"Lack of Leadership"

Submitted by LKLIII on
Since I've never played on a football team, and since I certainly don't know anybody in or around our football program, I am largely ignorant and have a general question. Hopefully the board can help me out here:

Over the past year or two, we've heard general euphemisms regarding a "lack of leadership" in the team. What---specifically--does this mean?

The reason I ask is because although I haven't been around our program and I haven't been on a football team, I have been on other sports teams. And the successful ones had just the right balance of chemistry between work ethic, encouragement, but then guys keeping each other accountable also, but in a way that doesn't generate resentments and cliques within the team. Obviously with a large team some closer groups of friends will form, but at least you don't want animosity between groups. But at the same time teams need to keep things loose and fun so it isn't merely a brutal grind day in & day out to the point where people get burned out or dread every day of practice.

It's a complex balancing act, which means when people say "a lack of leadership" it could be a whole host of issues.

Is it a lack of work ethic? Are the guys partying too hard, not holding each other (including themselves) accountable, and suffering from BMOC disease? Or is it the opposite? Are guys taking things too seriously, wound up too tight to the point where there's no comradarie and team pride, and back-biting, blame shifting, practices are just grinds where everybody is on edge, etc?

Again, I'm by no stretch an insider, nor do I know the dynamic of the team currently. But I kept hearing the "lack of leadership" euphemism over last year, once in a blue moon you get hints from certain players in the media that we didn't "play like a family" but otherwise the euphemism stays just that--a euphemism.

And I don't want to air dirty laundry or stir things up regarding specific players on this board. I'm just wondering what people were referring to specifically with our team over the past year or two when they say "lack of leadership". Is it one or two common problems we keep having? Or just a hodgepodge of small reasons? Could people use concrete examples--even if specific player names are not used (example: player X does this; player Y and Z respond by doing that).

Wolfman

June 17th, 2014 at 1:15 AM ^

but I think there are a few things to be added. Like he, I am coming at it from a coaching standpoint, although only at the h.s. level. Nonethless, leadership and chemistry are not isolated prerequeisites to D1 sports, but every sport ever played for anything other than basic instruction such as T Ball. When it becomes competitive, leadership will evolve through leaders but this is where you, the coach, must be careful.  Leaders are not created equally. Some have their own interests at heart and then there are those you want leading your team. It's not a difficult chore to decide which is which. It normally takes one maybe two practices to see who's patting others on the shoulder after completing a perfectly executed drill, pass, catch, etc., and the other who will, just like the other, be one of your standout performers, but has no real interest in doing anything more than carrying out his assignments to perfection but does neither understands or cares about the concept of chemistry and chemistry is built by your true leader, the one that understands 11 pieces complete the puzzle and the puzzle is perfect when all 11 parts are working as one.  The second type is the most dangerous as to developing unity because far too often he is also egocentric and has the power, if not checked, to divide the team. 

This is where the psychological aspect comes in as mentioned above. A good coach will be able to identify different personalities and no matter how much you may wish otherwise, you will have a team full of followers.  This in itself is not a bad thing because the best followers ultimately become the best leaders.  From the very first meeting you speak in terms of unit, team, machine, family, any word that describes one thing based on a collection of parts.  If the bad apple does not join suit, which if led properly he will, you really have no choice but to dismiss him because he's more suited to an individual sport.  As stated above, he is a leader and others will follow. If he's not there they cannot follow.  Most times though, he will buy in and you can actually sell him on his importance to the team, through simple one-on-one conversations, and convincing him that with his "leadership" the team will become a great one. You don't have to do this with No. 1, as decribed above because he does it naturally.  There is nothing greater than having a team full of leaders and this is not all that difficult to accomplish because by each member doing their job and completing their assignments according to the criteria you estasblished they are, in effect, leading all those that are substituting for them as they go about establishing leads in the first half that allows plenty of PT for all.  It all starts and end with the ability to ascertain the make-up of the members of your group quickly and letting those determined to be your leaders just what is expected of them and emphasizing just how important this is to a successful season. Notwithstanding all of the above, one truth remains, teams sports are made up of individuals that want to win. Supplying them with the correct leaders -and they will all have their unique styes but are easily identifiable, while at the same time letting them know each position is equally important you will quickly build a team that has faith in his teammate that he will do his job thereby allowing him to concentrate on his and you are on your way to enjoying yet another great season.  Any HC that cannot accomplish this is really not a HC and he's merely occupiying the position until a real one assumes the job. 

uncleFred

June 16th, 2014 at 9:57 PM ^

While none of us will ever know the exact dynamics, we can look at what we have been told. Hoke's leadership model was based on a trickle down process. The coaches worked with the seniors every year and they worked with the underclassmen. By the time the underclassmen were seniors they were indoctrinated with the leadership model. The theory was that by the time they were seniors leaders would emerge and establish themselves based years spent coming up through the program. 

