Robert Parish contrasting Bird's leadership style with MJ's

[Mobby]

"I told him, 'I'm not as enamored with you as these other guys. I've got some rings too.'"

Damn. Got Jordan good.

[Mobby]

Phill Jackson was the leader of the Bulls. He inspires, he motivates, he teaches the value of cooperation
Jordan was the Boss: He intimidates, he complains, he dominates.

When you need to hit, shout and attempt to intimidate grown men so they can be inspired its not leadership.

The debate about leadership tactics isn't new or anything, but it is a debate. This is Patton vs Bradley all over again. Both can work successfully.

It's been empirically proven that a transformational leadership style (inspirational, encouraging) is generally a more effective leadership style than the authoritarian style; the only time that the authoritarian is better is in quick-decision situations, which would be good on the court, don't get me wrong.

But during practice, it's the inspirational leader that stands above the dictator. It's clear that Jordan wasn't a true leader otherwise he would have used both, but from the sounds of it, he was nearly all authoritarian, and it just so happened that some people were capable of handling it and succeeding in spite of his leadership style.

[JellosJigglin]

It's impossible for any of us to definitively say who was the better leader without having been in the locker rooms, plane rides, practices, etc. What we know is each of their leadership styles was compatible with the team around them. That's all that matters. MJ's leadership style would not have worked on the Celtics because those guys were already tough and gritty. Bird's quiet demeanor would not have gotten the most out of those Bulls teams.

Being a good leader means doing whatever it takes to get the most out of your subordinates. You might have to lead one player with a whip and another with an arm around the shoulder. Whatever gets the desired results. That's why I disagree with Parish and have always considered Magic Johnson the greatest leader. Magic understood the concept of rigid leadership with the willingness to bend. He never got in Kareem's face the way Jordan did to Parish. He instinctively knew that would get him nowhere, and always treated Kareem like the captain of the team despite the fact he was at the tail end of his career. Magic knew what type of leadership would be most effective at specific times. He's the best I've ever seen.

This is why I love the game of basketball and hate statistics. Chemistry is such a beautiful and underrated component that can't be quantified, but you know it when you see it.

[Dr Spaceman]

Jordan's leadership seems like he just wanted to test to see what you were made of, whether you'll fight back or just be a victim - think they call it a punk test in the hood. Can't blame him for ridding his team of punks. It may be harsh, but you can't argue with the results.

“To me, the most important part of winning is joy. You can win without joy, but winning that’s joyless is like eating in a four-star restaurant when you’re not hungry. Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight, that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.”

Bird has 3 rings.. Jordan has 6.

“The Celtic ‘system’ was designed to permit intelligent, winning players to endlessly use their own curiosity and creativity to accomplish results. That was why each of the players felt such an extraordinary commitment to the team. It was a living, everyday thing, a practice far more than a promise, it was their team.”

Russell could be as surly and cutting to anyone as the best of them. Didn't he hold a grudge against Heinsohn forever for winning ROY?

In a sense. He basically resented the fact that Heinsohn won rookie of the year because to him it was symbolic of the racial climate at the time. Russ joined the team in December, and they immediately went on a winning tear. In Russ's mind, this made him the best player on the team (and he was right), and he saw it as a vote against black America (he was also probably right).

This is a good thing to bring up though. Russell just didn't care to maintain social relationships wih anyone in his life besides his daughter. He was incredibly stubborn and hard headed, and he didn't speak to Wilt for 30 years because he felt Wilt getting injured in the 69 Finals ruined the storybook ending to his career.

He showed up on game days and fulfilled his responsibilities. He was friendly to his teammates when they were together and they all really liked him. But he didn't consider any of them "friends" outside of K.C. And thus his teammates were often caught totally off guard and deeply hurt when Russ displayed his trademark iciness. He was the best of friends when things were well, but he could turn on a dime and isolate people just as easily.

