- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
So this has probably already been theorized by someone else, or has thousands of flaws, or doesn't make much sense, but if you don't write about this stuff, you'll never know, eh?
So I was on a bus to Boston, trying to work on a paper about Wal*Mart, when I started thinking about different theories of governance. I just started writing some stuff down, and here's what I came up with.
As I see it, there are two different types of governance that an executive can represent: The QB or the Coach.
Whether the executive is the leader of a sports team, a corporation, or (as I had in the back of my head as I wrote this), the President, they tend to fall into one of the categories. On a simple level, the differences between the two are simple and quite commonly explicated.
QB -More active in decision making, takes roles into his hands.
-Decides what other people will do.
-Should be intelligent, but being naturally gifted is more important.
Coach -More hands off, focuses on shaping framework.
-Decides which people will be used where.
-Must be wise, calm, and have a long view on things.
While some teams have both, a team can be successful if it is built around either an exceptional Coach or an exceptional QB.
How the situations differ depending on which type the executive is:
Executive is a Coach: Decisions are primarily based on strategy. Player selection is crucial, and farm clubs are used to develop talent. Maintaining excellence is the overarching focus, or cutting losses in times of trouble. A Coach must have experience, age, and respect from those he interacts with. He relies on the talents and individual decision making abilities of those who he chooses in order to succeed. Less of a sense of "Never Surrender," more negotiatory. In this scenario, there are many opportunities for rising starts. It does require an incredibly strong team as a whole, due to a vacuum of leadership on the actual field. He needs to have independent thinkers around him, such as assistant coaches who disagree. The integrity of his players is paramount.
Executive is a QB: Decisions are primarily made by the executive, based on somewhat limited guidance. QB sees options, quickly balances, enacts, forcing conclusions. Rather than picking players based on diversity and inquiry, selects for loyalty, needed skills, and ability to follow orders. Can be a rookie, doesn't necessarily have to have lengthy credentials, only needs respect of his core. An aura of mysticism or sense of fate benefits him. Rather than plan for the long-term future, he believes that overwhelming success in the immediate will carry him. Much more likely to go for the gusto, take risks. Liklihood of success closely correlated with his individual talent. Relies on other players of similar stature (if they exist) to shoulder burden, blame for failures. If QB is incredible, can succeed with mediocre team. Can energize teammates, spectators with ease, perhaps avoiding pitfalls this way. Less need for dissenting assistant coaches, much greater need for sly, skilled, intelligent specialists and trainers to get an edge. Is able to overcome lapses in judgement of integrity of his teammates.
Downfalls of executive as Coach: No charismatic QB for team to coalesce around. Harder to pull team out of slump quickly. Because of slow growth, lengthy development of team, often fails to satisfy short attention span of fans. Can be difficult to select cohesive team of independent thinkers, difficult to maintain message. Loss of supporting players hurts team more than under QB. More difficult to carry on dynasty from Coach->Coach or Coach->QB than from QB->QB or QB->Coach. Dissents of assistant coaches can be troublesome from time to time. Mistakes in decision making are seen as intelligence failures, rather than as the result of risk-taking as under QB system. Longer-lasting negative reflection on Coach. Higher chance of gridlock, lower team enthusiasm. Team rides on the Coach's shoulders, but others can ruin it.
Downfalls of executive as QB: Requires QB to take dual role as player/quasi-coach. More taxing, less room for error. Failures of QB hurt team more than failures of Coach in Coach exec. system. Shortened honeymoon period, results expected immediately. Lowered diversity of message can hurt if fans shift their expectations. Often acts rashly, mistakes can come back to haunt QB. May have to shuffle go-to players often to maintain excellence, can throw QB off. Inexperience can cause segment of population to immediately withold respect. Less chance of leaving a positive legacy, unless presented with generation defining situation. QB's focus on pleasing players and die-hard fans can alienate others, stifle broad support. Loss of aura of mysticism/fate results in disenchantment, hard to recover. Failure to think about long-term backfires when faced with opposition that accepts short term losses for future success, builds farm club. Often seen as less intelligent than Coach, lucky with talent, rather than skilled with knowledge. If QB is the only star on team, can be double teamed, overwhelmed. Mediocre team can hinder rise of QB. Reliance on skills of sly trainers can backfire if integrity is compromised.
That's basically it, transcribed from the furious scribbles on my notepad. I think it can apply to lots of scenarios, but as I said, I was thinking about Presidents when I wrote it, so here's how I think it breaks down.
QB: Bush II, Carter, TR, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Hoover
Coach: Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, Nixon, FDR, Lincoln, (John Kerry)
I think its interesting how it doesn't at all seem to follow party lines. Then again, its all ramblings coming from me, so I could be millions of miles off base. Who knows.
There are lots of things I derived from that that would seem to explain (or at least reflect) outcomes of past elections, why some Presidents had legacies, why others didn't, and could offer some thoughts for 2008. I'll refrain for now, but maybe explain more later.
