serious question about talent.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I don't want to just keep agreeing with Barnacle... but I do.

[triangletiger 1,599]

So, is Lane Kiffin an effective leader?

[johnnyAU 3,634]

Saban's "failure" in the NFL is hilariously over-exaggerated. That Dolphins team was 4-12 the season before he got there, and 1-15 the season after he left. Do his 9-7 and 6-10 seasons still look bad to you by comparison? A 15-17 (.469) career record after two seasons isn't even poor by NFL standards; there are head coaches that kick around the league for ~10+ seasons with .500 (or worse) career records. Bill Belichick was 36-44 (.450) in his 5 seasons with the Browns before he landed the Patriots job.

Saban left because the college game suited his desires and ambitions better, as he obviously craves control. He didn't leave the NFL because he "couldn't hack it". Its possible that he would have flamed out regardless dealing with NFL players/executives, but his 15-17 record after two seasons certainly doesn't confirm that.

I could give a crap about the record. NFL players don't play to lose no matter who their coach is. Go back to anyone involved with that team and try to find one person who would say something positive about him. That's a failure of leadership.

Look... you can all believe whatever you want but there have been deep analytical/statistical studies about what makes a truly great leader and what they found was that there were two requirements for a great leader. The internal component is something that every football coach has, direction, confidence (all though, this is supposed to be without arrogance, and most coaches fail there), and are comfortable with who they are. The external component is the point of failure. Great leaders all put others first. The are open, respectful, and generous with their people. This is where Saban fails in spades. Everything he does is about him and he does absolutely nothing to hide that fact. If what people say about Gus not listening to his staff is true, then that is Gus's point of failure, too, and if he doesn't fix it, he won't ever be a great leader either, even though he very outwardly puts his players first.

There... done ranting. You have the facts. Do with them as you may.

Lion, I appreciate your commitment to your position. I think you are misapplying some facts to support your conclusion. The problem is that most of the studies on leadership you are talking about describe attributes that great leaders have in common, but that aren't requisite to being an effective leader. In other words, they'll study 12 CEOs who have been successful in building good companies into great companies (e.g. Good to Great by James Collins). From there they look at what these different CEOs have in common. You aren't wrong in saying that great leaders are generally motivated to do what is best for the team, or show humility. However, those aren't qualities that in it of themselves make a person a great leader. Those are just qualities that great leaders have in common. After all, what these studies do is start with leaders who have been effective in their field or practice. The goal is to figure out WHY they are effective. Then people like us can help become and identify better leaders. They conclude that characteristics like humility are common among effective leaders, and if you want to be a good leader you should probably be humble (among MANY other things). What they don't conclude is that in order to be a good leader you MUST be humble. They don't say "You aren't humble, therefore you are not effective leader."

Would Nick Saban be more effective if he showed more humility? The studies would suggest probably, yes. However, we are talking about one of the most effective leaders to ever coach college football. None of his characteristics, or lack thereof change that simple fact.

He wasn't nearly as effective a leader, when he didn't have the top recruiting class in the country every year.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Saban's "failure" in the NFL is hilariously over-exaggerated. That Dolphins team was 4-12 the season before he got there, and 1-15 the season after he left. Do his 9-7 and 6-10 seasons still look bad to you by comparison? A 15-17 (.469) career record after two seasons isn't even poor by NFL standards; there are head coaches that kick around the league for ~10+ seasons with .500 (or worse) career records. Bill Belichick was 36-44 (.450) in his 5 seasons with the Browns before he landed the Patriots job.

Saban left because the college game suited his desires and ambitions better, as he obviously craves control. He didn't leave the NFL because he "couldn't hack it". Its possible that he would have flamed out regardless dealing with NFL players/executives, but his 15-17 record after two seasons certainly doesn't confirm that.

I could give a crap about the record. NFL players don't play to lose no matter who their coach is. Go back to anyone involved with that team and try to find one person who would say something positive about him. That's a failure of leadership.

Look... you can all believe whatever you want but there have been deep analytical/statistical studies about what makes a truly great leader and what they found was that there were two requirements for a great leader. The internal component is something that every football coach has, direction, confidence (all though, this is supposed to be without arrogance, and most coaches fail there), and are comfortable with who they are. The external component is the point of failure. Great leaders all put others first. The are open, respectful, and generous with their people. This is where Saban fails in spades. Everything he does is about him and he does absolutely nothing to hide that fact. If what people say about Gus not listening to his staff is true, then that is Gus's point of failure, too, and if he doesn't fix it, he won't ever be a great leader either, even though he very outwardly puts his players first.

