Sports analogies carried forward into business and real life can be overdone and certainly often are. But every now and then something that happens in the world of sports gets Me thinking about situations in D/s.
As you may or may not know, the New York Mets recently blew a large lead in the last two weeks of the season and ended up out of the playoffs. The "collapse" was historic in its proportions. And what's a good collapse without assigning blame?
Listening to sports talk radio in the wake of this debacle, hosts and callers and "experts" have various theories about who should get how much of said blame. And many want to lay a good portion of the blame on the Mets' manager, Wilie Randolph.
One thing that the Willie-blamers say is that Willie's personality is too low key. He doesn't get in players' faces; he doesn't argue much with umpires; he's not the locker-room tirade after a bad loss type.
The classic response to those who want a more fiery Willie Randolph is: "He has to be who he is. It's not his nature to be 'fiery.' "
And there, finally, is the point (I could hear your impatience).
To those who toss out the old chestnut that "That isn't Willie," I respond:
A good leader is less concerned with holding to some abstract conception of Him- or Herself and more concerned with eliciting the desired results from those S/He is leading.
Meaning, in baseball, in business, in D/s, the boss has to do what's necessary, to be who S/He needs to be, to get those being led to respond. Within the normal strictures of course of what is moral/legal/safe bla bla bla . . . let's not lose our way in Disclaimerville.
The Leader (Coach/Manager/Dom/me) has to be confident enough to be flexible enough.
More on that in Part 2.
1 comment:
I read a lot of sports in the newspapers. If a coach is laid back they say you have to get in their face but when you have a fiery coach that does get in an athletes face they will say you have to back off. You can't win as a coach nowadays.
Post a Comment