DevilDon
Inclement Weather Fan
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,393
- Reaction score
- 268
You provide the perfect assessment there.I know I shouldn't, but I can't help myself.
The fact that Woodson started life with a club foot only to become a 4.45 runner is a function of god-given physical ability. No amount of will or work gets you to that speed without what you were born with, club foot or not. Thousands and thousands of players without any physical impairment have worked harder and "willed" harder, and failed, and never had an opportunity to be a leader on the football field, though no fault of their own.
Second, it's only in retrospect that Woodson is viewed as a clubhouse leader. He was always characterized as a somewhat introverted guy, a man of few words, a man playing out on the the island metaphorically and literally. That's not a criticism; elite individual playmaking is often the marginal difference between winning and losing.
Late in the 2010 run it was reported that MM had to prod Woodson to take a more vocal role. I believe it was at that time he addressed the clubhouse for the first time. I also wonder if MM's prodding had more to do with the affect it would have on Woodson than the affect on the team...if he was forced to assume a leadership position it might temper his gambling and freelancing which was on the razor's edge between playmaking and defensive disruption. He was the centerpiece of 2010's organized chaos, on the edge of spinning out into something less effective (see 2011).
This is not to say Woodson was not a leader on the field. That would be hard to determine without some kind of insider commentary beyond "he's a leader". When things are going badly, confidence is flagging and confusion is entering the equation, the guy who can step in that huddle, interject a firm and confident focus, and then back it up with performance qualifies as a leader. The next time circumstances go against the team, the prior performance backs up the new words.
I've got a real problem with these new age definitions of "leadership", at least in the real adult world. There is certainly nothing wrong with thinking everybody should strive to maximize their potential, and that the will and effort to do so will be respected by thinking individuals, be they subordinates, peers or superiors. But that's not leadership. Further, being an example to others (bosses certainly value this highly in their subordinates) does not make a person a "leader" either...it makes them an example.
And while it can be argued that everyone has the potential to be a "leader" to one degree or another, it is impossible for everybody to do so. If everybody is a leader, then there are no followers, in which case there are no leaders. It's something of zero sum game.
DevilDon's military example is the worst he could have possibly chosen. These are command-and-control organizations like no other, with the possible exception of special forces actively engaged in a mission. There are leaders giving orders, there are followers following them. A Silicon Valley start-up with a very flat organization would make for a better argument...but even these organizations typically are steered by charismatic founders and their visions.
Leaders actively influence the behavior of others, and back it with personal performance.
Nobody expected Charles Woodson to be the leader but he became one. He was coached to be one and he was able to learn and use those abilities that define leadership. Charles Woodson wasn't always a leader, he was taught and cajoled to be one. It has no bearing whatsoever on his physical gifts. If they were so inherent in his leadership qualities then he would have been considered a leader long, long ago.
There is no finer example than military leadership. They are in fact command and control organizations and there is less likely to be a more obvious example of leadership's impression.
It would be impossible to define any more "new age" leadership expressions and talk about the military in the same breath. It's history is far older than our great nation and far older than any statesman can hope to have made a difference. In fact, without the military leadership one might question whether Winston Churchill would have had an impact in the world.
Even in a silicon valley start up with any kind of hope for success will have to have leaders. And even you must admit that athletic talent is on the far end of necessities for those jobs.
You have pointed to the worst possible example. Literally thousands of those type of businesses have gone under due to lack of leadership. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that athletic, overachievers are more likely to become leaders? Yep, I think I agree and it's also more likely that ex-military are more likely to become leaders. Why? because it is part and parcel of that job. That is why employers are more likely to employ veterans.
That doesn't diminish the fact that any single pedestrian can become a leader.