If you read the long ESPN article (the link is in my Bill Belichick post from today) it seems a big part of the reason Belichick didn't get another HC job is that the league is moving away from the powerful head coach model (yet the two SB teams are both teams with powerful HCs)
One thing I have noticed since Bowen replaced Martindale as the new DC is that both Daboll and Henderson talked about Bowen being a good teammate. This tracks with the Giant's accusations that Martindale didn't seek out input from his entire staff but only his trusted lieutenants.
These two things got me thinking. Which model is the more successful one? Are teams better off with a management style that is all about collaborations and agreement (sort of management by committee) or are teams better served with one or two powerful voices in the room?
My take is that the collaborative approach is sort of like buying many different types of stocks (diversify your portfolio) to protect from downturns. The shortcoming to that approach is you tend to mute the upside a bit for the same reason you are protecting your downside.
In other words, if you get the right one or two voices, a team will enjoy higher highs (and risk lower lows) than if they adopt the collaborative approach, which serves as a moderating influence for both good and bad.
I am curious what others think.
One thing I have noticed since Bowen replaced Martindale as the new DC is that both Daboll and Henderson talked about Bowen being a good teammate. This tracks with the Giant's accusations that Martindale didn't seek out input from his entire staff but only his trusted lieutenants.
These two things got me thinking. Which model is the more successful one? Are teams better off with a management style that is all about collaborations and agreement (sort of management by committee) or are teams better served with one or two powerful voices in the room?
My take is that the collaborative approach is sort of like buying many different types of stocks (diversify your portfolio) to protect from downturns. The shortcoming to that approach is you tend to mute the upside a bit for the same reason you are protecting your downside.
In other words, if you get the right one or two voices, a team will enjoy higher highs (and risk lower lows) than if they adopt the collaborative approach, which serves as a moderating influence for both good and bad.
I am curious what others think.