The truth is that all of the stars of that era, Russ, Wilt, Oscar, were irreparably damaged by the racial climate at the time. Russell would fly off the handle and verbally assault hotel clerks who wouldn't let the black players stay, and he would sit out games in certain cities to prove a point. Life was incredibly hard for him in Boston, where his home was broken into repeatedly and he was often the victim of racial slurs and attacks. He hated it so much that he left immediately on retirement and didn't return to the city for almost 30 years, even refusing to go for his own jersey retirement. The common refrain throughout his career was that he didn't owe anything to anyone, and that attitude definitely turned people off.

He would also channel his anger at the political climate towards his teammates- to the point where a teammate once asked him point blank "do you hate me [because I'm white]". It's hard to fault Russ for this, but at the same time it's a negative mark. Just because it's not his fault doesn't make it okay.

Good point to bring up, and it's a great example of why just "winning" is not a good way to judge who is the best leader. He was very obviously not close to Jordan in being horrible to people, but he shouldn't be romanticized just because he led a dynasty either.

[Cycklops]

In a sense. He basically resented the fact that Heinsohn won rookie of the year because to him it was symbolic of the racial climate at the time. Russ joined the team in December, and they immediately went on a winning tear. In Russ's mind, this made him the best player on the team (and he was right), and he saw it as a vote against black America (he was also probably right).

This is a good thing to bring up though. Russell just didn't care to maintain social relationships wih anyone in his life besides his daughter. He was incredibly stubborn and hard headed, and he didn't speak to Wilt for 30 years because he felt Wilt getting injured in the 69 Finals ruined the storybook ending to his career.

He showed up on game days and fulfilled his responsibilities. He was friendly to his teammates when they were together and they all really liked him. But he didn't consider any of them "friends" outside of K.C. And thus his teammates were often caught totally off guard and deeply hurt when Russ displayed his trademark iciness. He was the best of friends when things were well, but he could turn on a dime and isolate people just as easily.

The truth is that all of the stars of that era, Russ, Wilt, Oscar, were irreparably damaged by the racial climate at the time. Russell would fly off the handle and verbally assault hotel clerks who wouldn't let the black players stay, and he would sit out games in certain cities to prove a point. Life was incredibly hard for him in Boston, where his home was broken into repeatedly and he was often the victim of racial slurs and attacks. He hated it so much that he left immediately on retirement and didn't return to the city for almost 30 years, even refusing to go for his own jersey retirement. The common refrain throughout his career was that he didn't owe anything to anyone, and that attitude definitely turned people off.

Good point to bring up, and it's a great example of why just "winning" is not a good way to judge who is the best leader. He was very obviously not close to Jordan in being horrible to people, but he shouldn't be romanticized just because he led a dynasty either.

Who's romanticizing him? He was quoted with his own personal philosophy on leadership, which is different from punching people in the face or "routing out punks" as some people referred to Jordan's behavior. A refusal to associate with racists is a separate issue and in most cases is probably to be respected and not criticized.

[JeepCSC]

It's been empirically proven that a transformational leadership style (inspirational, encouraging) is generally a more effective leadership style than the authoritarian style; the only time that the authoritarian is better is in quick-decision situations, which would be good on the court, don't get me wrong.

But during practice, it's the inspirational leader that stands above the dictator. It's clear that Jordan wasn't a true leader otherwise he would have used both, but from the sounds of it, he was nearly all authoritarian, and it just so happened that some people were capable of handling it and succeeding in spite of his leadership style.

This feels all agenda-driven. "Dictator", "not a true leader". I'm not going to say Jordan was a transformational leader. I don't know, and my opinion would be probably not given everything I know. But I'm open to the idea of him being an effective leader. In fact everything I've seen leads me to think he was an effective leader. But I'm treading on rocky terrain since I never experienced it first-hand. So I will leave it to the arm-chair psychiatrists to decipher quotes and the vagueries of the human mind to rate leadership qualities of strangers.

[Dr Spaceman]

In a sense. He basically resented the fact that Heinsohn won rookie of the year because to him it was symbolic of the racial climate at the time. Russ joined the team in December, and they immediately went on a winning tear. In Russ's mind, this made him the best player on the team (and he was right), and he saw it as a vote against black America (he was also probably right).

