After Europe thrashing the Americans in this years Ryder Cup, the champagne bottles were still popping, when the knives had already come out to claim their victim in captain Tom Watson. His leadership was already in question after a poor run up to the event, followed by some serious selection gaffes and the decision to bench his strong pairing of Mickelson and Bradley.
During the press conference following the closing ceremony on Sunday night, Mickelson took the time when asked to explain the difference between the 2008 approach, where the Americans were victorious, and the direction taken in 2014 which resulted in a less than impressive performance.
In 2008, captain Paul Azinger went at great lengths to “get everybody invested in the process”. The consensual approach differed from the “old school” philosophy, whereby you “get 12 guys and just put them together” like Lee Trevino has said before. Watson installed a “command and control” structure, with his vice-captains as lieutenants, who made the decision as to how the players would be paired, with little or no input from the players themselves.
Mickelson also went on to say that “there was a plan” on how everything would be done to a minute level of detail. The plan was communicated and shared, thereby creating a sense of purpose and a common goal. Watson had not laid out such a plan.
While the common goal is to win, the breakdown of how this goal is achieved is critical. Getting an understanding and buy-in from the players is essential in the execution.
What makes this incident an interesting case is the clash between 2 different management philosophies. It embodies the cultural and generational shift that has occurred, moving from autocratic and patriarchic to consensual and inclusive.
It will be interesting to see how this will get resolved.