out during game week. Having said that, how the heck would I know. Just saying there is enough out there where I at least wonder if McNabb indeed is definitively a hard worker these days relative to some of the more elite workaholic type players.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/02/tim-hasselbeck-says-mcnabbs-bad-practice-habits-go-way-back/

Tim Hasselbeck says McNabb's bad practice habits go way back

Posted by Mike Florio on November 2, 2010, 9:05 AM EDT

As the fallout from Mike Shanahan’s decision to bench Donovan McNabb late in Sunday’s loss to the Lions continues, there’s increasing talk that the Redskins’ coaches are frustrated because McNabb doesn’t go hard enough at practice.

On Monday night ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported that Shanahan wasn’t pleased with McNabb’s practice habits, and on Tuesday morning ESPN analyst Tim Hasselbeck, who spent some time on the Eagles’ roster during McNabb’s tenure in Philadelphia, said poor practice habits are par for the course for McNabb.

“I was a teammate of Donovan McNabb’s in Philadelphia,” Hasselbeck said on Mike and Mike in the Morning. “One of the things that drove them crazy in Philadelphia was the lack of tempo at which he practiced. . . . It was always something where you’re leaving the quarterback meeting and it would be, ‘Hey, listen, the head man wants a little more tempo today.’ Nearly every single day. That’s been the deal with Donovan McNabb. I know exactly what Mike Shanahan is talking about.”

Although Hasselbeck said he didn’t think Shanahan’s decision to bench McNabb on Sunday was wise, he did say that he can understand why a coach would be frustrated with McNabb.

“He’s trying to send a message that we need more tempo at practice,” Hasselbeck said. “Everybody’s watching you, you’re the quarterback.”

At least, McNabb is the quarterback for now. But Shanaha

[ouvan59]

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.

Sorry but the sports business is nothing like corporate business. You are assuming it is. Football players have played for nothing but control freaks their entire careers.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't think he's an exception either, but that wasn't the point I wanted to make with the poster.

Sure, I got your point. Exceptions don't disprove the rule. There are examples of people who smoke for 30 years and live to their 90s while a guy who jogs every day and does all the right things drops dead at 30. It doesn't mean that smoking is good for you and jogging is bad. I just couldn't resist responding to the McNabb part -- during the whole tedious spitting match, if I had dollar for every time his work ethic was questioned, I'd be a rich man.

---------- Post added June-21st-2011 at 04:35 PM ----------

Sorry but the sports business is nothing like corporate business. You are assuming it is. Football players have played for nothing but control freaks their entire careers.

There is so much you can baby sit players. When I read about players that go the extra mile, its often driven by extra circular things they do outside of the team meetings and practices. Staying in shape in the off season. Going home or staying at the stadium late to watch tape. Peyton Manning I doubt is goaded into watching tape until midnight. I've read articles about Peyton and Eli where its often said one of the differences between them is Peyton just studies a lot more, he's more obsessed with football. I don't think those extra mile qualities can be taught that often, its usually a function of ambition and personality.

[Oldfan]

Understood.

That brings me to a point that I wanted to make a couple weeks ago. In talking about Kyle Shanahan, the guys on 980 were saying that after this season Snyder might have to insist that Kyle be fired (assuming it doesn't go well offensively). That struck me as odd since everyone wants Snyder to back off and let Mike Shanahan coach. How can you "back off" but also demand how your head coach assemble his staff? Isn't that the definition of meddling? Sorry it's somewhat off topic, but the idea that some are calling for meddling less than two years after the DC area rejoiced that Snyder had ceded control struck me as humorous.

As I recall, you made very positive comments about my thread "Planning for a Redskins Dynasty."

In it, I had the owner creating a mission statement which defined the goal of the organization and some broad brush guidelines for achieving it. I said that the owner should be reluctant to veto decisions that fell within the bounds set by the mission statement. I would consider that "meddling" or "micromanagement." However, if major decisions were made that were out of bounds (the trade of two draft picks for D.McNabb would be an example of one out of bounds with my mission statement) the owner should step in and veto the transaction. I would not call that meddling or micromanagement.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

As I recall, you made very positive comments about my thread "Planning for a Redskins Dynasty."

In it, I had the owner creating a mission statement which defined the goal of the organization and some broad brush guidelines for achieving it. I said that the owner should be reluctant to veto decisions that fell within the bounds set by the mission statement. I would consider that "meddling" or "micromanagement." However, if major decisions were made that were out of bounds (the trade of two draft picks for D.McNabb would be an example of one out of bounds with my mission statement) the owner should step in and veto the transaction. I would not call that meddling or micromanagement.

Oh, I apologize for any implication that I was relating my post to your opinions in this thread. I didn't mean to do that. I would completely agree with you about the "goal of the organization" idea with an owner. I love that methodology and concur. To me though, forcing a coach to fire a coordinator you allowed him to hire is meddling. I could understand not wanting a WCO coordinator if one of your goals is to cultivate a ball-control offense, but I don't see any reason to demand the firing of a coordinator after two years. Also, my opinion was more specific to Dan Snyder and the general criticisms of his methods over the past decade or so. It seemed a bit ironic to hear the same people panning him for meddling with "football people/decisions" and then saying that he'd better step up and flex his muscles if we're not lighting up the scoreboard in 2 years.

I don't recall, but would your mission statement include that level of detail (type of offense, etc.) or would you leave that to the coaches? I agree that a philosophy on how to acquire talent is an ownership/organizational idea.