So I was on a bus to Boston, trying to work on a paper about Wal*Mart, when I started thinking about different theories of governance. I just started writing some stuff down, and here's what I came up with.
As I see it, there are two different types of governance that an executive can represent: The QB or the Coach.
Whether the executive is the leader of a sports team, a corporation, or (as I had in the back of my head as I wrote this), the President, they tend to fall into one of the categories. On a simple level, the differences between the two are simple and quite commonly explicated.
QB -More active in decision making, takes roles into his hands.
-Decides what other people will do.
-Should be intelligent, but being naturally gifted is more important.
Coach -More hands off, focuses on shaping framework.
-Decides which people will be used where.
-Must be wise, calm, and have a long view on things.
While some teams have both, a team can be successful if it is built around either an exceptional Coach or an exceptional QB.
How the situations differ depending on which type the executive is:
Executive is a Coach: Decisions are primarily based on strategy. Player selection is crucial, and farm clubs are used to develop talent. Maintaining excellence is the overarching focus, or cutting losses in times of trouble. A Coach must have experience, age, and respect from those he interacts with. He relies on the talents and individual decision making abilities of those who he chooses in order to succeed. Less of a sense of "Never Surrender," more negotiatory. In this scenario, there are many opportunities for rising starts. It does require an incredibly strong team as a whole, due to a vacuum of leadership on the actual field. He needs to have independent thinkers around him, such as assistant coaches who disagree. The integrity of his players is paramount.
Executive is a QB: Decisions are primarily made by the executive, based on somewhat limited guidance. QB sees options, quickly balances, enacts, forcing conclusions. Rather than picking players based on diversity and inquiry, selects for loyalty, needed skills, and ability to follow orders. Can be a rookie, doesn't necessarily have to have lengthy credentials, only needs respect of his core. An aura of mysticism or sense of fate benefits him. Rather than plan for the long-term future, he believes that overwhelming success in the immediate will carry him. Much more likely to go for the gusto, take risks. Liklihood of success closely correlated with his individual talent. Relies on other players of similar stature (if they exist) to shoulder burden, blame for failures. If QB is incredible, can succeed with mediocre team. Can energize teammates, spectators with ease, perhaps avoiding pitfalls this way. Less need for dissenting assistant coaches, much greater need for sly, skilled, intelligent specialists and trainers to get an edge. Is able to overcome lapses in judgement of integrity of his teammates.
Downfalls of executive as Coach: No charismatic QB for team to coalesce around. Harder to pull team out of slump quickly. Because of slow growth, lengthy development of team, often fails to satisfy short attention span of fans. Can be difficult to select cohesive team of independent thinkers, difficult to maintain message. Loss of supporting players hurts team more than under QB. More difficult to carry on dynasty from Coach->Coach or Coach->QB than from QB->QB or QB->Coach. Dissents of assistant coaches can be troublesome from time to time. Mistakes in decision making are seen as intelligence failures, rather than as the result of risk-taking as under QB system. Longer-lasting negative reflection on Coach. Higher chance of gridlock, lower team enthusiasm. Team rides on the Coach's shoulders, but others can ruin it.
Downfalls of executive as QB: Requires QB to take dual role as player/quasi-coach. More taxing, less room for error. Failures of QB hurt team more than failures of Coach in Coach exec. system. Shortened honeymoon period, results expected immediately. Lowered diversity of message can hurt if fans shift their expectations. Often acts rashly, mistakes can come back to haunt QB. May have to shuffle go-to players often to maintain excellence, can throw QB off. Inexperience can cause segment of population to immediately withold respect. Less chance of leaving a positive legacy, unless presented with generation defining situation. QB's focus on pleasing players and die-hard fans can alienate others, stifle broad support. Loss of aura of mysticism/fate results in disenchantment, hard to recover. Failure to think about long-term backfires when faced with opposition that accepts short term losses for future success, builds farm club. Often seen as less intelligent than Coach, lucky with talent, rather than skilled with knowledge. If QB is the only star on team, can be double teamed, overwhelmed. Mediocre team can hinder rise of QB. Reliance on skills of sly trainers can backfire if integrity is compromised.
That's basically it, transcribed from the furious scribbles on my notepad. I think it can apply to lots of scenarios, but as I said, I was thinking about Presidents when I wrote it, so here's how I think it breaks down.
QB: Bush II, Carter, TR, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Hoover
Coach: Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, Nixon, FDR, Lincoln, (John Kerry)
I think its interesting how it doesn't at all seem to follow party lines. Then again, its all ramblings coming from me, so I could be millions of miles off base. Who knows.
There are lots of things I derived from that that would seem to explain (or at least reflect) outcomes of past elections, why some Presidents had legacies, why others didn't, and could offer some thoughts for 2008. I'll refrain for now, but maybe explain more later.