Leadership Group 2018

[PaulP]

They're the benchmark at the moment, on and off the field.

Agree, they made the most of their luck last year.

[flyboy77]

They're the benchmark at the moment, on and off the field.

Let's see how they go in 2018 before we start using them as a benchmark?

[mateinone]

I reckon any thinking Tigers supporters would, if that's not an oxymoron.

Having only three players worthy of the leadership group could be a portent of troubled times ahead.

That has to be at best a wildly presumptuous assumption.
3 leaders for 42 or so players. That actually seems to be a very good number.

I hear what you are saying Paul, I just don't particularly agree.
I think there are fairly good reasons to limit the number of leaders and have the message come through a small group of voices. Natural leaders will take it upon themselves to ensure their colleagues are living those values and they don't all need titles.

I also think the quality of leaders and their ability to get the message through to the group is a greater deal that what perhaps you do Paul. I agree it won't be the defining reason of our success or lack of it this year, but I think it makes a difference and is something we should be aiming to get right.

[Gointocarlton]

Agree, they made the most of their luck last year.

Care to elaborate on the this "luck" thingy? If it wins you flags, we need get us some of that stuff stat!

[PaulP]

That has to be at best a wildly presumptuous assumption.
3 leaders for 42 or so players. That actually seems to be a very good number.

I hear what you are saying Paul, I just don't particularly agree.
I think there are fairly good reasons to limit the number of leaders and have the message come through a small group of voices. Natural leaders will take it upon themselves to ensure their colleagues are living those values and they don't all need titles.

I also think the quality of leaders and their ability to get the message through to the group is a greater deal that what perhaps you do Paul. I agree it won't be the defining reason of our success or lack of it this year, but I think it makes a difference and is something we should be aiming to get right.

Yes, no doubt there's more than one leadership style, and more than one theory on how to best approach it. I really don't think it's a biggie one way or the other.

[PaulP]

Care to elaborate on the this "luck" thingy? If it wins you flags, we need get us some of that stuff stat!

Every team that wins a flag needs some luck. I think with the Tiges, they had a great run with injuries, and they also recruited the missing puzzle pieces at the same time. Balme, Caracella, Nankervis, Prestia and Caddy.

[DJC]

That has to be at best a wildly presumptuous assumption.
3 leaders for 42 or so players. That actually seems to be a very good number.

I hear what you are saying Paul, I just don't particularly agree.
I think there are fairly good reasons to limit the number of leaders and have the message come through a small group of voices. Natural leaders will take it upon themselves to ensure their colleagues are living those values and they don't all need titles.

I also think the quality of leaders and their ability to get the message through to the group is a greater deal that what perhaps you do Paul. I agree it won't be the defining reason of our success or lack of it this year, but I think it makes a difference and is something we should be aiming to get right.

I had 45 staff and seven managers reporting to me and my 2iC.  That worked extremely well.  Of course, a footy team is not the same as a work organisation but leadership principles still apply.

Limiting the number of leaders is not conducive to good leadership.

[Gointocarlton]

Every team that wins a flag needs some luck. I think with the Tiges, they had a great run with injuries, and they also recruited the missing puzzle pieces at the same time. Balme, Caracella, Nankervis, Prestia and Caddy.

It had alot more to do with the bit in bold. Its utter nonsense to suggest they got lucky and are no good. They proved the old saying, a champion team will always beat a team of champions. As Bill Bilichick says, "Do Your Job", the Tigers role players certainly did theirs.
PS I hate em as much as the next bloke, but fair suck of the sauce bottle lads.

[PaulP]

It had alot more to do with the bit in bold. Its utter nonsense to suggest they got lucky and are no good. They proved the old saying, a champion team will always beat a team of champions. As Bill Bilichick says, "Do Your Job".

Dude, I'm with you. My position is that they are a very good team, but they did have some luck, no question in my mind. Every team that has ever won a flag has some luck.

[mateinone]

I had 45 staff and seven managers reporting to me and my 2iC.  That worked extremely well.  Of course, a footy team is not the same as a work organisation but leadership principles still apply.

Limiting the number of leaders is not conducive to good leadership.

I disagree, but as I said each has there own thoughts based on their experiences.
My managers ran about 25 to a team with usually 2-3 team leaders depending on the team leaders and complexity of the teams.
Again that worked very well, but that is why I say each person's experience.