This is a good thing to bring up though. Russell just didn't care to maintain social relationships wih anyone in his life besides his daughter. He was incredibly stubborn and hard headed, and he didn't speak to Wilt for 30 years because he felt Wilt getting injured in the 69 Finals ruined the storybook ending to his career.

He showed up on game days and fulfilled his responsibilities. He was friendly to his teammates when they were together and they all really liked him. But he didn't consider any of them "friends" outside of K.C. And thus his teammates were often caught totally off guard and deeply hurt when Russ displayed his trademark iciness. He was the best of friends when things were well, but he could turn on a dime and isolate people just as easily.

The truth is that all of the stars of that era, Russ, Wilt, Oscar, were irreparably damaged by the racial climate at the time. Russell would fly off the handle and verbally assault hotel clerks who wouldn't let the black players stay, and he would sit out games in certain cities to prove a point. Life was incredibly hard for him in Boston, where his home was broken into repeatedly and he was often the victim of racial slurs and attacks. He hated it so much that he left immediately on retirement and didn't return to the city for almost 30 years, even refusing to go for his own jersey retirement. The common refrain throughout his career was that he didn't owe anything to anyone, and that attitude definitely turned people off.

Good point to bring up, and it's a great example of why just "winning" is not a good way to judge who is the best leader. He was very obviously not close to Jordan in being horrible to people, but he shouldn't be romanticized just because he led a dynasty either.

Who's romanticizing him? He was quoted with his own personal philosophy on leadership, which is different from punching people in the face or "routing out punks" as some people referred to Jordan's behavior. A refusal to associate with racists is a separate issue and in most cases is probably to be respected and not criticized.

I agree, but his teammates were not the ones who were discriminating against him, and yet he sometimes took it out on them.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for how Russel handled the social issues of the day. But the fact is he wasn't always a model teammate.

[G35]

Phill Jackson was the leader of the Bulls. He inspires, he motivates, he teaches the value of cooperation
Jordan was the Boss: He intimidates, he complains, he dominates.

When you need to hit, shout and attempt to intimidate grown men so they can be inspired its not leadership.

The debate about leadership tactics isn't new or anything, but it is a debate. This is Patton vs Bradley all over again. Both can work successfully.

It's been empirically proven that a transformational leadership style (inspirational, encouraging) is generally a more effective leadership style than the authoritarian style; the only time that the authoritarian is better is in quick-decision situations, which would be good on the court, don't get me wrong.

But during practice, it's the inspirational leader that stands above the dictator. It's clear that Jordan wasn't a true leader otherwise he would have used both, but from the sounds of it, he was nearly all authoritarian, and it just so happened that some people were capable of handling it and succeeding in spite of his leadership style.

Co-sign on the effectiveness of the transformational leadership style, every leadership/mentorship class I've ever taken has preached that over the dictator/authoritarian approach.

From what I read Jordan was the one screaming and yelling at teammates (and punching them out) while Pippen was the one nurturing/mentoring on the court. Particularly on the defensive end. It's why I question how Jordan would do personality wise without Scottie to buffer some of the teammates who would not bow down to Jordan's style. Steve Kerr said he knew he had to stand up to Jordan or he would be his whipping boy forever. It's worth getting knocked out and keeping your manhood than having someone like Jordan riding you everyday......

[Smash3]

This is exactly what Jordan wanted though, for Parish to step to him. He wasn't doing it just to be an bully (although it definitely was an bully move), it was so he knew if an opponent tried to do something to Parish (or Cartwright, or Kerr, or any teammate) they'd do the same thing and stand up for themselves and the team. It was a trust thing. It was why he bonded so quickly with guys like Charles Oakley.

It was also why the Bulls ended up getting rid of guys like Brad Sellers and Stacey King and ultimately it worked for them. Some leaders pat you on the back, some get in your face. Both ways can work, this way worked for Jordan and the Bulls.

Thank you Michael Jordan, for clearing that up.

