Correa's Leadership, Part 2: In What Context?

[Greggory Masterson]

In part one, we discussed why a player like Carlos Correa is in a prime position to be looked to as a leader. In part two, we’ll look at the traits that solidify his leadership position on his team.

Image courtesy of Jeffrey Becker-USA TODAY Sports

As previously discussed, there are many different ways people think about leaders. Some like to identify personal traits, while others look more into behaviors. In truth, leadership isn’t a blanket idea. Instead, it’s pretty contextual—in the biz, we call it a contingency leadership theory. Some people are good leaders in one situation but not in others.

A drill sergeant may be a good leader in basic training, but that doesn’t mean they would have a leadership style that works as the dean of a school of arts. Sports fans often like to differentiate between leaders based on whether they’re vocal leaders or leaders by example. However, the difference in leadership styles between a good leader in basic training and an art school dean can’t be boiled down to vocal versus example.

In truth, there’s no perfect way to conceptualize any leader or measure their inherent leaderiness (yes, I made that word up). However, there is a straightforward way that I have in mind to capture leadership styles with some nuance.

Michael Mumford of the University of Oklahoma published a book in 2006, culminating almost a century of leadership research. He posited that there are three broad forms of leadership, each with its own strengths and weaknesses: charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic. Although these leadership styles are often applied to leaders of organizations and periods of change, the styles can also appear in more base-level leaders.

I promise we’re returning to Carlos Correa (and some pretty pictures) soon. First, I want to explain what the three leadership styles mean. Charismatic leaders are compelling, and they lead others to rally behind them. Typically they inspire more energy and effort, raising everyone’s spirit—the rah-rah guys. The focus on today’s game is just one step toward the championship down the road.

Ideological leaders harken back to shared beliefs and sometimes a return to how things used to be. In baseball, that could mean playing the game the right way (take that however you will) or getting back to fundamentals. If the leader’s vision of the right way aligns with others on the team, they might become obedient to the leader and follow their example—but the visions have to match.

Pragmatic leaders focus more on problem-solving than any emotional work and more on the here and now than transformational charismatic leaders or backward-looking ideological leaders. A pragmatic baseball leader would be focused on driving improvement—things like working on swing mechanics or helping get teammates focused on the task at hand.

Now, let’s look at how this theory of leadership can and has manifested within the Twins. I will briefly describe four players who were, to one degree or another, seen as leaders over the last few years: Byron Buxton, Nelson Cruz, Josh Donaldson, and Correa. Please note that, as an outsider, I don’t have access to how these players genuinely behave in the clubhouse; I’m just going off public perception to illustrate my point.

Buxton appears to be very high on the charismatic style, providing excitement and energy, and is often seen as the team’s heartbeat. He doesn’t seem to be very high on the ideological style, and he likely has some pragmatism to him, but first and foremost, he’s an energy guy wanting to drive the team emotionally.

In contrast, someone like Cruz is more of a pragmatic leader, providing a lot of mentorship to younger players and helping the team improve, take care of themselves, and stay on-task daily. He also never struck me as much of an ideological leader, and he had some charismatic tendencies, attracting a crowd that followed his lead, but he wasn’t much of a high-energy guy.

Then we get to Donaldson, who was probably seen as more of a leader by the organization than by his teammates. He certainly worked with his teammates who were seeking help and gave them advice, which suggests some pragmatism. He is the most ideological of the four, wanting his teammates to play the right way. However, he didn’t do much to be a leader that players rallied around (sometimes the opposite).

Finally, we have Correa, who is at least moderately high in all facets. First, he’s pragmatic, spending a lot of time helping teammates improve. Second, he’s the face of the clubhouse, and he brings energy. Probably not as much as Buxton, but he’s at least the number two guy in that regard, always with an eye on being a champion. He’s probably also somewhat ideological, as evidenced by his “You can party when you’re 40” speech at the beginning of spring training this year.

Here’s a visual for these four players, by my outsider’s estimation:

Don’t come away from this thinking I’m calling one player a better leader than another. Leaders aren’t good or bad in a vacuum. These are just an estimation of what styles specific players might use, and their usefulness depends on the context.

This thought exercise was to demonstrate that Carlos Correa is quite prepared to fill a leadership role in almost any situation. He can help right the ship, provide energy, work with teammates, hold others to high standards, rally teammates, and even contribute to decision-making. Whatever the context, Correa can fill a leadership role, at least through this breakdown of styles.

Combining these two articles, we can see that Correa—through his skills on the field and position on the diamond—is a prime candidate to be seen as a leader, and he possesses a versatile set of leadership tendencies that allow him to provide leadership in several domains.

