Building Leadership and Maintenance Leadership

Several years ago, I got to go through the Marine Coaches/Leadership training program out in Quantico thanks to the AVCA. After applying a lot of that stuff, I was honored to go back and be a speaker for the Marines and coaches a couple of years later. It is always interesting to see how things work–when you have a better idea what to expect. It changes your perspective, it changes the way you think and analyze.

One of the big things with the Marines is MCMAP (lots of abbreviations with the American armed forces…). MCMAP = Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. It has its origins going back to World War 2, but in its modern form, the Marine Corps-wide program was developed by an officer named Joseph Shusko.

SIDE NOTE: Shusko has a book with life lessons and inspirational stories available. It’s worth purchasing.

Shusko built the MCMAP program into an elite school where Marines teach fellow Marines hand-to-hand fighting skills, where the teachers are teachers because of their ability rather than military rank or prestige. The MCMAP has its own belt system (you know like black belts, etc) and is taught around the world now.

So Colonel Shushko was already retired once when I was first in Quantico and preparing to retire a second, final time right after the coaching clinic was done. When I went back the second time, there were differences I noticed in how the program was managed. Not better, not worse that I could tell–but different. Me being me, I asked the officer explaining MCMAP to coaches about this and I got an interesting response.

He said, “There’s a difference between building leadership and maintenance leadership.”

And that got me thinking. (Yes, that’s dangerous)

Is there a difference in those things? What would it be? Does it apply to coaching?

My thoughts turned to basketball–Phil Jackson did amazing things when he already had great talent on the team. He was a master of managing egos and that led to a TON of titles…but he was not good with Xs and Os and when he was forced to rely on his tactical skills, things didn’t work as well. I think Phil fits the description of ‘maintenance leadership’ pretty well.

With ‘building leadership’, I think there are a lot of coaches who fit this–these are the JH/HS coaches who takeover hapless programs; these are the club coaches who love coaching the 14-5 or 15-Magenta team, developing kids that then make their HS varsity rather than get cut.

Shushko was a builder–but once it was built, he did not have an interest in the work, my opinion, necessary to sustain it at that level–that’s the paperwork, the routine…there isn’t always something ‘new’ with maintaining unlike when you are building and you get surprised regularly by unexpected improvements. Obviously his replacement was a maintenance-guy. (And to be fair, Shushko had un-retired twice to serve his nation…so this is not remotely insinuating slothfulness!!)

**

So when coaches get replaced–they always say the opposite will get hired. Offensive mind gets replaced by defensive; disciplinarian with a ‘player’s coach’, etc….and yet, that doesn’t lead most teams to success. Is it a better way of hiring to identify whether your current coach is a builder or maintainer? If a builder, you replace them with a strong maintainer to solidify that growth. If a maintainer, can you find someone who will take the program to the next level up?

Can a maintenance-leadership person be young–or do you need experience to lead in this fashion? Is it possible to lead in both fashions? Can you go from one and back as necessary? Once you’ve built something, if it falls apart–can it be rebuilt by the same coach or do you have to have change in order to regain the previous standing?