[trickshot]

I stopped caring about player's personalities when I realised what MJ was really like. Don't know if anyone remembers that annual thread of MJ's antics we used to get on Realgm several years back.

It's funny how many people still think he's the nicest guy on the planet. What I cant stand is how people are so eager to defend MJ the person. You can idolize MJ the player and still admit that he was far from a good person. There are a lot of psychopaths and sociopaths who achieved success because of their traits were synonymous to the "success-at-any-cost" attitude needed to thrive in competitive environments. You don't have to sugarcoat it to make it sound noble.

[madmaxmedia]

Jordan jawing and intimidating his teammates contrasted to passively aggressively tweeting about "fitting-out."

Boy has the NBA changed...

LOL, it would be funny to see the Jordan-Parish exchange as Tweets.

[madmaxmedia]

I stopped caring about player's personalities when I realised what MJ was really like. Don't know if anyone remembers that annual thread of MJ's antics we used to get on Realgm several years back.

It's funny how many people still think he's the nicest guy on the planet. What I cant stand is how people are so eager to defend MJ the person. You can idolize MJ the player and still admit that he was far from a good person. There are a lot of psychopaths and sociopaths who achieved success because of their traits were synonymous to the "success-at-any-cost" attitude needed to thrive in competitive environments. You don't have to sugarcoat it to make it sound noble.

Just think of MJ as like the teacher from Whiplash, with better hops.

[Cycklops]

In a sense. He basically resented the fact that Heinsohn won rookie of the year because to him it was symbolic of the racial climate at the time. Russ joined the team in December, and they immediately went on a winning tear. In Russ's mind, this made him the best player on the team (and he was right), and he saw it as a vote against black America (he was also probably right).

This is a good thing to bring up though. Russell just didn't care to maintain social relationships wih anyone in his life besides his daughter. He was incredibly stubborn and hard headed, and he didn't speak to Wilt for 30 years because he felt Wilt getting injured in the 69 Finals ruined the storybook ending to his career.

He showed up on game days and fulfilled his responsibilities. He was friendly to his teammates when they were together and they all really liked him. But he didn't consider any of them "friends" outside of K.C. And thus his teammates were often caught totally off guard and deeply hurt when Russ displayed his trademark iciness. He was the best of friends when things were well, but he could turn on a dime and isolate people just as easily.

The truth is that all of the stars of that era, Russ, Wilt, Oscar, were irreparably damaged by the racial climate at the time. Russell would fly off the handle and verbally assault hotel clerks who wouldn't let the black players stay, and he would sit out games in certain cities to prove a point. Life was incredibly hard for him in Boston, where his home was broken into repeatedly and he was often the victim of racial slurs and attacks. He hated it so much that he left immediately on retirement and didn't return to the city for almost 30 years, even refusing to go for his own jersey retirement. The common refrain throughout his career was that he didn't owe anything to anyone, and that attitude definitely turned people off.

Good point to bring up, and it's a great example of why just "winning" is not a good way to judge who is the best leader. He was very obviously not close to Jordan in being horrible to people, but he shouldn't be romanticized just because he led a dynasty either.

Who's romanticizing him? He was quoted with his own personal philosophy on leadership, which is different from punching people in the face or "routing out punks" as some people referred to Jordan's behavior. A refusal to associate with racists is a separate issue and in most cases is probably to be respected and not criticized.

I agree, but his teammates were not the ones who were discriminating against him, and yet he sometimes took it out on them.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for how Russel handled the social issues of the day. But the fact is he wasn't always a model teammate.

Among the examples here, I see that he would sometimes sit out games in certain cities as a protest against the racial climate there, that he was sometimes icy or isolating to certain teammates. That's a far cry from physically abusing them, but even barring that, it's a far cry from chewing them out or intimidating them.

I think the positive style of leadership, encouraging teammates, playing to people's strengths and making them want to do well, has won far more then anything else, when you look at Russell, Magic and Phil Jackson. People are right to refer to the other stuff people are bringing up as mainly just excuses for bad behavior.

