Add new comment

Beyond a certain threshold, the success of high performing executives does not correlate with their IQ. It takes a certain minimum level of brains to do the job, the supersmart guys aren't really any better at it than the ones who are 'just smart enough'. Conversely, those with a high level of 'emotional intelligence' DID correlate to higher levels of success. If you know how to work with people well, and keep them motivated to work for you - you're going to be more successful. If Z is smart enough to do the job, but a piss-poor people manager - the M's may have some trouble ahead. Meaning this - when Jack alienates important assets (international scouting, for example) and they quit, the M's have to replace that talent with something unknown. I'm not suggesting that a crusty smart guy won't succeed, there's plenty of examples. But that same smart guy, but a little less crusty, has a heckuva lot higher chance of success. Jack deals with folks at an admin level - whether he's a cranky SOB or not probably won't matter a lot to the players, especially the youth. But the analysts and the scouts and the manager and the coaches who have to answer to him daily - it matters. Jack makes makes decisions based on the input from a lot of people. The less those people trust him and his tactics, the less likely (I belive) they are to go the extra mile and continue to give him good info.
And all those fledgling Mariners who are excited to play don't have any idea about the politcs in the org. It takes a while to see where the snakes lie if you're starstruck about making it to the bigs. A good manager will appropriately shield them from this, and thus the impact of Z's people skills, or lack thereof, should be felt at an organizational pipeline level over time and perhaps less on the field. Unless he hires a jacka$$ for a manager, in which case - all bets are off there, too.
As Doc says - just my $0.02., and probably overvalued at that.