Quote:
Originally Posted by burnitdown
That's funny - reading your example, I view it totally different. If one of the best workers in a company is introverted and skips xmas parties and team potlucks, I wouldn't care at all. I definitely wouldn't jump to - let's fire this person cause they don't fit in!
|
I think you are both right though. It's not one or the other, it's a sum of the parts story. Does the anti social employee in this example, anit social behaviour impact the performance of the rest of the employees and the greater team?
Team chemistry is a thing in hockey for sure, so there is definetely some correlation between individuals and their fit (regardless or talent) and the teams overall performance. But, it's likely a wide range, based on a number of factors. How much better would the Flames have been if Dougie "fit in better"........if you believe the stories? And are we better off without him, given how good he was, but wasn't fitting in?
Answer is likely it depends, but this is where the NHL and regular joe work analogies fall apart. Unlike in your or my work, the Flames can actually ship Douggie elsewhere for different workers.
Clearly the Flames felt what ever Dougie's value was as the most talented player in the trade (but his overall performance being diminished, even if only minorly by not fitting in) + Ferland was not as good as the return of replacing him with a lesser D-man (for now) and an upgrade to our forward depth + the potential for better locker room chemistry.
Only time will tell if true. But the point is, it's not as simple to say the Flames viewed Douggie's lack of fit more important than his talent...........it was the sum of all of it, plus the sum of the return that made them think this would be a positive move for the club.