[madmaxmedia]

Good point to bring up, and it's a great example of why just "winning" is not a good way to judge who is the best leader. He was very obviously not close to Jordan in being horrible to people, but he shouldn't be romanticized just because he led a dynasty either.

Thanks for those anecdotes, I have never read any of them before.

I wonder if Dirk was much more of a competitive a-hole, would he have more rings? I'm kinda being sarcastic, but I also think the answer would be yes.

[Mobby]

It's been empirically proven that a transformational leadership style (inspirational, encouraging) is generally a more effective leadership style than the authoritarian style; the only time that the authoritarian is better is in quick-decision situations, which would be good on the court, don't get me wrong.

But during practice, it's the inspirational leader that stands above the dictator. It's clear that Jordan wasn't a true leader otherwise he would have used both, but from the sounds of it, he was nearly all authoritarian, and it just so happened that some people were capable of handling it and succeeding in spite of his leadership style.

This feels all agenda-driven. "Dictator", "not a true leader". I'm not going to say Jordan was a transformational leader. I don't know, and my opinion would be probably not given everything I know. But I'm open to the idea of him being an effective leader. In fact everything I've seen leads me to think he was an effective leader. But I'm treading on rocky terrain since I never experienced it first-hand. So I will leave it to the arm-chair psychiatrists to decipher quotes and the vagueries of the human mind to rate leadership qualities of strangers.

It's also called a dictator style of leadership. Presume and insult all you want, but there's no stories coming out saying how encouraging and inspirational Jordan was to his teammates, at least not directly. Those that were encouraged and inspired by him saw what he did on the court and were envious of his abilities, encouraging and inspiring them to work harder. But that's not leading, that's called modeling -- or a role model in layman terms. Him intimidating and aggressively coercing his teammates into working harder isn't what literature would call positive modeling.

The human mind isn't as vague as you seem to think, which is actually the beauty of progressive science and empirical studies -- at least for what I'm studying. Look into it if you'd like -- I can provide you with some key words to start your search.

PS. Trust me, I wish Jordan was as amazing as casual fans think -- I'm a Bulls fan, and I used to look up to and adore him, but there's a danger in idolizing a single individual completely and entirely. Everyone has their faults. It's not agenda-driven; it's rational thinking.

[smallgains]

lol@ the soft young guys. You wonder why the league is soft now? To mirror the society it exists in. Jordan was a beast and that's why he's the best ever. "Social media of today would be hard on Jordan" LOL.....so soft

[ndee1234]

Hard to criticize MJ when we know the results of his leadership.

[Shot Clock]

It's also called a dictator style of leadership. Presume and insult all you want, but there's no stories coming out saying how encouraging and inspirational Jordan was to his teammates, at least not directly.

Sure there are, people just don't talk about them.

Horace Grant 13:50, there's another part in there where he talks about how Jordan taught him how to be competitive and tough etc.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_aYOQVWSCY[/youtube]

As for leadership. The same style is used heavily in armed forces around the world to great effect. No one questions that type of leadership. It limits freelancing and gets everyone pushing in the same direction.

If he was really such a bad guy there would be a lot less praise for him as a teammate, leader or friend. And no one would be showing up at his breakfast club. I think half the people on here have never been on a competitive team of any sort. Or they'd realize that things sometimes get heated on a team.

"We're the leaders of this team together, but he's in control all the time. He's there whenever anyone needs him."
-- Scottie Pippen, 33, teammate and one of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players.

Kukoc said he always had a good relationship with Jordan—then and now: “We’re good friends and I see him every once in awhile on the golf course.”

Pippen

“Michael and I spent so much time together as players that we never focused on spending time together away from the game,” said Pippen. “But our relationship is still very solid. It’s strong and it’s genuine. I’m happy to see him doing well in life and that he’s healthy. We’re still friends and when we see each other, it’s easy to look back and appreciate our time together.”

Wennington
“Michael was a guy who respected guys he played with, as long as they worked. He expected you to do your job and he’d get frustrated if you took plays off or had mental lapses. Once he does respect you, you’re his friend for life. He always makes time for old teammates when he sees them.”