Please, leave comments or questions below, even if you think this is all a bunch of hullabaloo (if you do think it’s hullabaloo, and you’re still reading this, I really appreciate it). I’d love to continue this series, and your input is valuable. I’d love to go into topics that the community is interested in.

---

Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic Leaders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

View full article

[MABB1959]

That was fun.  Just curious based on another comment I posted.   Do you see any of theses qualities in Kepler?   

[Dave Borton]

I would still argue that Donaldson had no leadership qualities whatsoever despite the vague references you cite.  His behaviors, his actions, his interviews, his performance suggest he was nothing but a prima donna, masquerading as a self-appointed leader.

With respect, don't force fit a non-leader into leadership category. We have all seen them at our worksites. Needn't do that w/JD.

[Jocko87]

15 minutes ago, davidborton said:

I would still argue that Donaldson had no leadership qualities whatsoever despite the vague references you cite.  His behaviors, his actions, his interviews, his performance suggest he was nothing but a prima donna, masquerading as a self-appointed leader.

With respect, don't force fit a non-leader into leadership category. We have all seen them at our worksites. Needn't do that w/JD.

One of the best lessons in leadership I ever got was when I was being mildly chastised for being too hard on someone (in the process of terminating or otherwise moving on 40% of a facility) I told my boss it was very frustrating to walk that line when the senior VP driving the change was an enormous remove the dividers in the toilet stall kind of *******. (yes he actually did that) I did hurt a feeling, but look at my example.

My boss very tactfully agreed with me, "sometimes we learn what to do from our leaders, sometimes we learn what not to do."  I realized at that point that he was in the same situation.

That VP was very high on the charismatic scale but a disaster of emotional intelligence and very low pragmatic.  The organization I was in was driving a culture change and in a lot of ways he was the right guy at that time.  However, two years in when we realized the madness wasn't going to stop as we got things fixed he lost any good will he had acquired.

Donaldson is very similar.  In the right situation he can be a spark.  In New York he can be that situational leader as hes not the top guy and can fade into the background.  In Minnesota, where he was asked to carry the mantle for the organization his limitations are revealed, can't fade away in that situation.  The best leaders have traits in all three categories and they build off each other.  Limited leaders with a negative in one of the categories will struggle as one negative category will drag the others down over time.

[Jocko87]

49 minutes ago, MABB1959 said:

That was fun.  Just curious based on another comment I posted.   Do you see any of theses qualities in Kepler?   

Hard to say, I haven't seen much written about it.  From the outside he seems very rank and file solid troop.  His struggles on the field the last couple years make it very difficult to assume a strong leadership role other than people seeing you work hard to get back.  I don't remember 2019 well enough to say, was he more vocal and swagger when he was at his best?

[Jocko87]

To build on the Donaldson point, the presence of a strong well rounded leader like Correa is that it frees up others to lead in their way and not be asked to do something they aren't equipped for or comfortable with.  Correa has the ability to lead leaders which is in itself a much different skillset.

Buxton is now free to bring boundless energy, Sonny Gray can talk about early hooks confidently and maybe Pablo Lopez is free to assume the mantle for the pitchers.  Correa will pull them back if they go too far.  Buxton has already talked about how Correa has effected how he looks at leadership and being comfortable being more vocal.  He can develop these skills with a Correa to help him. 

Writing this, another question occurred to me.  Who's the leader in the bullpen?

[ashbury]

Interesting graph that seems to rate Carlos higher in each of the 3 categories than Nelson.  I wouldn't have imagined that.  Does any player anywhere come to mind that exceeds Carlos?

Lots that could be discussed, so I will try limiting myself to just one typical case.  Talented rookie player X is mired in a slump and goes to a player he considers a leader, and moans, "I'm 1-for-27, and I don't know what to do."  He's not looking for batting tips, indeed he doesn't know what he's looking for.  Does Player X go to Buxton? To Cruz? To Donaldson? To Correa?  I'm thinking it would be Cruz.  And yet I'm not sure which of the three dimensions this fits - you kind of ruled out Pragmatic when you specifically mentioned (not) "emotional work", and I don't quite see where a leader's charisma is the key here, nor the vague idea of shared ideology.  It's extremely possible that the right leader gets this kid going, so I don't think it's a trivial example.

Okay, one more comment.  I often bang the "analytics" drum here, and I want to mention that I see this approach as another excellent instance of baseball analytics.  Not everything can be measured in numbers, and different people might rate a player vastly differently on any one of these dimensions.  Yet, to make decisions, a front office has to start somewhere, and this analytic approach feels very right to me, even if the key is whether it's implemented wisely or not.

