I just know that there was plenty of stuffed JoGui implied about Billy.

Gload makes a ton of sense considering they were playing the same position.

That he’s dumb?

just to rec this.

that’s where HoRam went

Moore can’t use a computer, but he can use a copier to make those signs with the pull-off tabs at the bottom.

Meeting TONIGHT at 8! Talk about Billy’s love-handles. FREE PIZZA!!!!

What was he gonna say then that damn chunky kid hitting all those doubles and a few HRs really sucks for a 23 year old

I’d rather not have him suspended on Opening day.

I’d rather just see Billy get a hit off of him though

laughed about it at the Digital Digest when i asked about it and they had never met prior.

definitely not something that will be on SportsCenter tomorrow

Moore’s on his preseason rounds with the community movers and shakers. You really think that the repetition of this story at the Tiger Club luncheon and at the Chamber of Commerce, singling out a player he just traded as a instigator of ridicule, even while he regularly trumpets the superior leadership qualities of players he has recently acquired, was something he did without calculation?

Put yourself in his situation: this is going to be a hard year for Moore. The major league team is probably going to be the worst he has put on the field so far, and the prospects aren’t yet sufficiently ready to turn things around. Wouldn’t you be tempted to gather all the good will you can, while you can?

Again, you’ve offered a straw man: I don’t have to believe that he is constantly calculating about what he says to believe that this particular story was calculated. I don’t think he’s more calculating than any other GM while talking in public.

And I’ve never ascribed childlike intelligence or superhuman ability to him. I just said that the telling of this particular story was motivated by self-interest. Is that really hard to believe?

At least I think anyone that can work their way up to GM can work a room. It doesn’t mean he knows how to evaluate MLB players or that he doesn’t have an irrational love for tools in all ballplayers.

However, it would not be “respectful” to tell Moore to his face that he sucks at his job, even if you felt that way.

At least I think that’s what you mean.

Jeez. Argue something worth arguing. Not something that is just stereotypical.

because it’s warranted.

Just interested in defending myself from the mob. And I used the word “sometimes.” for good reason. I’m not intending to generalize about all women. I also used " girls" to refer to young women to narrow my statement.

I note that nobody even responds to my point. Just ridicule and move on.

They’re democrats. Duh.

Man really, let’s not just start calling each other idiots. I mean your critique is valid, but we really want to avoid calling each other morons, idiots, etc.

by Royals management at a very young age. He seems to be handling it pretty well, and this is the sort of thing that makes it hard for a young transformational leader like Billy.

There are many different types of leadership, and we’re just beginning to learn what type of leader Billy is going to be.

Here’s a few styles we know of:

1. Autocratic leadership

Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leaders have absolute power over their workers or team. Staff and team members have little opportunity to make suggestions, even if these would be in the team’s or the organization’s best interest.

Most people tend to resent being treated like this. Therefore, autocratic leadership often leads to high levels of absenteeism and staff turnover. However, for some routine and unskilled jobs, the style can remain effective because the advantages of control may outweigh the disadvantages.

2. Bureaucratic leadership

Bureaucratic leaders work “by the book.” They follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their staff follows procedures precisely. This is a very appropriate style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights) or where large sums of money are involved (such as handling cash).

3. Charismatic leadership

A charismatic leadership style can seem similar to transformational leadership, because these leaders inspire lots of enthusiasm in their teams and are very energetic in driving others forward. However, charismatic leaders can tend to believe more in themselves than in their teams, and this creates a risk that a project, or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader leaves. In the eyes of the followers, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the leader.

4. Democratic leadership or participative leadership

Although democratic leaders make the final decisions, they invite other members of the team to contribute to the decision-making process. This not only increases job satisfaction by involving team members, but it also helps to develop people’s skills. Team members feel in control of their own destiny, so they’re motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward.

Because participation takes time, this approach can take longer, but often the end result is better. The approach can be most suitable when working as a team is essential, and when quality is more important than speed to market, or productivity.

5. Laissez-faire leadership

This French phrase means “leave it be,” and it’s used to describe leaders who leave their team members to work on their own. It can be effective if the leader monitors what’s being achieved and communicates this back to the team regularly. Most often, laissez-faire leadership is effective when individual team members are very experienced and skilled self-starters. Unfortunately, this type of leadership can also occur when managers don’t apply sufficient control.

6. People-oriented leadership or relations-oriented leadership

This is the opposite of task-oriented leadership. With people-oriented leadership, leaders are totally focused on organizing, supporting, and developing the people in their teams. It’s a participative style, and it tends to encourage good teamwork and creative collaboration.

In practice, most leaders use both task-oriented and people-oriented styles of leadership.

7. Servant leadership

This term, created by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, describes a leader who is often not formally recognized as such. When someone, at any level within an organization, leads simply by meeting the needs of the team, he or she is described as a “servant leader.”

In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic leadership, because the whole team tends to be involved in decision making.

Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest that it’s an important way to move ahead in a world where values are increasingly important, and where servant leaders achieve power on the basis of their values and ideals. Others believe that in competitive leadership situations, people who practice servant leadership can find themselves left behind by leaders using other leadership styles.

8. Task-Oriented leadership

Highly task-oriented leaders focus only on getting the job done, and they can be quite autocratic. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, plan, organize, and monitor. However, because task-oriented leaders don’t tend to think much about the well-being of their teams, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, with difficulties in motivating and retaining staff.

9. Transactional leadership

This style of leadership starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader totally when they accept a job. The “transaction” is usually the organization paying the team members in return for their effort and compliance. The leader has a right to “punish” team members if their work doesn’t meet the pre-determined standard.

Team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction under transactional leadership. The leader could give team members some control of their income/reward by using incentives that encourage even higher standards or greater productivity. Alternatively, a transactional leader could practice “management by exception” – rather than rewarding better work, the leader could take corrective action if the required standards are not met.

Transactional leadership is really a type of management, not a true leadership style, because the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work, however it can be effective in other situations.

10. Transformational leadership

As we discussed earlier, people with this leadership style are true leaders who inspire their teams constantly with a shared vision of the future. While this leader’s enthusiasm is often passed onto the team, he or she can need to be supported by “detail people.” That’s why, in many organizations, both transactional and transformational leadership are needed. The transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably, while the transformational leaders look after initiatives that add new value.
Key Points

While the transformational leadership approach is often highly effective, there’s no one “right” way to lead or manage that fits all situations. To choose the most effective approach for yourself, consider the following:

    * The skill levels and experience of your team.
    * The work involved (routine, or new and creative).
    * The organizational environment (stable or radically changing, conservative or adventurous).
    * You own preferred or natural style.

Good leaders often switch instinctively between styles, according to the people they lead and the work that needs to be done. Establish trust – that’s key to this process – and remember to balance the needs of the organization against the needs of your team.

Right now, I would view Billy as a combonation of the Charasmatic and Transformational styles.

Regardless of what he is at this juncture, Dayton Moore has made the position his, for the forseeable future.

I think he’s best served to just lead by example, and show by doing.

If he just hits .315 with 20 dingers, 200 hits, 60 doubles, and 5 triples, leading the team will take care of itself.

It’s gonna be alright Billy, just do what you do best.

You’re probably right about not ever really knowing, and I think I’m okay with that.