There... done ranting. You have the facts. Do with them as you may.

Lion, I appreciate your commitment to your position. I think you are misapplying some facts to support your conclusion. The problem is that most of the studies on leadership you are talking about describe attributes that great leaders have in common, but that aren't requisite to being an effective leader. In other words, they'll study 12 CEOs who have been successful in building good companies into great companies (e.g. Good to Great by James Collins). From there they look at what these different CEOs have in common. You aren't wrong in saying that great leaders are generally motivated to do what is best for the team, or show humility. However, those aren't qualities that in it of themselves make a person a great leader. Those are just qualities that great leaders have in common. After all, what these studies do is start with leaders who have been effective in their field or practice. The goal is to figure out WHY they are effective. Then people like us can help become and identify better leaders. They conclude that characteristics like humility are common among effective leaders, and if you want to be a good leader you should probably be humble (among MANY other things). What they don't conclude is that in order to be a good leader you MUST be humble. They don't say "You aren't humble, therefore you are not effective leader."

Would Nick Saban be more effective if he showed more humility? The studies would suggest probably, yes. However, we are talking about one of the most effective leaders to ever coach college football. None of his characteristics, or lack thereof change that simple fact.

He wasn't nearly as effective a leader, when he didn't have the top recruiting class in the country every year.

Of course not, but he was also younger and less experienced. And he did win a national title at LSU. It's not like he was 5-19 before being served Football Jesus on a silver platter. Gene Chizik, btw, is a leader. Not as good of a leader as saban, but he is a leader.

[cole256 17,084]

Saban's "failure" in the NFL is hilariously over-exaggerated. That Dolphins team was 4-12 the season before he got there, and 1-15 the season after he left. Do his 9-7 and 6-10 seasons still look bad to you by comparison? A 15-17 (.469) career record after two seasons isn't even poor by NFL standards; there are head coaches that kick around the league for ~10+ seasons with .500 (or worse) career records. Bill Belichick was 36-44 (.450) in his 5 seasons with the Browns before he landed the Patriots job.

Saban left because the college game suited his desires and ambitions better, as he obviously craves control. He didn't leave the NFL because he "couldn't hack it". Its possible that he would have flamed out regardless dealing with NFL players/executives, but his 15-17 record after two seasons certainly doesn't confirm that.

I could give a crap about the record. NFL players don't play to lose no matter who their coach is. Go back to anyone involved with that team and try to find one person who would say something positive about him. That's a failure of leadership.

Look... you can all believe whatever you want but there have been deep analytical/statistical studies about what makes a truly great leader and what they found was that there were two requirements for a great leader. The internal component is something that every football coach has, direction, confidence (all though, this is supposed to be without arrogance, and most coaches fail there), and are comfortable with who they are. The external component is the point of failure. Great leaders all put others first. The are open, respectful, and generous with their people. This is where Saban fails in spades. Everything he does is about him and he does absolutely nothing to hide that fact. If what people say about Gus not listening to his staff is true, then that is Gus's point of failure, too, and if he doesn't fix it, he won't ever be a great leader either, even though he very outwardly puts his players first.

There... done ranting. You have the facts. Do with them as you may.

Those were opinions

[cole256 17,084]

I don't want to just keep agreeing with Barnacle... but I do.

Barnacle originally came in and agreed with me so.....You're welcome!

[cole256 17,084]

Saban's "failure" in the NFL is hilariously over-exaggerated. That Dolphins team was 4-12 the season before he got there, and 1-15 the season after he left. Do his 9-7 and 6-10 seasons still look bad to you by comparison? A 15-17 (.469) career record after two seasons isn't even poor by NFL standards; there are head coaches that kick around the league for ~10+ seasons with .500 (or worse) career records. Bill Belichick was 36-44 (.450) in his 5 seasons with the Browns before he landed the Patriots job.

Saban left because the college game suited his desires and ambitions better, as he obviously craves control. He didn't leave the NFL because he "couldn't hack it". Its possible that he would have flamed out regardless dealing with NFL players/executives, but his 15-17 record after two seasons certainly doesn't confirm that.

