Dear Mr. Accorsi...

[Mr. Scot]

Convince JR that players with off the field issues are sometimes worth it.

Not if they're involved in violent crimes. You never ever take on guys like that.

Or we might just hire a fuggin sports agent! *rolls eyes*

The same site that posted that said it was a rumor with nothing to it.

[Yardbird]

As a guy who has attended many of these and led more than a few, they are typically designed to teach people how to get along in a large organization. They are great for the bottom 60% of the organization, but often have the effect of neutering top performers. It just doesn't seem like a good fit when talking about football players.

One exception, and perhaps this is what you intended, would be team building excursions when the intent is just to let them build bonds by having fun together. Whether paintballing, white water rafting or some equivalent activity, these can be used effectively to bring an organization closer together.

[Yardbird]

At its best, leadership development initiatives are designed to fit the needs and issues of the client. Some help people get along in an organization, some focus on individual development, some focus on culture change...and those are only a few examples. My graduate degree is in that field and I work in that business, too. Just cautioning the board not to assume leadership development is a cookie-cutter process.

As far as program effectiveness is concerned: While there may be examples of "neutered" top performers in some cases, I'd hesitate before painting leadership development initiatives with such a broad brush. Research simply doesn't support that notion. I respect you may have personal experience that says otherwise, but let's be careful about generalizing.

Leadership development in athletics is interesting. We tend to equate "leadership" with on-field performance. If a player shines as an individual performer, we call him/her a leader. Our judgement isn't generally informed by whether they do less obvious things to enhance a team's performance. Are they agile learners? Are they effective communicators and teachers of one another? Can they reflect on what was successful and what wasn't (and adapt accordingly)? These attributes are essential in all high-stakes, high performance contexts. Look at the Patriots. They succeed with several superstars, but lots of few JAGs. The right combination and chemistry of JAGs can outperform star-laden rosters. We like to think Belicik is just that brilliant. But if you listen to his players after they retire, you'll hear stories of leadership from coaches and players. Not just on-field leadership, but a culture, a discipline, and an identity focused on achieving the team's objectives. I'd say that's relevant to football.

[Yardbird]

I never said I didn't value leadership, only that I know that the outcome of football games have almost nothing to do with it. Anyone with a modicum of NFL history under their belt would remember the long line of dysfunctional but talented teams that won consistently despite fielding some of the most selfish, infighting and downright stupid players imaginable.

Football is a game, not a company, and all this squawking of "leadership" issues overlooks the real problems (like idiotic coaching.)

[fieryprophet]

At its best, leadership development initiatives are designed to fit the needs and issues of the client. Some help people get along in an organization, some focus on individual development, some focus on culture change...and those are only a few examples. My graduate degree is in that field and I work in that business, too. Just cautioning the board not to assume leadership development is a cookie-cutter process.

As far as program effectiveness is concerned: While there may be examples of "neutered" top performers in some cases, I'd hesitate before painting leadership development initiatives with such a broad brush. Research simply doesn't support that notion. I respect you may have personal experience that says otherwise, but let's be careful about generalizing.

Leadership development in athletics is interesting. We tend to equate "leadership" with on-field performance. If a player shines as an individual performer, we call him/her a leader. Our judgement isn't generally informed by whether they do less obvious things to enhance a team's performance. Are they agile learners? Are they effective communicators and teachers of one another? Can they reflect on what was successful and what wasn't (and adapt accordingly)? These attributes are essential in all high-stakes, high performance contexts. Look at the Patriots. They succeed with several superstars, but lots of few JAGs. The right combination and chemistry of JAGs can outperform star-laden rosters. We like to think Belicik is just that brilliant. But if you listen to his players after they retire, you'll hear stories of leadership from coaches and players. Not just on-field leadership, but a culture, a discipline, and an identity focused on achieving the team's objectives. I'd say that's relevant to football.

And wouldn't you say that culture has to start with the coaching? That it is almost impossible for it to carryover from the players, who generally aren't around for the many years it takes to establish an identity?

That was my point in the whole leadership rant, that this can't be about players failing to lead, but that at a systematic level there is a failure of leadership.

[Yardbird]

Who says good leadership means everyone is happy & satisfied? There are lots of examples of organizations with turbulence in their culture, but also excellent performance against the competition. Steve Jobs was known to strike terror in Apple employees...but his leadership was undeniably effective. Mean and brutal at times, but effective. And there are cases the other way, too. Well-run organizations where people are hard competitors externally, but get along internally. Leadership and conflict are not mutually exclusive.

[Yardbird]

And wouldn't you say that culture has to start with the coaching? That it is almost impossible for it to carryover from the players, who generally aren't around for the many years it takes to establish an identity?

That was my point in the whole leadership rant, that this can't be about players failing to lead, but that at a systematic level there is a failure of leadership.

Still sorting out the posting process. Sorry for the multiple posts.

Not discounting the coaching piece at all. It definitely starts there--hence my Patriots reference. I'm simply supporting the notion that leadership in football is relevant, that successful teams have it at the management, coach, and player levels, and that it can be developed.

[Bwood]

Wear the black on black uniforms one game per year against the falcons or saints. Wear the black Jerseys at home in October. Wear the blues in September

ROFLMFAO!!!

[rayzor]

Dear Mr. Accorsi,

Please impart to Mr. Richardson just how important it is that he open up his wallet wide to get the best GM and HC for this team, rather than the best value.

Thanks for your support.

regards,

Homer Q. Fan

[Marguide]

As far as program effectiveness is concerned: While there may be examples of "neutered" top performers in some cases, I'd hesitate before painting leadership development initiatives with such a broad brush. Research simply doesn't support that notion. I respect you may have personal experience that says otherwise, but let's be careful about generalizing.

As stated, I participated in and led a number of "leadership" initiatives, but it was not my primary responsibility, so would defer to your expertise. And perhaps "neutering" was the wrong description. Nonetheless, the problem I had with too many of these programs is they were one-size-fits-all, with not enough customization depending on the level of the audience. Much like the public education system, they tended to be designed more for the lowest common denominator or average performers than for the top performers.

In the same way, the training needed for athletes like Cam or Kuechly for example, are different than that needed for Colin Jones or J.J. Jansen.

If the organization were to commit to leadership training highly customized to individuals, then yes, it might be an appropriate investment of time and resources. At that point though, it may just be better to hire leadership coaches to help a few of your core players.

[Gabeking]

ROFLMFAO!!!

hes awesome isn't he?