TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I think we are doing a little segue here, and I am having trouble
warming up to it.
When Wayne originally brought up Wooden et al. as role models, I sent
him a private post, saying:
OK, Wayne, that's your right as an individual. I chose baseball
because I follow baseball a little and I think I learn from it and I
think there could be something for a person to learn from in the
styles of the managers I mentioned. If you will note, I hedged my bet
a little by adding the phrase "if you can handle baseball."
What I was thinking of was that today's young baseball managers seem
to be able to deal with and get results from today's young players.
The hard-nosed guys like Dick Williams and Larry Bowa (who is now a
coach) have gone away.
I guess we could sit up all night until the cows came home
speculating about whether we thought Joe Paterno could make it as a
pro coach, or even whether the butt-kicking Lombardi would get
results out of the Packers of today. John Wooden I can't speculate on
because I don't follow basketball. Frankly, for today's football
players, I like the style of some of the younger coaches I see with
the Steelers, the Bears, and the new coach here in San Diego.
Over and above all of that, I think the lesson to be learned is that
if you want to be a successful manager of technical communicators
today, you don't scream and yell and rant at your troops like the
managers and coaches of old. You listen to your people, you guide
them, you lead them quietly, you are patient with them. The 90s ain't
the 60's.
It seems to me, Larry, much as I love ya, buddy, is that you are
trying to reach back for some old cliches, based on neo-Victorianisms
like winning one for the Gipper and that sort of thing. What I am
trying to say is that I think we have a brave new world out here, in
technical writing as in sports, and I think the smart technical
writing managers of today are learning to swim in this stream, going
with the flow and not against the tide.
As for the language skills of today's coaches, I am sure it is more
oral than written language skills that they have. And organizational
skills come into play. In the pros, for example, you see strong
general managers on some teams, you see strong owners, and sometimes
strong coaches -- making decisions on personnel, in particular. Pro
football head coaches today are more than anything else managers of
brain trusts -- those guys in the coaching boxes. They emphasize
study and sophisticated offenses and defenses and playbooks. They
don't want big dumb players; they want smart ones.
Anyway, my humble modest little homily becomes incredibly more
complex when you add basketball and football, and the college
versions thereof. I'm tired.
Bill Sullivan
bsullivan -at- deltecpower -dot- com
San Diego, California
>>> Larry Kunz ((919) 254-6395) <ldkunz -at- VNET -dot- IBM -dot- COM> - 6/23/97 7:46
AM >>>
Wayne Douglass made some excellent points in replying to my message.
> Larry isn't the first to have taken my list seriously - even though
> I don't take it very seriously myself. The obvious common
> denominator, which I tried to underline in my usual heavy-handed
> fashion, is that Wooden, Paterno, and Lombardi were *language*
> teachers (Paterno used to be - and maybe still is - a tenured
> English professor).
Are you saying there's a correlation between skill in using language
and ability to lead? That's certainly bound to be popular in this
forum; and, IMO, it has the added benefit of being true.
Can we extend the correlation beyond "ability to lead" to "success in
any field," as you seem to be suggesting, and thus apply it to the
C-word debate? I'm not convinced yet, but it's an interesting
thought. (Or have I misunderstood what you said?)
> I like all three because they conveyed a sense that they knew what
> they were doing and emphasized *execution* to their teams. Wooden
> wouldn't even scout his opposition; he told his teams that they
> would probably win if they practiced their team strategy (and
> it changed depending on the kind of team he had) until they could
> execute without thinking about it. They were successful, but if
> they lost they didn't whine about it.
I like this a lot, Wayne. I've observed that successful people in
all fields focus on staying current and doing excellent work -- on
keeping their own houses in order -- not on reacting to what others
are doing. Several people on this list are good examples of that.
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a
message to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-
Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
Send list questions or problems to the listowner at
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