I could give a crap about the record. NFL players don't play to lose no matter who their coach is. Go back to anyone involved with that team and try to find one person who would say something positive about him. That's a failure of leadership.

Look... you can all believe whatever you want but there have been deep analytical/statistical studies about what makes a truly great leader and what they found was that there were two requirements for a great leader. The internal component is something that every football coach has, direction, confidence (all though, this is supposed to be without arrogance, and most coaches fail there), and are comfortable with who they are. The external component is the point of failure. Great leaders all put others first. The are open, respectful, and generous with their people. This is where Saban fails in spades. Everything he does is about him and he does absolutely nothing to hide that fact. If what people say about Gus not listening to his staff is true, then that is Gus's point of failure, too, and if he doesn't fix it, he won't ever be a great leader either, even though he very outwardly puts his players first.

There... done ranting. You have the facts. Do with them as you may.

Lion, I appreciate your commitment to your position. I think you are misapplying some facts to support your conclusion. The problem is that most of the studies on leadership you are talking about describe attributes that great leaders have in common, but that aren't requisite to being an effective leader. In other words, they'll study 12 CEOs who have been successful in building good companies into great companies (e.g. Good to Great by James Collins). From there they look at what these different CEOs have in common. You aren't wrong in saying that great leaders are generally motivated to do what is best for the team, or show humility. However, those aren't qualities that in it of themselves make a person a great leader. Those are just qualities that great leaders have in common. After all, what these studies do is start with leaders who have been effective in their field or practice. The goal is to figure out WHY they are effective. Then people like us can help become and identify better leaders. They conclude that characteristics like humility are common among effective leaders, and if you want to be a good leader you should probably be humble (among MANY other things). What they don't conclude is that in order to be a good leader you MUST be humble. They don't say "You aren't humble, therefore you are not effective leader."

Would Nick Saban be more effective if he showed more humility? The studies would suggest probably, yes. However, we are talking about one of the most effective leaders to ever coach college football. None of his characteristics, or lack thereof change that simple fact.

He wasn't nearly as effective a leader, when he didn't have the top recruiting class in the country every year.

Name one coach that consistently won without talent

[Barnacle 9,064]

I don't want to just keep agreeing with Barnacle... but I do.

Barnacle originally came in and agreed with me so.....You're welcome!

Did I?

[cole256 17,084]

I don't want to just keep agreeing with Barnacle... but I do.

Barnacle originally came in and agreed with me so.....You're welcome!

Did I?

Now you want to make me look bad....yes the first person to even question this leadership non sense was me. True story, look and see! Thanks for the help though! We're not friends anymore!

[Barnacle 9,064]

I don't want to just keep agreeing with Barnacle... but I do.

Barnacle originally came in and agreed with me so.....You're welcome!

Did I?

Now you want to make me look bad....yes the first person to even question this leadership non sense was me. True story, look and d

Not trying to make you look bad Cole, and lion and I were having a back and forth on leadership long before you chimed in. I do agree with you though!

[cole256 17,084]

I don't want to just keep agreeing with Barnacle... but I do.

Barnacle originally came in and agreed with me so.....You're welcome!

Did I?

Now you want to make me look bad....yes the first person to even question this leadership non sense was me. True story, look and d

Not trying to make you look bad Cole, and lion and I were having a back and forth on leadership long before you chimed in. I do agree with you though!

Yeah I guess you right, I just put a focus on the leadership part. It was the craziest thing I've heard. All the other stuff you were talking about was a little too deep for me. But ok barnacle you win against me too. I'll be back though!

[Barnacle 9,064]

I don't want to just keep agreeing with Barnacle... but I do.

Barnacle originally came in and agreed with me so.....You're welcome!

Did I?

Now you want to make me look bad....yes the first person to even question this leadership non sense was me. True story, look and d

Not trying to make you look bad Cole, and lion and I were having a back and forth on leadership long before you chimed in. I do agree with you though!

Yeah I guess you right, I just put a focus on the leadership part. It was the craziest thing I've heard. All the other stuff you were talking about was a little too deep for me. But ok barnacle you win against me too. I'll be back though!

Dude I just hope we can still be friends. You aren't someone whose bad side I prefer to be on!

