RashanGary
03-24-2008, 05:09 PM
A long time ago I made a post about Thompson being skilled. In my mind I alwyas considered him intelligent. After listening to Sherman I always thought he was unintelligent but it turns out it was just my incomplete definition of intelligence that I was grading on. Anyway, here's the old post. http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=4430&start=80
I'm taking a psych class and we're going over intelligence. There are a few theories to intelligence, one of which I will touch on here. I think this theory relates to why Mike Sherman failed and why Ted Thompson is succeeding.
Intelligence is a quality that allows one to adapt to their surroundings. I understand it as a mental quality that allows one to succeed. Psychologist, Robert Sternberg has a triarchy of three intelligences.
Analytical intelligence - Assessed by IQ tests which present well defined problems having one single right answer (example: someone with a 150 IQ)
Creative intelligence - Demonstrated by reacting adaptively to novel situations and generating novel ideas (example: a brilliant architect)
Practical intelligence - Required for every day tasks, which are frequently ill defined with multiple solutions like working well with people or staying organized (example: a great manager or buisness person)
Someone can have a 90 IQ which is below average and struggle in school. That same person can go out, start a buisness and thrive in society. A person with a 160 IQ can be socially retarded and be a beer bum on the side of the road.
Now, how does this relate to Mike Sherman and Ted Thompson? I always saw intelligence as being a combination of analytical and creative. I never saw practical intelligence. A while back a made a post calling Thompson skilled and Sherman a conformist who could not adapt. I've always been analytical and creative, so my natural ego saw the creative/analitical people as intelligent. I saw Sherman as a guy who worked hard to lead and did what he was supposed to do. I never saw that as intelligence. This class as helped me to expand on what I was already seeing. They are different people with different strengths.
I believe a manager and a coach are similar. They need to lead, motivate and keep people on task. They do not have to be brilliant in the analytical sense or the creative sense. They have to be hard working, practical and focused and they need to work well with people. Apparently that is intelligence, just a different kind. Sherm had it and it worked wonderfully for him as a coach (except in situaitons where he lacked creativity and couldn't devise ways to take advantage of opponents or situations *see 4th and 1*) but overall he was a really good coach who was always prepared himself and always had his guys prepared.
I don't think a GM has to be as much of a leader of men, or a motivator. He's a scout, who's analyzing data and making determinations where there is an ultimate right and wrong answer. He has to be creative in how he works the markets, taking advantage of opportunity as it arises and avoiding the different pitfalls. He has to recognize what pitfalls lie in what area and how to best approach each situation. He has to analyze risk and make a determination that ultimately is right or wrong. The intelligence that Sherman had to be an every day success wasn't nearly as applicable and the practical intelligence that Thompson seems to lack (communication with people, motivation) doesn't seem to be nearly as detrimental. At the same time, I belileve Thompsons strengths are his analytical intelligence and his creative intelligence and those are much better applied to the job at hand.
I'm taking a psych class and we're going over intelligence. There are a few theories to intelligence, one of which I will touch on here. I think this theory relates to why Mike Sherman failed and why Ted Thompson is succeeding.
Intelligence is a quality that allows one to adapt to their surroundings. I understand it as a mental quality that allows one to succeed. Psychologist, Robert Sternberg has a triarchy of three intelligences.
Analytical intelligence - Assessed by IQ tests which present well defined problems having one single right answer (example: someone with a 150 IQ)
Creative intelligence - Demonstrated by reacting adaptively to novel situations and generating novel ideas (example: a brilliant architect)
Practical intelligence - Required for every day tasks, which are frequently ill defined with multiple solutions like working well with people or staying organized (example: a great manager or buisness person)
Someone can have a 90 IQ which is below average and struggle in school. That same person can go out, start a buisness and thrive in society. A person with a 160 IQ can be socially retarded and be a beer bum on the side of the road.
Now, how does this relate to Mike Sherman and Ted Thompson? I always saw intelligence as being a combination of analytical and creative. I never saw practical intelligence. A while back a made a post calling Thompson skilled and Sherman a conformist who could not adapt. I've always been analytical and creative, so my natural ego saw the creative/analitical people as intelligent. I saw Sherman as a guy who worked hard to lead and did what he was supposed to do. I never saw that as intelligence. This class as helped me to expand on what I was already seeing. They are different people with different strengths.
I believe a manager and a coach are similar. They need to lead, motivate and keep people on task. They do not have to be brilliant in the analytical sense or the creative sense. They have to be hard working, practical and focused and they need to work well with people. Apparently that is intelligence, just a different kind. Sherm had it and it worked wonderfully for him as a coach (except in situaitons where he lacked creativity and couldn't devise ways to take advantage of opponents or situations *see 4th and 1*) but overall he was a really good coach who was always prepared himself and always had his guys prepared.
I don't think a GM has to be as much of a leader of men, or a motivator. He's a scout, who's analyzing data and making determinations where there is an ultimate right and wrong answer. He has to be creative in how he works the markets, taking advantage of opportunity as it arises and avoiding the different pitfalls. He has to recognize what pitfalls lie in what area and how to best approach each situation. He has to analyze risk and make a determination that ultimately is right or wrong. The intelligence that Sherman had to be an every day success wasn't nearly as applicable and the practical intelligence that Thompson seems to lack (communication with people, motivation) doesn't seem to be nearly as detrimental. At the same time, I belileve Thompsons strengths are his analytical intelligence and his creative intelligence and those are much better applied to the job at hand.