Football Coaches, Politics, and Leadership

Here is an interesting article on football coaches and their political leanings. I paid particular attention to this quote:

"Others point out that Republicans tend to revere strong, singular executive leaders—a pretty good description of a coach."

It's interesting because I think many Republicans do like singular leadership, but the nature of conservatism also tends to make Republicans distrust those in power. I think a greater examination of political ideology and leadership views is called for (I'll get to work on that). In the meantime, enjoy the article.

A Tribute to Everyday Leadership

This feature was produced for the Major League Baseball All-Star game, and was shown along with a ceremony honoring "everyday heroes." Stories of these kinds never get old. The piece is also compelling because it features 5 living presidents. As an advocate for the nonprofit sector, I also admire how the heroes all seem to be connected to a nonprofit organization. Enjoy...

Loyalty, Leadership, and Lou

Here is an interesting piece from sportswriter Rick Morrissey about Cubs Manager Lou Piniella. Morrissey's take is that Lou is too loyal to certain players and questions loyalty as a trait for good sports coaches. Here are some quotes:

"Piniella makes decisions the way glaciers make trips to the 7-Eleven. Either he doesn't like change or he has a fatal habit of being loyal to players who don't deserve his loyalty."

"The best managers aren't afraid to make decisions. It's true that a baseball season is long and that most players have ups and downs. But a perceptive manager sees when something isn't working."

"The only thing Piniella has adjusted for this season is injuries. In other words, necessity made him change, not creativity or acumen or even an old-fashioned hunch."

The whole article is here.

1 Man, 2 Organizations, 1 Cause, 2 Approaches

It will be interesting to watch how issues of animal rights are impacted by the return of Michael Vick. The confessed dogfighter, who claims to be rehabilitated, is being handled in two very different ways by two like-minded organizations: PETA and the Humane Society. PETA's strategy seems to be to vilify Vick and use protests to raise awareness of animal cruelty. The Humane Society's approach seems to be to embrace Vick and use him as a spokesperson against dogfighting. So, whose strategy is the most ethically sound, and will be the most effective? When raising awareness, and making a case, is it better to find an enemy to work against, or try to make an enemy into a friend? I have my opinion, but what's yours?