[lionheartkc 6,150]

Lion, I appreciate your commitment to your position. I think you are misapplying some facts to support your conclusion. The problem is that most of the studies on leadership you are talking about describe attributes that great leaders have in common, but that aren't requisite to being an effective leader. In other words, they'll study 12 CEOs who have been successful in building good companies into great companies (e.g. Good to Great by James Collins). From there they look at what these different CEOs have in common. You aren't wrong in saying that great leaders are generally motivated to do what is best for the team, or show humility. However, those aren't qualities that in it of themselves make a person a great leader. Those are just qualities that great leaders have in common. After all, what these studies do is start with leaders who have been effective in their field or practice. The goal is to figure out WHY they are effective. Then people like us can help become and identify better leaders. They conclude that characteristics like humility are common among effective leaders, and if you want to be a good leader you should probably be humble (among MANY other things). What they don't conclude is that in order to be a good leader you MUST be humble. They don't say "You aren't humble, therefore you are not effective leader."

Would Nick Saban be more effective if he showed more humility? The studies would suggest probably, yes. However, we are talking about one of the most effective leaders to ever coach college football. None of his characteristics, or lack thereof change that simple fact.

No, the study I'm talking about studied several thousand effective leaders who had gone through an advanced leadership retreat over several years and took into account personality tests, 360 degree assessments, and various other forms of quantifiable analysis. These results were then analyzed statistically and what was determined is that the only two things that stood out as common traits among these leaders with their internal strength and outward focus.

So, again, I stand by my belief that you can be a self-centered jerk and be a successful manager, but you will never be a good leader because people will only follow you so far, and they are doing it for personal gain, not because you are leading the way. If something goes wrong... you're on your own. There is no loyalty when you manage with power vs leading with compassion.

[Barnacle 9,064]

No, the study I'm talking about studied several thousand effective leaders who had gone through an advanced leadership retreat over several years and took into account personality tests, 360 degree assessments, and various other forms of quantifiable analysis. These results were then analyzed statistically and what was determined is that the only two things that stood out as common traits among these leaders with their internal strength and outward focus.

Right, but my point is that these studies aren't evaluating if a person is an effective leader. They are choosing effective leaders by some other metric first, then evaluating them. So, again they are just characteristics which are common to effective leaders, not necessarily the source of their effectiveness.

Merriam Webster defines leader as "a person who has a commanding authority or influence." Merriam Webster defines effective as "successful in producing a desired or intended result." I don't think there's any argument as to whether or not Nick Saban is the leader of the Alabama football team. I don't think there is any debate on whether or not he has been effective in accomplishing their desired and intended result of winning championships. Thus, by definition he is an effective leader.

If you think that you MUST lead with compassion/humility/etc. to be an effective leader, then consider the context. It matters what people are being led toward. It matters what their goals are. If I'm in a war, my main concern is probably going to be accomplishing the mission without me or any of my friends dying. Pretty simple. If I've got a choice between General Compassion and the General with the best track record for accomplishing missions with the least amount of casualties, guess who I'm going to follow? People follow Nick Saban because he get's people where they want to go. His assistants go on to fantastic positions. His players go to the NFL. Everyone enjoys the winning, and he gets the credit. He says "follow me, and this will happen." Then it happens, and at a greater frequency than anyone else making those same promises. People don't follow him because they are scared of him - they follow him because they know if they listen, they have a greater chance of accomplishing their goals. Maybe fear is sometimes used as a motivator, but a healthy amount of fear is a good thing. We know it's not an unhealthy amount of fear, because people overcome with fear can't perform. His players don't have that problem.

If you still think that results don't matter, or that helping people accomplish their goals isn't leadership, and that only the criteria you've listed matter then I would submit this: Either those traits are descriptors only, or Nick Saban has more of those traits than he gets credit for. Either way, being a profane, self-promoting, hard-nosed, autocratic, discipline oriented leader doesn't make you ineffective, or bad. General Patton was all of those things and is considered to be one of the greatest leaders of modern times.

[DAG 33,997]

No, the study I'm talking about studied several thousand effective leaders who had gone through an advanced leadership retreat over several years and took into account personality tests, 360 degree assessments, and various other forms of quantifiable analysis. These results were then analyzed statistically and what was determined is that the only two things that stood out as common traits among these leaders with their internal strength and outward focus.