Apparently, and again none of us know, it appears that attrition dramatially reduced the available seniors and perhaps none of them emerged as the leaders the team needed. To his credit, faced with an even smaller senior class, Hoke addressed this by drawing players into the leadership program from every class. Hopefully this change will address the issues, but again we won't know until well into the season. 

So how about we all just stop looking back to blame a subset of the players in 2013, and look forward to the coming season. We can't change the past, and every indication is that the coaches are attmpting to address this for 2014. Seriously what more can we ask?

steve sharik

June 16th, 2014 at 10:40 PM ^

It all comes down to psychology, and I believe that was Lloyd's greatest strength as a coach, and he had Greg Harden here to help.

To me, team chemistry is collective motivation.  You can have team members mostly on the same page, or different factions with different priorities.  And in the case of the same page, it can be a bad page, which is when you see teams implode.

Another thing is, whether he's a "leader" or not, you're best player(s) are going to be followed, not matter what anyone says.  I don't care how talented a player is, if he's a cancer, he needs to get gone.

Leadership, to me, is the natural leaders of the team (the ones who most of the guys follow and look to in order to see how they're going to act) policing the locker room.  The leaders have to do everything right--they have to be an extension of the coaching staff.

I have no idea about that team because I wasn't a part of it, but (and this is pure speculation) it could be that there was a "Rodriguez guys" vs. "Hoke guys" struggle within the squad, especially if the Hoke guys didn't respect the Rodriguez guys.  And since most of the Hoke guys were highly rated recruits, while most of the Rodriguez guys weren't, that can make it even worse.

leftrare

June 16th, 2014 at 11:29 PM ^

I think I side more to the imperative of "team chemistry" vs. "strong leadership". That said, I think among the many intangibles of winning football games, the most important and common one among winners is...
The Chip On The Shoulder. You gotta have one. (If you count skill as an intangible, I've already lost you.)

And I have more examples than just two Michigan football teams.

* 1980 USA Gold medal hockey team

* Umpteen non-dynasty NFL champions (disqualify Patriots, Steelers Packers and pick another)

* The Ryder Cup Europeans, for god sake, pick a year.

True, it's hard to explain the Lions. I just wrote and deleted about 200 words trying, but gave up.

UMgradMSUdad

June 17th, 2014 at 3:27 AM ^

Some very good points made by posters ahead of me. My participation in sports was more the individual sports (but that were scored as teams), such a track, cross county, and wrestling.  But even in these sports, working together as a team was essential.  Bo's "the team, the team, the team" nicely encapsulates one of the key attributes of leadership, and that is staying focused on working together for a common goal rather than individually.  Two instances for me come to mind, both from track meets in high school, where individuals, seeking personal glory cost their teams victory.

One example was at a relay track and field relay, where there were no individual event--everything was scored as a "relay" of some sort, even the field events.  This was a big event with about 20 teams participating, and we had one of the better pole vaulters in the state.  He decided he wanted to set a personal or meet record (I can't remember which), so he decided to skip all the lower heights to save his energy until they got over 12 feet.  Well he missed all 3 attempts at the first height he tried.  Our other pole vaulter had set a personal best and if the "star" pole vaulter had even cleared the minimum starting height, if would have given our team points, enough to finish first in the whole event.  Instead we came in second place.

At a dual meet, the opposing team's distance runner was tops in the conference at the two mile. Our school's track was fairly new, only 4 or 5 years old, and I heard this guy talking about how he was going to set a track record in the event.  Well, he was running inside the line the entire time.  One of the judges warned him more than once about it as he was running, but he was hell bent on setting a record.  He won the event by several dozen yards but was disqualified, and the points he lost were enough to push our team to the victory.

Edit:  I will add that keeping the team goals in mind extends to off the field/track/court activities as well.  Every time individuals act in ways that jeopardize their ability to perform at all or at their highest level, they are harming the team effort.