[jmlease1]

13 hours ago, ashbury said:

Lots that could be discussed, so I will try limiting myself to just one typical case.  Talented rookie player X is mired in a slump and goes to a player he considers a leader, and moans, "I'm 1-for-27, and I don't know what to do."  He's not looking for batting tips, indeed he doesn't know what he's looking for.  Does Player X go to Buxton? To Cruz? To Donaldson? To Correa?  I'm thinking it would be Cruz.  And yet I'm not sure which of the three dimensions this fits - you kind of ruled out Pragmatic when you specifically mentioned (not) "emotional work", and I don't quite see where a leader's charisma is the key here, nor the vague idea of shared ideology.  It's extremely possible that the right leader gets this kid going, so I don't think it's a trivial example.

In these examples, with all 4 players on a roster at the same time, I think the rookie in question is most likely to go to Cruz or Correa, depending on what kind of mentorship they're looking for: do they want something a little more paternal? Then it's going to be the elder statesman in Cruz. If they'd rather talk to someone closer to their own age and experience, then it's probably Correa. Buxton is probably the next most likely if they're needing the mental & emotional boost; he's a guy who could help someone restore confidence in themselves. A Donaldson is the least likely: he's provide technical advice, but the prickly nature would make him less approachable for a player in a hole.

Guys that provide technocratic leadership like Donaldson often struggle to add to the mix when things are going wrong, and won't be as good at "rallying the troops" so to speak. And when you're a difficult personality (like Donaldson is) they can sometimes make things worse.

Correa is a really smart guy, and I think part of what makes people gravitate towards him as a leader is he's not dogmatic in his approaches. He's got the flexibility to adjust in response to the situation and the player(s). He's got that force of personality that people gravitate towards, but without being an ass.

[terrydactyls]

14 hours ago, ashbury said:

Okay, one more comment.  I often bang the "analytics" drum here, and I want to mention that I see this approach as another excellent instance of baseball analytics.  Not everything can be measured in numbers, and different people might rate a player vastly differently on any one of these dimensions.  Yet, to make decisions, a front office has to start somewhere, and this analytic approach feels very right to me, even if the key is whether it's implemented wisely or not.

Analytics???  All I see are pictures of four people with a colorful bar chart beneath each picture that is based solely on one person's opinion.  That is not analytics.  That is opinion.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, terrydactyls said:

Analytics???  All I see are pictures of four people with a colorful bar chart beneath each picture that is based solely on one person's opinion.  That is not analytics.  That is opinion.

That's where you misunderstand analytics*.  Analytics is breaking down a problem into the smaller components until you feel you understand the problem better.  Often it's with numbers.  Here, it's really not, despite the graphical approach to communicate it.  "Better" versus "worse" - that can be analytics.

* OK, my definition of it.

[terrydactyls]

25 minutes ago, ashbury said:

That's where you misunderstand analytics*.  Analytics is breaking down a problem into the smaller components until you feel you understand the problem better.  Often it's with numbers.  Here, it's really not, despite the graphical approach to communicate it.  "Better" versus "worse" - that can be analytics.

* OK, my definition of it.

But the bar chart doesn't break down anything.  It is just an opinion.  I could present the same chart with the same people and colors but with totally different results.  That would be my opinion.  But it still would not be analytical, just my opinion.

[Greggory Masterson]

10 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

But the bar chart doesn't break down anything.  It is just an opinion.  I could present the same chart with the same people and colors but with totally different results.  That would be my opinion.  But it still would not be analytical, just my opinion.

Please don’t misunderstand this as me presuming to assign actual value; the charts were just examples as to how the three leadership types could exist, using references most people would get.

As for whether that’s analytics, it’s actually kind of complicated. Real quantitative psychological studies went into developing the theory, and the theory has been the basis for future quantitative psychological studies.

With the social sciences, data analysis provides more of a guide than a blueprint, pointing out patterns. Those findings can be applied when making decisions within a team. Is that analytics? I’m not sure; I can see both sides. Either way, it still has some utility, even if it’s on the margins.

[terrydactyls]

I agree that the studies have analytical value.  What I found disingenuous was calling the colorful bar charts a good example of analytics (not by you).

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The C could also stand for Character, which is not quite the same thing as charisma. 

Brian Dozier had Character in spades, in terms of being a guy who kept morale up, supported his teammates, genuinely liked them in good times and bad, and everyone had a favorable opinion of him. It also helps that he was really good for a window of time.

What Eddie Rosario brought was talent and fearlessness. Some people would say his internal risk/reward meter was broken and they were tired of it; but lots of others loved that twinkle he had and were happy to let him throw the dice. 

