Collaboration vs top down leadership in the NFL

[MightyGiants]

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.

[MightyGiants]

On a slightly related topic, I stumbled across this passage from Bill Walsh's book explaining team dynamics

[TONKA56]

On a slightly related topic, I stumbled across this passage from Bill Walsh's book explaining team dynamics

The reminds me of the part of War And Peace where all the great generals were arguing about how to approach defending against Napoleon and the Grande Armée. Mikhail Kutuzov was mocked because he kept mentioning that his soldiers needed boots.

[T200]

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.

The management/leadership team is only as good as its weakest link, whether the style is top-down or collaborative. When you have a Jerry Jones at the top, it's a bottleneck to success. When you have a Martindale in your organization, ideas and suggestions die at his feet and there's no room for improvement.

I don't subscribe to one or the other exclusively. To me, it's situational, just as much as a DC's plan depends on the opponent and the situation. But the key is having the personnel who fit well into the management scheme the organization chooses to employ. And yes, there can be a combination of both.

[AZGiantFan]

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.

Too much collaboration and you get a horse, designed by committee, that looks like a rhinoceros.  The Giants' SBs have come when they've had strong leaders. 

[EDjohnst1981]

For me, I think it's about the situation regarding the players/staff that are already in the building. Some will respond to the fire and shouting approach, others will respond better to a softer more collaborative approach. It's important that every person knows their role in the organisation the details of their position and responsibilities.

I don't subscribe that there is one particular way to manage but the key is being adaptable and able to manage expectations. But the person at the top needs the respect (which is earned and not given) of those who he is managing and the subordinates need to follow. They cannot go off script and devise their own approach - everything flows from the top but it's important to listen to the voices below, take on feedback and ultimately be adaptable to the needs of those around you.

I have a similar Daboll v Wink situation in my workplace. I am an Associate Professor (our titles work differently than the US, where all teaching staff are called professor) at a UK University, last year a position arose to lead our relatively large Faculty as the Research Director. This role would be beneficial for career in terms of making the next step to full Professor and the Deanery approached me to apply.

One other person applied and were unsuccessful. Since August, all this person has tried to do is undermine the decisions I make, put on their own events and basically not playing ball. The upshot is they have formed a little clique that basically operate on their own - which is not what the Faculty wants. This time of year is when researchers have to apply for research remission and this will be partly based on productivity in the last academic year. His productivity has been low, he rejected a mid-year review of performance and basically not engaged with any of the processes I installed to increase research outputs, He's basically done nothing. As such, his research remission (in terms of time off teaching to write) will be drastically reduced or nil. This will cause problems in terms he will be unhappy and further problems will arise in terms of behaviour/performance. Everything is metric driven around outputs in UK academia, so we need everyone pulling in the same direction.

I can't help but draw some minor parallels with the Dabs situation and sympathise with him. The end result of winning NFL games v Academic research performance is not analogous at all, but the points surrounding it would be. My life would be exponentially easier if my 'Wink' resigned, so I'm on Dabs' side in this one, you can't have people basically driving their own little circle and freelancing.

[londonblue]

To me after 35+ years in business it is not either/or. Adaptability matters. Collaboration improves outcomes if it does not elevate consensus as a goal rather than a means to an end.

Many of the most successful CEOs are the most collaborative but are also not afraid to make big decisions and tough calls even if key team members disagree.

For all of Bellichick's dogma he was intensely collaborative with his staff (coaches and front office guys he had a role in recruiting/promoting) within the limits of the processes and structures he designed. In his later years he resisted owner/GM interference to the point he changed that power dynamic.

What we are seeing is billionaire owners and their more easily influenced generation of new, younger GMs trying to go back to the hierarchy Walsh nailed so eloquently. There is less tolerance for outspoken coaches who manage upwards aggressively and resist downward orders equally aggressively.

As so often the right answer is probably in the middle somewhere. Early Bill worked well with Kraft. Parcells and Coughlin worked well with their owners (some GM tension, particularly for TC early days). Andy Reid works really well with Brett Veach.

[Ed Vette]

I see Schoen and Daboll as the team that the Giants haven't had since perhaps the days of Coughlin and Accorsi. Prior to that George Young wasn't a partner to his HCs.

Within that Schoen-Daboll dynamic, they will get input from the coaches and staff around them as to player personnel and draft decisions which they then discuss and I see Schoen being flexible with Daboll unless he has a strong position contrary to Daboll. As far as the team operations including the training regiment, I saw Daboll as delegating however, the game plan on both sides after discussion was decided by him. So he's collaborative to a point but he's definitely a strong leader.

Where Parcells would complain about being the Chef but not buying the groceries and Coughlin angry at Reese for bad priorities and Gettleman so full of himself and making capricious and arbitrary decisions while not in tune with his revolving door of HCs, the Schoen-Daboll partnership looks to be the one that has the best chance for success. The caveat is the ultimate talent of Daboll as the HC, where Parcell and Coughlin transcended the dysfunctional organization. Until their window closed.

[Ed Vette]

I have always adapted to the situation and the team around me. There were situations where I had to be initially autocratic in a new environment but that was more of a training and development of the management under me and then at some point it became more of delegation and discussion. Empowering management teams and support with a clear defined direction.

In my current situation, I represent a principal in a business relationship. When I represent an intelligent, strong personality who can make good clear decisions, I collaborate to inform and discuss and let the client make the decisions based on all that. In other relationships, I need to drive the bus and make strong suggestions.

I believe a leader needs to be flexible and have the ability to adapt to situations. If you can't make the hard decisions or do the unpleasant and what may be deemed as unpopular, you don't belong in that role. It's nice to be liked and respected and that's the best scenario but if you can't have both, respect is paramount.

[Philosophers]

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.

Rich - I am reminded of what I think is the best org structure and that would come from Native American tribes.  They have a chief, a tribal council made up of key elders.  They sit around and the Chief listens to everyone's viewpoints then renders a decision based on those viewpoints that he thinks is in the best interest of the tribe.  Whereas key elders may consider only one aspect, a leader considers it in the context of other factors as well.

Someone needs to be the leader but great leaders listen to all viewpoints.  Great leaders also have vision.