""n rf"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Back in the days when baseball was understood to be the > > ultimate expression > > of American values, this may have been true. Take each > > individual and weigh > > his/her strengths and weaknesses, consider the overall value of > > heir > > contribution, and decide on that basis. These days, when > > football is king, > > what does that say about our values? That we are all > > specialists and we are > > all easily replaced. In fact, in a football model, the ideal is > > to churn and > > burn. > > While the game of baseball itself may in the past have neatly symbolized > American individualism, ironically you wouldn't know it from the salaries > paid to baseball players in those supposedly gloried old days. Before the > days of free agency, players were paid far far less than they would have > been paid in an open and free market. You'd think that if anybody would > have understood the importance of providing proper compensation for > individual performance in line with the spirit of the game of baseball, it > would have been the baseball team owners themselves. > > But I digress... >
sooooooooo........ you want to talk baseball now..... good for you!!!!!! true, traditionally baseball as a business was no reflective of free enterprise as we know and love it today. Nor was society at the time. What makes baseball a great sport in terms of what it teaches us, is that every position on the field has a certain skill set, and every position in the batting lineup has a certain skill set. A manager has to evaluate a player based upon his strengths and weaknessess both offensively and defensively. A grotesque example, but one that makes my point - if your entire team consisted of Barry Bonds and 24 clones, would you be better off than if you had some other combination of players. Barry Bonds may be the greatest hitter of all time, but can he pitch? Catch? Turn the double play? Would a team of Barry Bonds' offense make up for their shortcomings on defence? Interesting question, isn't it? translated into our daily lives, each of us has strengths and weaknesses, professional and personal. the question is in the grand scheme of things, do we contribute at least as much as we take? Allegorically speaking, this gets us back to skill sets in any field of endeavor. Should we be generalists? Specialists? Some combination of the two? my own employer has apparently thrown in the towel on this one. The higher ups are talking about specialization of the pre-sales folks, and assembling teams of skills for complex opportunities. essentially, we are migrating from a "baseball" mentality to a "football" mentality. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71416&t=71399 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
