The Psychology of a GM

[RashanGary]

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.

[RashanGary]

I always saw Thompson as a brilliant person, but the type of person that rarely gets a chance in this world because he doesn't have the natural leadership skills that make people believe in him. I see him as a skilled person who can problem solve, make good decisisons and find creative ways to get better (in this case get more quality under the cap). I think Harlan made an amazing hire by bringing in a guy who's brilliance will be used even though he lacks the practical sense that usually brings people to the top. I think Thompson is a guy who should be shielded from himself in public and kept informed on what to say and how to say it by poeple who understand others. AT the same time, I think he's going to kick ass here and I think Sherman would fail 9 times out of 10. On the other hand, I think Thompson would fail 9 times out of 10 as a head coach and Sherman would succeed.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm taking a psych class and we're going over intelligence.



Let me see if I follow. Is this a good example of a practical intelligence type question?

"How much are you paying to take that psych class?"

[RashanGary]

No, practical intelligence would be if someone at your work (who was your superior) told you to shut up. You could let the situation die or you could say "fuck you".

If you let the situation die while not looking like a coward, poeple probably respect you for not escalating a bad situation. If you say fuck off, the superior probably gets pissed.

He's bigger than you and you work on a job site. He comes toward you with threatening body language. You could either disarm the situation by letting it die or you could stand eye to eye and tell him if he touches you you are going to put the claws of your hammer into his eye socket and smile.


Practical intelligent people deal welll in social situations and they manage themselves and others well. They end up disarming the situation and looking like the good guy. An example of a social retard is someone who makes it worse and gets fired. Another example is a guy who gets up in front of a big group of booing people for a draft pick and acts like a wuss and everyone thinks he has no clue what he's doing. Thompson is not as practically intelligent as Sherman. Sherman always had notes and ideas of what he was going to say. TT just wings it and sounds like a moron to a lot of people. I think Thompson is the far superior GM, but some jobs don't require you to be skilled in anylitical/creative ways. Most require you to be practical, follow a set of guidelines that a monkey could follow and if you want ot get to the top, just be reliable and have a quality that makes people believe in you. Impossible for some, natural for others. GM sin't one of those jobs though. A GM has to be analytically inteligent and if they want to set themselves apart, I think they ahve to be creative too.

[RashanGary]

Another guy at a firm a family member works at is a great engineer. He works for the man, but he should really be the man. He's great at what he does and he makes other people money. He recently quit, lost a ton of money for leaving his contract in a bad spot adn left on bad terms. He's a great engineer, but an idiot at getting ahead. With defination of intellignece being a mental quality that allows adaption to the surrounding, there is definitly room for some emotional/practical intelligence. It's jsut very different from the IQ/creative intelligence that we get rewarded for at school. It's not intelligence as we see it, but I think it's more important in most jobs than analyitical intelligence and even creative intelligence. It's probably the thing I work on most because it's least natural to me and is the one link in the chain that I believe can stop me from my goals.

[Scott Campbell]

Ok, I think it was apparent early on that Sherman was in way over his head on the GM job.

His coaching failure was a little trickier. I think he had pretty decent leadership skills - especially early on. He had some teams that got off to bad starts, and they didn't quit on him. That's not an easy thing to do. But he struggled with other portions of the job requirements. And by the time he left, there weren't very many people left in his corner.

I'm not ready to crown Ted as the savior of the franchise after 1 great season. Though I am very encouraged. And I also happen to agree with his approach to cap management, but that still doesn't guarantee any degree of success. Ultimately the team has to contend consistently if he wants to be viewed as a great GM.

[KYPack]

I would've liked to see Sherm just coach with a capable GM. I thought he had skills and was a good leader. He burned himself out trying to do 2 jobs, one of which he was unqualified to perform.

The death of Mark Hatley really crippled that whole regime

[Carolina_Packer]

After Sherman was fired, I always maintained that he really fired himself as coach by his performance as GM. Had he been more adept at team building as Thompson appears to be, he might have been able to achieve even greater things as a coach. Here's hoping that Green Bay never goes the route of the dual-role HC/GM ever again.