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

[VideoGameJames]

As time passes, I find it amusing how much more we find out about how Jordan really was back them. Personally, I think his image would take a major hit in todays social media society.

The Jordan Rules came out in 1992. We've known this stuff about him for a long time.

He was a **** to his teammates. Those that responded well did well, those that didn't wilted away. Take it or leave it, that was MJ's style of leadership.

Which is another way of saying: He's one of many NBA leaders who aren't actually leaders because they are good at leading, they are simply talented at basketball and so they can say whatever the hell they want.

You're not wrong, but the most important component of leadership in my mind is inspiring respect and trust in your followers. People want to follow leaders that exude strength and assuredness, which comes a lot easier if you are naturally talented.

[VideoGameJames]

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.

In the general population amongst average people it probably is, not when it comes to the super elite of the elite in the world. Dictatorial leadership works quite well in situations where fight or flight is to be constantly activated, thats why its employed in the military. Also important to note is who the leadership is coming from, leadership isnt credible if the leader isnt considered worthy of following, before they even utter a single word.

[chitownsports4ever]

A 43 year old parish challenging MJ says more about Parish when you consider

Parish said he should have retired at least two years sooner than he did, a fact that was drilled home to him repeatedly in Bulls workouts. "By the end, Luc Longley and Bill Wennington were killing me in practice," he said. "Clearly I stayed on too long."

So a washed up Parish cant give the Bulls anything when they are trying to repeat and he says he prefers Birds style to Jordans ? so ? The fact remains that Jordan was trying to get young players ready to face Oakley and Mason in the playoffs and if you couldnt take Jordan in practice how could you stand to the long line of teams with the Bulls in there sights ?

[Mobby]

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.

Yeah, but there's a difference between goofing off and messing up while giving it your damndest. I can't say for sure not being there that MJ was cool with someone ****ing up, but I'd say the evidence points otherwise. Of course, there's this -- "I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying." Maybe MJ did practice what he preached, and maybe it's only the dark stories that came to light due to the fact that it makes for a good headline.

In the general population amongst average people it probably is, not when it comes to the super elite of the elite in the world. Dictatorial leadership works quite well in situations where fight or flight is to be constantly activated, thats why its employed in the military. Also important to note is who the leadership is coming from, leadership isnt credible if the leader isnt considered worthy of following, before they even utter a single word.

Are you sure that first sentence is empirically proven? Because from what I understand, only that second sentence is, and to a lesser extent, the third. But in fact, if the leader isn't considered worthy to be followed, the power distance is what comes into play. If there's a a lack of respect but a large power distance, dictatorial leadership is exactly the type of leadership that is employed, and it works out better than the rest due to the fact that the subordinates have to obey the leader -- word for word. Transformational leadership doesn't work on that kind of platform because it's meant to allow the followers to be autonomous and cultivate their strengths and develop into something greater.

[Remember your high school days when you were in a **** job, retail or restaurant or something of the sort, and everyone hated the manager because he was relatively incompetent (or too by-the-book, depending on which you got), yet everyone did everything he said because you guys were all high school kids, and he was a 30-something who got along with the regional manager because he did everything asked of him? Or maybe I'm getting too specific -- but I think you get the point.]

Furthermore, if the leader is considered to be a part of the in-group, as MJ was to his teammates (or at least what he should have been), dictatorial leadership is entirely unnecessary (unless you're within that fight or flight activation mode) and detrimental, especially if you're working with the super elite of the elite who know what they're doing. In order to get the most out of them, they require a sense of autonomy and freedom to explore what works best for them. This is why the laissez-faire leadership style is employed when a manager is working with highly talented individuals.

You want less micro-managing with greater talent, not more.

[HeatFanSince87]

Jordan has become such a mythical being, it's almost comical today. I won't deny, he's pry the best ever, but man, it's enough some time. All we here about is his "competiviness" yet during an interview with Riley during the 91 ECFs, Jordan said his career wouldn't be a failure if he never won a title. Imagine had Lebron said this is the middle of the 2012 ECFs against the celtics. The man would have been DESTROYED by social medial and morons like Skip Bayless for lacking the hunger to win "Jordan had". Or in the same interview, saying he prefered the Blazers over the lakers, because the blazers wouldn't have as much experience as the Lakers. Oh really? That's what the biggest competitor ever says? Give him what he perceives as an easier matchup?

People completely forget how close the Bulls were really to trading Jordan before they finally broke through in 91. They were at a point, they thought they could never win with Jordan and his selfish play.

He also benefited from the fact the dynasty teams like the Lakers, Celtics and Pistons were aging and ending, that had a lot to play into Jordan finally breaking through. All we hear is how easy the east is now for Lebron, but Lebron would get killed today because it would be "well the celtics and pistons are done so it's easy for him now". What if a Jordan came in 80, and his prime didn't happen at the same time to powerhouses like boston and the pistons ended?

I respect Jordan and certain things you can't deny. The man is pry the GOAT, but the media and fans today have turned this guy into a mythical god.

[VideoGameJames]

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.

Yeah, but there's a difference between goofing off and messing up while giving it your damndest. I can't say for sure not being there that MJ was cool with someone ****ing up, but I'd say the evidence points otherwise. Of course, there's this -- "I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying." Maybe MJ did practice what he preached, and maybe it's only the dark stories that came to light due to the fact that it makes for a good headline.

In the general population amongst average people it probably is, not when it comes to the super elite of the elite in the world. Dictatorial leadership works quite well in situations where fight or flight is to be constantly activated, thats why its employed in the military. Also important to note is who the leadership is coming from, leadership isnt credible if the leader isnt considered worthy of following, before they even utter a single word.

Are you sure that first sentence is empirically proven? Because from what I understand, only that second sentence is, and to a lesser extent, the third. But in fact, if the leader isn't considered worthy to be followed, the power distance is what comes into play. If there's a a lack of respect but a large power distance, dictatorial leadership is exactly the type of leadership that is employed, and it works out better than the rest due to the fact that the subordinates have to obey the leader -- word for word. Transformational leadership doesn't work on that kind of platform because it's meant to allow the followers to be autonomous and cultivate their strengths and develop into something greater.

[Remember your high school days when you were in a **** job, retail or restaurant or something of the sort, and everyone hated the manager because he was relatively incompetent (or too by-the-book, depending on which you got), yet everyone did everything he said because you guys were all high school kids, and he was a 30-something who got along with the regional manager because he did everything asked of him? Or maybe I'm getting too specific -- but I think you get the point.]

Furthermore, if the leader is considered to be a part of the in-group, as MJ was to his teammates (or at least what he should have been), dictatorial leadership is entirely unnecessary (unless you're within that fight or flight activation mode) and detrimental, especially if you're working with the super elite of the elite who know what they're doing. In order to get the most out of them, they require a sense of autonomy and freedom to explore what works best for them. This is why the laissez-faire leadership style is employed when a manager is working with highly talented individuals.

You want less micro-managing with greater talent, not more.

I didn't really explain it my point well. What I was getting at was that in the regular world, like the retail job u mention, lower level employees don't have the same goal in mind as the leader/manager. They're just there to get paid and get some work experience so more friction from a harsher leadership style is generally bad for morale/performance beacuse they're not that invested in the leaders fight. Also, the NBA is strictly adult men, which the normal workplace is not. The military drill seargant style leadership is definitely not for the majority of women or adolescents.