Quote:
Originally Posted by FAN
There is a difference between not being an accomplished hockey player (which has a lot to do with physical ability) and not playing hockey at all.
Feaster is a guy who NEVER had ice skates on with a hockey stick in hand prior to becoming the GM of the Hershey Bears. I bet every one of us who grew up in North America have played dodgeball more than Feaster has played ice hockey.
Feaster has certainly been involved with this game for a long time but he has made no effort to learn the talent evaluation aspect of the business. The GM of this team doesn't even go on scouting trips. So most decisions, including important ones, are made without Feaster confirming it with his own eyes. You want to hire a supervisor who doesn't supervise? If you want a guy like that making important decisions that's fine. I don't.
|
I use to think like this until I got a job that required a lot of management analysis (yes its an actual job; I got paid to meet and analyze managers and executive strategy and processes). And, what you find is that there are 2 basic systems of decision making:
1) The superstar
2) The Team
Both these systems require strong leadership.
I think Sutter was a Superstar; look at his coaching record. Top notch. Look at this first years in Calgary; top notch trades. The guy is incredibly knowledgabl about hockey, seeing talent, developing talent, and pushign buttons. He's a star. There is no doubt about it. But left unchecked, its not always stable. Its hard to keep superstars in check. Talent, luck, and opportunity leads to successes, and successes lead to more slack to make decisions, which leads to more success because the star is less constainted, leading to more slack. But at some point, human nature is such that hubris can develop. And hubris leads to poor decisions, which can quickly snowball into cluster-puck. Which is exactly what happened.
Now we have a different kind of leadership. Is feaster a star? No. But he doesn't act like one, and his leadership style doesn't require him to be one. His leadership style requires his ability to create a decision making system that collects, analyzes and synthesizes information at a high quality level. He relies on his qualitative and quantitative scouts more, on his capologist, on his special assistant, and assistant GM. He seeks input from coaches. He doesn't have to be Sutter to be a better GM if he can better utilize the people, processes and expertise around him.
I'm not saying Feaster is amazing at his leadership style, or that he's terrible. Im just pointing out that his leadership style does have proven merit. You knock a few less home-runs out of the park than the star, but when you do swing you're more likely to hit. And you're less likely to blow up.