Because football and war are so often compared, I feel obligated to continue with another example that connects the two. To be a great coach in the NFL, one is required the ability to demand and receive the respect of his players. Whether this means they love him to death and are willing to give everything for him, or because they respect the regulations the coach puts forth and must abide by them in order to stay on the team, a player must respect his coach. Over the years, the Cowboys have seen coachs from both extremes and in between. Tom Landry was an incredible coach because he demanded of his players the highest sense of character and order. He established inredibly strict rules and never feared implementing a consequence. Jimmy Johnson was much of th same. While they understood the necessity of the relationship between themselves and the players, they also understood the necessity of allowing for distance between themselves and the players because it kept their authority at a maximum. Wade Phillips took a different approach to coaching. He believed that befriending every player and completely wiping away the gap between them and himself would benefit the team on an even greater level than Landry or Johnson could. After arguably the most dissapointing season in Cowboy history, and failing to make the playoffs when the season was deemed Super Bowl or bust, we see that in football, the best head coaches are the ones who remain authoritative first, friend second.
In war, this same tactical position is imperative to success. To be a general and the ultimate leader, one must understand the reality of his situation. He must recognize that because he is in a war his men will die, regardless of whether he wants them too or not, and to be effective, he must distance himself to a degree so as to not form close enough bonds with his soldiers that he cannot demand them to act according to plan. The general must understand that he absolutely has a responsibility to his country first, and a responsbility to the people fighting to defend his country second. The fact is that war is a very powerful and emotional thing. Often times, after years as a leader, the amount of deaths to an army can begin to effect the leader. At this point, it is essential that the leader recognize his humanistic trait, and step down so a better suited general can take over.
6 comments:
A general often times must dehumanize himself from the war in order to be an effective leader. Lee is portrayed as a cruel and heartless man, who shows no compassion for the well being of his men. The only objective of a general is to ensure victory. Regardless of the consequences, Lee designed military tactics that he believed would be successful. Like a head coach, a general must focus his intentions on winning the game or battle. Longstreet may have had alternate military tactics that could have saved lives, but Lee was determined to ensure victory for the confederates. A victory he believed was most important.
I really like your analogy between coaching and generals. I think the important thing you point out is that generals, like coaches, need to maintain a professional and friendly relationship. To do so, the leader or coach must distance themselves enough from the players so that their authority remains clear but also close enough so that the players respect a coach's "gameplan." I think Lee maintains a "professional" relationship with his men, while Longstreet desires to maintain both pro and friendly relations. Longstreet just doesn't know how to get the following of Lee. Chamberlain understands what it takes to command soldiers, but is sometimes conflicted by placing his men in a difficult position. good post, brad.
I like how Lee asserts himself as a leader who acts first, asks questions later. He, as Shanil said, did a good job of dehumanizing the consequences of his decisions or else the deaths of his men could cloud his judgement. Also, Lee unlike Longstreet, stands by his ideas and actions until the end and will defend them to no end. Longstreet however, too easily backs down in the face of Lee when he tries to assert his points. This distinction makes me lean towards Lee as a better leader overall but maybe not in this battle.
Brad, this is a cool post. I think you are dead on with you analysis. I would also add this to being any type of leader. Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian diplomat, political philosopher, musician, poet and playwright, was a leading figure during the Italian Renaissance. In his Political writing, The Prince, he states it is best for a leader to be feared and loved. However, if it must be one or another, it is best to be feared than loved. While reading Killer Angles, I thought about this. It occurs to me that, as a leader, Lee is both feared and loved. The respect others show him is blatant, and the love his men feel for him is also palpable. Longstreet on the other hand, seems to be loved over feared, and perhaps that is his problem. He constantly gets walked on, and it seems others simply dismiss many of his notions. Perhaps he needed a backbone that caused others to fear him to be a good leader.
Like you say, Wade Philips is loved more than feared. Maybe that is why the team chemistry seems to have fallen apart when we start to lose. Perhaps the best coaches are loved and feared, and the good ones are simply feared. One of the best coaches in the history of the NFL, Vince Lombardi, was universally known for his tough love. I think, as a coach or general, this is the perfect quality to demand respect from your men.
I really like this post, you really thought outside of the box. Your analogy is right on, a coach has basically the same requirements as a general doe in war. They are both required to get the most out of their men in any situation. It is interesting to see that the tough love aspect of coaching would have involved both character attributes from Lee and Longstreet.
Very nice comparison Bradley. I could not agree more...Wade Phillips sucks. But in my blog, I talk about the importance of balance in a leader. As we saw with Lee, he distanced himself from his army, and that did not quite work out. To me, the ultimate coach or leader, is one with both Tom Landry and Wade Phillips like qualities. I see a guy like Mike Tomlin, the coach of the Steelers. I watch him coach during games and practice, and he (pardon my language) is a hard-ass. But after the games or practices, his players seem friendly with him and he can have a good time with them. He is obviously successful seeing as they are going to the SuperBowl. But i think a mix between a tough coach and a sensitive one is an effective coach/leader.
Post a Comment