Right, but my point is that these studies aren't evaluating if a person is an effective leader. They are choosing effective leaders by some other metric first, then evaluating them. So, again they are just characteristics which are common to effective leaders, not necessarily the source of their effectiveness.

Merriam Webster defines leader as "a person who has a commanding authority or influence." Merriam Webster defines effective as "successful in producing a desired or intended result." I don't think there's any argument as to whether or not Nick Saban is the leader of the Alabama football team. I don't think there is any debate on whether or not he has been effective in accomplishing their desired and intended result of winning championships. Thus, by definition he is an effective leader.

If you think that you MUST lead with compassion/humility/etc. to be an effective leader, then consider the context. It matters what people are being led toward. It matters what their goals are. If I'm in a war, my main concern is probably going to be accomplishing the mission without me or any of my friends dying. Pretty simple. If I've got a choice between General Compassion and the General with the best track record for accomplishing missions with the least amount of casualties, guess who I'm going to follow? People follow Nick Saban because he get's people where they want to go. His assistants go on to fantastic positions. His players go to the NFL. Everyone enjoys the winning, and he gets the credit. He says "follow me, and this will happen." Then it happens, and at a greater frequency than anyone else making those same promises. People don't follow him because they are scared of him - they follow him because they know if they listen, they have a greater chance of accomplishing their goals. Maybe fear is sometimes used as a motivator, but a healthy amount of fear is a good thing. We know it's not an unhealthy amount of fear, because people overcome with fear can't perform. His players don't have that problem.

If you still think that results don't matter, or that helping people accomplish their goals isn't leadership, and that only the criteria you've listed matter then I would submit this: Either those traits are descriptors only, or Nick Saban has more of those traits than he gets credit for. Either way, being a profane, self-promoting, hard-nosed, autocratic, discipline oriented leader doesn't make you ineffective, or bad. General Patton was all of those things and is considered to be one of the greatest leaders of modern times.

I honestly read all of this. This is damn good stuff.

[autig90 67]

No, the study I'm talking about studied several thousand effective leaders who had gone through an advanced leadership retreat over several years and took into account personality tests, 360 degree assessments, and various other forms of quantifiable analysis. These results were then analyzed statistically and what was determined is that the only two things that stood out as common traits among these leaders with their internal strength and outward focus.

Right, but my point is that these studies aren't evaluating if a person is an effective leader. They are choosing effective leaders by some other metric first, then evaluating them. So, again they are just characteristics which are common to effective leaders, not necessarily the source of their effectiveness.

Merriam Webster defines leader as "a person who has a commanding authority or influence." Merriam Webster defines effective as "successful in producing a desired or intended result." I don't think there's any argument as to whether or not Nick Saban is the leader of the Alabama football team. I don't think there is any debate on whether or not he has been effective in accomplishing their desired and intended result of winning championships. Thus, by definition he is an effective leader.

If you think that you MUST lead with compassion/humility/etc. to be an effective leader, then consider the context. It matters what people are being led toward. It matters what their goals are. If I'm in a war, my main concern is probably going to be accomplishing the mission without me or any of my friends dying. Pretty simple. If I've got a choice between General Compassion and the General with the best track record for accomplishing missions with the least amount of casualties, guess who I'm going to follow? People follow Nick Saban because he get's people where they want to go. His assistants go on to fantastic positions. His players go to the NFL. Everyone enjoys the winning, and he gets the credit. He says "follow me, and this will happen." Then it happens, and at a greater frequency than anyone else making those same promises. People don't follow him because they are scared of him - they follow him because they know if they listen, they have a greater chance of accomplishing their goals. Maybe fear is sometimes used as a motivator, but a healthy amount of fear is a good thing. We know it's not an unhealthy amount of fear, because people overcome with fear can't perform. His players don't have that problem.

If you still think that results don't matter, or that helping people accomplish their goals isn't leadership, and that only the criteria you've listed matter then I would submit this: Either those traits are descriptors only, or Nick Saban has more of those traits than he gets credit for. Either way, being a profane, self-promoting, hard-nosed, autocratic, discipline oriented leader doesn't make you ineffective, or bad. General Patton was all of those things and is considered to be one of the greatest leaders of modern times.

Extremely well thought out post - are you on the right forum?

[McLoofus 35,182]

Smart to be nice to Barnacle. You might need good representation someday.

