A couple of you have misunderstood my point about Lombardi. It was not that yelling at players would work today or that times haven’t changed. Here’s what I wrote: “People are people and human nature hasn’t changed in 60 years. Humans are humans, right? Of course yelling at corporate employees like Lombardi yelled at his players isn’t appropriate but some need tough love and some need encouragement with most in between those extremes. If you attempt to motivate all of them in the same way, you aren’t a good leader IMO.” This was in response to the notion that only positive reinforcement works as a motivator. Lombardi was a master psychologist, using both positive and negative reinforcement. You wrote that negative reinforcement doesn’t work in today’s business world. IMO that is full of ignorance and incorrect. BTW the statement was aimed directly at what you posted, not at corporate America. And if you think the term “middle management” is demeaning, that’s on you.
Ok, you want to play this game... When did I ever use the words positive or negative reinforcement. You call someone names, yet throw words into play never used and completely used in the wrong context. The closest I ever got was an example saying they should work on that route and he will hit him better with it next time. Instead of throwing up your arms and rolling your eyes. (which i will explain later is neither positive or negative reinforcement, just poor body language)
A negative reinforcer is a stimulus event for which an organism
will work in order to terminate, to escape from, to postpone its occurrence. Simple terms... Everyone in the working world lives by these. Such as: don't do your job you will be fired, if you aren't productive you will be traded, say the wrong things you will be gone, and do the wrong thing on the field the NFL can fine you. There is nothing wrong in general and they are widely used, but do any of those scenario which result in negative things happening, make you work harder by themselves... No. They make you avoid the outcome. Not necessarily strive for anything beyond that. They make you skirt a line as to not receive the negative outcome.
A positive reinforcer is a stimulus event for which the animal
will work in order to acquire it. Like earning trust of members around them, additional passes thrown his way, additional media attention, pro bowl recognition, higher pay, getting a cookie after supper if you eat your veggies.
At the end of the day, neither of these things has absolutely anything to do with what I am talking about. Moping around with your head down, screaming at player, rolling eyes. These aren't either positive or negative reinforcement.. they are
pointless displays of frustration by a person who is unable to handle their emotions correctly and serve no purpose to helping the team. I guess depending on what you are screaming it could be one of them. But in general it is just poor body language, poor leadership skills that leads others to take on that same mentality.
They are forgivable in the aspect of life they are small mistakes. But arguing that they are not mistakes is mis-guided.
Hope that helps some...
Sure, that’s why you used your “magic” word. Again, post where I used that word. You’re becoming the king of the straw man argument and exaggeration. You tell Patriotplayer90 he doesn’t “believe leadership matters…” when he wrote no such thing. You attempt to put the word, “magical” in my mouth twice and can’t back it. You post, “you think running people in football is totally unrelated to other aspects of life”, when I posted no such thing. And Again, you made up the idea of my posting ‘business isn’t worthy or up to the standards of pro football” out of whole cloth. And BTW, several sources list David M. Zaslav of Discovery Communications as the highest paid CEO in 2014 with total compensation, including stock and stock options, at about $156M. I doubt you work daily with the CEO of the company that employs you, but even if you do: Aaron Rodgers has signed three NFL contracts totaling over $200M. He’ll receive all of that if his current contract is in force in 2019. He’ll turn 36 that year and may sign another lucrative contract. His endorsement deals also are worth millions. So what you typed, in addition to perhaps showing your obsession with money and status is another example of you exaggerating. BTW, is business only "worthy" in your opinion because of the amount of money people make?
Just to prove you have no idea what you are talking about in business... This is an example as I don't work for Facebook. But there is 1,000 of others like this.
Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook is worth an estimated 46 BILLION dollars. Let's exaggerate since you like that so much and say he started working since the day he was born. He's 31 now.
So simple math:
46,000,000,000 /31 = $1,483,870,967.74
Which is odd because he only pays himself $1 per year... How is this dude surviving only making a dollar per year. Fact is he makes and is worth far more than his income. When Aaron retires, he gets no piece of the the NFL, he is worth what he got paid and nothing more. (obviously sponsorship and things like that)
Has Aaron made over a Billion dollars a year since birth? Will he ever make 1.4 billion dollars which is an extremely low amount.
And since I know you, and you will argue "Well he doesn't "make" that in year... Which is false he does. He can sell it. It's just like if Aaron buys a car and it goes up in value... Sells it off. It's still his money always was.
But another example: To show you just how rich business men are. A CEO a couple years back was forced to retire due to SEC investigation. His severance package was over 1 billion, quite a bit over in fact. He got this in one day.... He was later fined 700 million dollars by said SEC, paid it off in one check and walked away a rich rich man. This did not include the astronomical amounts he had in "salary" which is what you are looking at only. Not net worth. What value you they gain per year. Which is what they technically make and have at there disposal if needed.
On that CEO's taxes that year it will show he "earned" over 1 billion dollars. Which is another example of someone being paid more in 1 year than A-Rod will make in his professional career.
If you could step back and look at this objectively, what would you say about a poster who frequently uses straw man arguments and exaggerates? BTW, this is off topic and just a suggestion based upon what you wrote in post #195: Since you already have a bachelors degree, I suggest you work on an MBA, that would likely impact your career much more than a bachelors degree in business.
My first degree was shortly after I had graduated and was in international relations in Oshkosh as it was something that worked in a variety of government fields. Shortly after I was done I found an entry level job. Then less than 2 years later my son came. With him I am no longer willing to work the long hours away from him which many of the jobs demand, and being away from family would seem to take away from his life so I made a choice to not pursue that further.
Instead I switch careers which I have been at since and I have mentor at work that has put me onto a career path in order to achieve as much possible experience and recognition within the company while I pursue a second bachelors in business which is the building block at my employer for things to come in the future. I'm sure MBA would be valuable addition to any resume and could be an accreditation that I go for in the future since it is only a two year (sometimes 1 year) commitment. But at the current time, given the credits I already have into basic courses from my first degree, and how my company values each of these. 2nd Bachelors was the choice for now. I'm still youngish, so we will see
While I do appreciate your concern for my overall well-being. I have given this quite a bit of thought along the way.