BJ Armstrong
“So much has been said about Michael Jordan as a basketball player, but when I played with him, the Michael I knew was just Michael,” he said. “I guess more than anything is that I got to experience the human side of the so-called gladiators, warriors and heroes that we worship. Nonetheless, I got a chance to see the human side of all those people. Michael was, and is, a good friend, and he was a great teammate.”

Dunleavy
"From a talent standpoint, he may be better than Jordan was at this stage of his career," says Clippers coach Mike Dunleavy. "The part of his game that he has to get better as opposed to Jordan is in the leadership department, how players respond to him, how he gets along, creating a chemistry. Players loved playing with Jordan.


Phil
“One of the biggest differences between the two stars from my perspective was Michael’s superior skills as a leader,” Jackson said. “Though at times he could be hard on his teammates, Michael was masterful at controlling the emotional climate of the team with the power of his presence. Kobe had a long way to go before he could make that claim. He talked a good game, but he’d yet to experience the cold truth of leadership in his bones, as Michael had.”

Cutino Mobley
When I was a rookie [in Houston], Scottie Pippen told me that Michael would go out with his teammates sometimes. He included guys and balanced everything out.

[Mobby]

Sure there are, people just don't talk about them.

[...]

As for leadership. The same style is used heavily in armed forces around the world to great effect. No one questions that type of leadership. It limits freelancing and gets everyone pushing in the same direction.

If he was really such a bad guy there would be a lot less praise for him as a teammate, leader or friend. And no one would be showing up at his breakfast club. I think half the people on here have never been on a competitive team of any sort. Or they'd realize that things sometimes get heated on a team.

Well first, thanks for that well thought-out and elaborate response.

I don't disagree that he can be a friend, and it seems like with some people (Barkeley not included), he was a pal. Outside of Dunleavy and Phil's quotes though, none of them really emphasize a sense of change of climate. That's why I quoted the idea of "not directly." Sure, as Grant said, Jordan helped him see the idea of how to truly be competitive. In this sense, yes, it influenced and encouraged him to transform, but that doesn't make a transformational leader.

Leadership in general is one thing, but specific styles of leaderships are something else. When I said "he's not a true leader," I meant that he doesn't utilize the full arsenal of a leader. It's like analyzing Player-X, "he's not a true scorer" because the player only catch-and-shoots -- he can't really put it on the floor and create his own shot. He's not utilizing the full arsenal of a scorer. CAN he score? Yes. Is he really a true scorer? Not really, no. However, I don't doubt that Jordan rarely used transformational techniques -- we are all people, we have layers -- but how often did he really use those techniques within the scope of basketball specifically?

In regards to your reference to the military -- of course. In a situation in which you have mortars blowing up beside you and bullets whizzing inches from your ear, you want to have the authoritarian style of leadership. Practices don't require split-second decision making. They're different scenarios.

Imagine casually walking down the street... screeeeeech, BOOM! -- severe car-crash -- someone is wheezing out for help somewhere within the wreckage. You have moments before this individual bleeds out and dies. You yell to someone to call 911, you demand a few bystanders to help you sort through the rubble, and you call out for a doctor. You direct people into action-mode and lead people, with authority, to help sort the situation out. You save an innocent car-crash victim. Good job. You had mere moments to correct the situation, and your authority brought people out of their surprise and anxiety in order to channel their focus into something constructive.

This will work in a game, to bring your teammates into focus, to get a good look at a buzzer-beating shot, but this isn't the approach you take in practice. Practice is not a split-second, win-or-go-home (or live-or-die) situation. Practice is where you transform your game, where you lay your path, brick-by-brick, shot-by-shot. This is where you utilize transformational leadership.

[Shot Clock]

I guess we disagree on that. The military practices like that as well. All the training revolves around it. I've been through both types of leadership as a firefighter and let me tell you in practice if someone is goofing off they are going to get an earful. Some people can take it and some can't. Usually the ones that can't are the ones unwilling to accpet that they are in fact the problem.