[FoundationEagle 637]

He leaves MSU and they don't win 10 games in a season until ten years later...smh

Amazing....and he did it once. SMH. So did Chizik.

Chizik did it at a school that had quite a few ten win seasons beforehand. You want to guess how many 10 win seasons MSU had pre saban? Or do you want to bow out?

He had one spike season. One, and bolted. He didn't build a program. He had one good season...and jumped for the money.

Good choice.

Yes it was. He wasn't going to continue that success and he knew it. He wasn't going to get the elite players he needed to contend, which is the key factor.

No good choice on you bowing out. Only a fool would stay at a place, when there is opportunity for greener pastures. I mean didn't Gus do the same thing at Arkansas state?

It was a good choice...but he hardly built a program. They were right back at 6-6 after he left, which is likely where he'd have been had he stayed. That's the whole point. He was judged on one good year.

I never said he built the program. I said under his tenure they were a 10 win team, something they hadn't accomplished since 1965. Once he left, it was a full decade before they won 10 games again. Those aren't assumptions. Those are real facts. He was judged on one good year, huh?

How did that judgement go? Several NCs later...

Yes he was at the time..Nah, I'll strike that last bit. I think you might even get the idea.

Yes, NS is the best college football coach bar none in my generation. When will you get this?

You sure are extremely serious when it comes to defending saban... Don't know that I've ever see you this passionate about anything good at Auburn. They say when you've found a mans passion, you've found his heart. Wonder what that means

[keesler 5,924]

No, the study I'm talking about studied several thousand effective leaders who had gone through an advanced leadership retreat over several years and took into account personality tests, 360 degree assessments, and various other forms of quantifiable analysis. These results were then analyzed statistically and what was determined is that the only two things that stood out as common traits among these leaders with their internal strength and outward focus.

Right, but my point is that these studies aren't evaluating if a person is an effective leader. They are choosing effective leaders by some other metric first, then evaluating them. So, again they are just characteristics which are common to effective leaders, not necessarily the source of their effectiveness.

Merriam Webster defines leader as "a person who has a commanding authority or influence." Merriam Webster defines effective as "successful in producing a desired or intended result." I don't think there's any argument as to whether or not Nick Saban is the leader of the Alabama football team. I don't think there is any debate on whether or not he has been effective in accomplishing their desired and intended result of winning championships. Thus, by definition he is an effective leader.

If you think that you MUST lead with compassion/humility/etc. to be an effective leader, then consider the context. It matters what people are being led toward. It matters what their goals are. If I'm in a war, my main concern is probably going to be accomplishing the mission without me or any of my friends dying. Pretty simple. If I've got a choice between General Compassion and the General with the best track record for accomplishing missions with the least amount of casualties, guess who I'm going to follow? People follow Nick Saban because he get's people where they want to go. His assistants go on to fantastic positions. His players go to the NFL. Everyone enjoys the winning, and he gets the credit. He says "follow me, and this will happen." Then it happens, and at a greater frequency than anyone else making those same promises. People don't follow him because they are scared of him - they follow him because they know if they listen, they have a greater chance of accomplishing their goals. Maybe fear is sometimes used as a motivator, but a healthy amount of fear is a good thing. We know it's not an unhealthy amount of fear, because people overcome with fear can't perform. His players don't have that problem.

If you still think that results don't matter, or that helping people accomplish their goals isn't leadership, and that only the criteria you've listed matter then I would submit this: Either those traits are descriptors only, or Nick Saban has more of those traits than he gets credit for. Either way, being a profane, self-promoting, hard-nosed, autocratic, discipline oriented leader doesn't make you ineffective, or bad. General Patton was all of those things and is considered to be one of the greatest leaders of modern times.

I read this and then read it again. Good work man!

PS: I'm picking that jackass Patton to lead me through battle every damn time - I don't give a hoot if he has compassion for me or not, I want him leading me in the trenches.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

Right, but my point is that these studies aren't evaluating if a person is an effective leader. They are choosing effective leaders by some other metric first, then evaluating them. So, again they are just characteristics which are common to effective leaders, not necessarily the source of their effectiveness.

Merriam Webster defines leader as "a person who has a commanding authority or influence." Merriam Webster defines effective as "successful in producing a desired or intended result." I don't think there's any argument as to whether or not Nick Saban is the leader of the Alabama football team. I don't think there is any debate on whether or not he has been effective in accomplishing their desired and intended result of winning championships. Thus, by definition he is an effective leader.