The front office missed on their evaluation of Rosario. Maybe because they did not know Rosario from the beginning like the rest of us did, and did not believe what they were told about him. My opinion is the front office missed with Correa too. Correa is charismatic and well liked, but that doesn't necessarily translate into leadership. A leader simply would not aim put-down jokes at their current organization when off the field. Not in my opinion they wouldn't.

The Giants and the Mets were bidding on Correa for his bat, not his leadership. Correa is a very good ballplayer, no denying that.  

For Correa to demonstrate leadership for the Twins, I think he will have to do supernatural things with his bat and glove on the field. Otherwise I think Correa's overpowering personality just looks suffocating to me, and it takes oxygen away from some of the younger potential leaders on their way up. That's the way it looks to me from the outside, anyway. Maybe fatherhood will mellow him out!

 

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, terrydactyls said:

I agree that the studies have analytical value.  

Then we're talking analytics.  Aren't we?  I'm satisfied if I've broadened your perspective a little.

[John Belinski]

After Correa's 3 strike outs today I am still concerned about him.  It just appears he cannot get hits when needed or under pressure.

[Jocko87]

7 hours ago, Greggory Masterson said:

Please don’t misunderstand this as me presuming to assign actual value; the charts were just examples as to how the three leadership types could exist, using references most people would get.

As for whether that’s analytics, it’s actually kind of complicated. Real quantitative psychological studies went into developing the theory, and the theory has been the basis for future quantitative psychological studies.

With the social sciences, data analysis provides more of a guide than a blueprint, pointing out patterns. Those findings can be applied when making decisions within a team. Is that analytics? I’m not sure; I can see both sides. Either way, it still has some utility, even if it’s on the margins.

This point is part of what makes this topic so fascinating to me.  Its part art, part science, part natural talent, part working at the right things and making adjustments based on often minuscule signals.  Leadership/social skills are the final frontier for AI.  Its just impossible to write a code that can work these variables.

Have you ever had a very senior person in your organization recognize you or ask you something personal when you barely knew who they were?  They are in your chain of command but 3-6 levels higher and you met them once in the cafeteria line or something.  Somehow, they have a surreal ability to remember names, faces, details and when they surprise you with something that makes you feel special you never forget it. 

It sounds like Correa has that trait.  We've seen several stories about him discussing relatively unknown minor leaguers with some hints that he does things like this.  Its a very powerful ability that cannot be faked.

[terrydactyls]

8 hours ago, ashbury said:

Then we're talking analytics.  Aren't we?  I'm satisfied if I've broadened your perspective a little.

Nice try.  I am saying the studies (which were not done by the OP) were analytical but the charts (done by the OP) were not.  Ergo, we were not talking analytics.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, terrydactyls said:

Nice try.  I am saying the studies (which were not done by the OP) were analytical but the charts (done by the OP) were not.  Ergo, we were not talking analytics.

Is your complaint that the OP doesn't have insider knowledge on the players' actual personality traits?

If I were a GM, I would be salivating at having an additional database of information on player personalities, assuming it's collected by knowledgeable people actually in the game and who understand from experience the dynamics inside a clubhouse. 

The methodology is intriguing to me, even if one knows going in that it's a subjective area, and is qualitative rather than quantitative. The "data" provided in the graphs above are just placeholders for discussion purposes, and are basically beside the point.  Even the exact choice of 3 dimensions of leadership, C I and P, represent just a working model based on one study, that surely would be refined with use.

[ashbury]

Now we can ask, to whom does Carlos go when he's scuffling, and what does that player's chart look like?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Seems newsworthy and relevant to this topic. (h/t MABB1959 from game thread)

Phil Miller, StarTribune:

"We had a four-hour conversation. I said, 'I think we're a better team if you're DH-ing and taking 500 at-bats and just focusing on hitting 40 or 50 homers during the season and let Michael Taylor guard the outfield,'" Correa recalled. "He took it very well."

That's not to say he agreed. But Buxton said his teammate was very persuasive.

"At that point, I was still trying to figure this out for myself. I literally try not to think about my at-bats, so I don't overthink," Buxton said of a decision that has so far kept him in the Twins' lineup in all but three games this season. "When I play the field, whatever happens at the plate, you can go back out and focus on that, like 'OK, then nobody else is getting a hit.'"

Correa, who revealed their conversation while wearing a microphone on the field during Friday's AppleTV+ broadcast, said he understood Buxton's hesitation, but focused on how much the team benefits when he is healthy.

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-twins-carlos-correa-byron-buxton-center-field-or-designated-hitter-michael-a-taylor/600273344/?refresh=true

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Hosken Bombo Disco
change from block quote to italics