If you think that you MUST lead with compassion/humility/etc. to be an effective leader, then consider the context. It matters what people are being led toward. It matters what their goals are. If I'm in a war, my main concern is probably going to be accomplishing the mission without me or any of my friends dying. Pretty simple. If I've got a choice between General Compassion and the General with the best track record for accomplishing missions with the least amount of casualties, guess who I'm going to follow? People follow Nick Saban because he get's people where they want to go. His assistants go on to fantastic positions. His players go to the NFL. Everyone enjoys the winning, and he gets the credit. He says "follow me, and this will happen." Then it happens, and at a greater frequency than anyone else making those same promises. People don't follow him because they are scared of him - they follow him because they know if they listen, they have a greater chance of accomplishing their goals. Maybe fear is sometimes used as a motivator, but a healthy amount of fear is a good thing. We know it's not an unhealthy amount of fear, because people overcome with fear can't perform. His players don't have that problem.

If you still think that results don't matter, or that helping people accomplish their goals isn't leadership, and that only the criteria you've listed matter then I would submit this: Either those traits are descriptors only, or Nick Saban has more of those traits than he gets credit for. Either way, being a profane, self-promoting, hard-nosed, autocratic, discipline oriented leader doesn't make you ineffective, or bad. General Patton was all of those things and is considered to be one of the greatest leaders of modern times.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I do want to emphasize one point. Examples of leaders who are "profane, self-promoting, hard-nosed, autocratic, and discipline oriented" don't often include them facing a failure. Why is this? Because when a "leader" who is those things is not achieving the goal that caused everyone to follow them, they lose their people. When the people who jump in behind someone like that, and that person fails in the task, then no one is there to support them to get back in the game. That is the key reason why compassion and humility are paramount. Because you can't count on continued success and you need someone who is going to keep the troops motivated even when the goal is less certain. Many a company fails because the man in charge is arrogant and his team feels no motivation to step in when the going gets rough. If you dig deep enough, you will find that a lot of the truly successful hard nosed people in charge have a "people person" in close proximity handling that side of the equation.

A minor example of this in Saban's tenure is both the 2008 and 2013 seasons. In both cases, they lost their last game of the season (be it the Iron Bowl or the SEC Championship), and it both cases it was widely felt that at least a portion of the team phoned it in for their bowl game. Why? Because they had no chance to reach their goal, and they don't win for Saban or even for bama... they win for themselves and they were deflated. I'm sure their attitudes weren't bolstered by the fact that, every time they lose, the first thing Saban does is blame them for not preparing well enough instead of considering that maybe his game plan was lacking or, god forbid, the other team was just better.

If it ever came to pass that bama lost 2-3 games early in a season, I would not be surprised at all to see the team go to pieces, because there was nothing to play for and no ingrained loyalty. And if Saban ever had a season like Gus had last year, you can bet that the entire bama nation would turn on him in a heartbeat.

Side note... World War II is a not a good comparison. Most people who followed Patton didn't chose to be there and didn't have the choice to leave. They were drafted and would go to prison if they deserted. In a case like that, hell ya you're going to follow the best strategist no matter how they treated you, because your end result is life or death. I will tell you this... My grandfather, who served in England, France, and Germany during the war had no love for Patton and some of the things he did that achieved his goal but often left a mess in his wake that cost others lives. Still... when your job is to kill people, compassion doesn't really fit unless you can twist your mind enough to truly believe that one life is better than another.

Fast forward to desert storm. I've personally talked to several soldiers who made it a point to NOT protect their commanding officer because, no matter how effective they were in meeting their goals, they didn't believe he had their best interest in mind.

Mutiny is not limited to ships in the 1700s.

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

Does anyone on this board have a real job?

[McLoofus 35,182]

Does anyone on this board have a real job?

'Office Space' really spoke to me. That's all I'll say about that.

[Barnacle 9,064]

No real job here, summer clerkships thay involve me sitting through court all day.

[bigbird 60,571]

Does anyone on this board have a real job? :wareagle:/>

Just looked out my window, kids lifting and running. Seems like I'm done for the day.

[AURex 2,016]

Does anyone on this board have a real job?

I have a real job, and thankfully, it does not require that I punch a clock or take orders from anyone else.