Backstage Management- Vince vs Dixie- Rule by Fear vs Positive Morale Management

[Ambiguous Turd]

I found this to be a couple very interesting snippets from an interview conducted with Dixie Carter outlining the stark contrast in management philosophies between Vince McMahon and Dixie Carter in managing their companies.

TNA President Dixie Carter was interviewed for the latest issue of the UK's Fighting Spirit Magazine. Carter spoke at length about Hulk Hogan's new role in TNA, where she sees the company going and more. Here's what she said about:

Dealing with Big Egos In TNA: "To me, it's not hard at all I feel if you treat somebody with respect, that's the only way you can win it back. If you work hard, that's the way to expect other people to work hard. I don't have tiered systems of how I treat different people, I treat everyone as the same. don't care if you're Kurt Angle or the newest guy on the roster, you're gonna be treated with the same level of respect, and I expect that back. To me, that's the easiest way to keep individual egos in check, because I'm not playing a game with different people or favouritism."

Her Leadership Style vs. Vince McMahon's: "I have a philosophy and it may not be right, but I feel that if people are happy personally, they'll work harder for you than if you motivate them through fear. I want to make TNA a place where they bring their families, where their wives are welcome, where their husbands are welcome, where their children are. It creates a different type of atmosphere backstage, but it creates a place where we are all in this for the same goal."

With that being said I would like everyone to take into consideration a couple of things:

1) Which management philosophy do you think you would personally enjoy working under more?

2) Which management philosophy do you feel is best for business and productivity? Positive reinforcement or Negative reinforcement?

3) Which management philosophy do you feel is the right philosophy, all things considered ... IF you had to pick one philosophy to manage a wrestling company?




I am going to answer my own questions in this case.

1) I think I would personally enjoy working under a more positive morale management style more. I have never worked well with District Managers who Micro-Manage and need to be constantly calling every other hour for things. I would rather have a management style based on trust because I feel I work better for those who put faith in me to do my job, as I am hard enough on myself without having someone else bossing me around.


2) What management style do I feel is best for business and productivity? This is a very tough question. My answer to this is that it really depends. It depends on what type of group of people that work for you. Are they people that more often than not are good people that can be trusted to do their own thing, and react well to positive morale boosting activities, such as being family friendly to the talent, providing positive coaching, giving bonuses when the company can afford to do so?

Or are they a company you have to keep on a short leash because of Big Egos developing and fear of their Egos taking over ... especially if they view their bosses as being a bunch of "family friendly, nice saps that will coddle to the wrestlers".

At the end of the day, I feel that managing positively is better for business and productivity, than managing negatively. Morale is a huge aspect of a successful business, and I feel that the higher one's morale, the more likely they are to perform.


3) All things considered, I agree more so with Dixie's philosophy as opposed to Vince's philosophy. I think Vince's philosophy is a very outdated, old-school philosophy that has talent so afraid backstage, that people may not be as outspoken as they should be, for things that may be good for business, or people may be placed in such a bad mood from negative reinforcement from management never providing enough positive reinforcement, that their morale is down in the tubes, and they simply don't perform at their best.

Dixie is trying to change the backstage atmosphere of the wrestling business to be more so like the real work world, and personally, I think that is the far more humane way to go. Treating one's families with respect and rewarding good behavior frequently is more likely to result in one going the extra mile, than threatening people and ruling by fear ... as Vince does.

In the case where a person is given an inch, and they take a mile, then those cases can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and reprimanded accordingly.

But overall, I feel Dixie Carter and TNA have the correct approach to backstage management as opposed to Vince McMahon and WWE.

Your turn.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think that most people would prefer a more laid back, positive type of management style. It just has a better feel to it when you think about it. After all, nobody that I know of personally enjoys having their boss on their asses. Depending upon what your job is, I'm sure that this type of management style sounds fun and would be more along the lines of your cup of tea.

As far as which is actually better for business productivity, once again, it depends. There are some employment opportunities in which employees aren't really pushed out of potential fear of losing their job or at least some sort of professional ramifications isn't a good thing. Take something along the lines of an stock analyst or trader at some big firm. These people make financial transactions that can have an effect on the worldwide economy, literally billions of dollars on the line every single day depending upon what move they decide to take. A job like that is going to be loaded with stress because, if you make a mistake, you're definitely going to experience some negative reinforcement because of it. Their boss patting them on the back and telling them "good job" isn't going to necessarily make the price of oil drop and all this and that. It's a high end game with high end stakes and if you can't hold up your end, then you're not going to be given a warm glass of milk and a piece of pie before going to bed. If TNA ever gets to be as large and financially successful as the WWE, I find it very difficult to believe that TNA management is going to be quite as laid back as they currently are. WWE is one of the largest "small" businesses in the United States and is among the most successful. It didn't gain this type of success with Vince McMahon being a big ol' 240 pound pussycat. I'm not saying that Vince is this vicious ogre that would chew your head off for making a mistake, as everyone makes them from time to time. However, being told in no uncertain terms that you're skating on thin ice could make all the difference in the world as to whether you keep your job or you start working on your resume.

As to which one I'd rather work for? Well, I think most people would be happier with Dixie Carter's style. Personally, it's probably what I'd prefer for myself. However, as I said, will this same sort of kinder, gentler style work if TNA starts pulling in $500 million a year? I highly doubt it. The more successful a company becomes, the more pressure is going to be placed on employees to keep it up and, if possible, to do even better. Idealy, Dixie's approach is the way to go. It'd be nice if everything was easier, less stressful and worrying about one's job wasn't as much of a hassle as it can be sometimes. However, realistically, I have to give Vince's method props. It's worked in wrestling for decades, it's worked for companies much larger than any wrestling company for decades, so I can't knock it. When you wanna be in the big leagues, you've got to take the bad that comes along with the good. If TNA grows to one day be as large as the WWE, their easier road schedule will take on something similar to the WWE's, bigger venues, bigger ppv sales, increased merchendising sales, dvd sales. Basically, just a lot more money all around and that level of success can change one's outlook quickly.

 

[Melina]

I think that Vince has to be that way, because his shows have way more going on. He is in different large arenas each week, while TNA Impact is in the Impact Zone almost every week.

However I think overall Vince treats his employees better than Dixie does. Sure Dixie may be more friendly, but Vince will pay for rehab if they need it, gives great send offs if he sees fit, and pays much better.

 

[Tastycles]

If I was a boss, I'd be like Dixie. I'd want my boss to be like Dixie. I think in 99% of industries the Dixie approach is much better. However, you need someone to be in control when you have the amounts of egos that are there in the wrestling industry. I think we can look to the disharmony in WCW as a prime example of what happens when the talent runs the show. As long as she makes sure that she's hard at the negotiation table and that there are proper Undertakeresque locker room leaders in the company, she's fine. However, softly softly might not work too well when you have The Nasty Boys kicking off in the dressing room.

 

[psykohurricane]

The funny thing with this interview is again how does Dixie know that about Vince. From some of the former WWE wrestlers that doesn't like vince because he or she got fired. That a great source of information and until she says in a interview that she actually experience what going on in the WWE locker room i not going to take a seriously.

But on to the question at hand, in a ideal world i would rather have a work for a boss that give me positive comments but we are not in a ideal world and in this world, if you want to make it in business you need to be ruthless. The WWE hasn'T become the big company it is today because Vince Mcmahon was nice to everybody, it became the number 1 wrestling company because Vince wasn't scared to be tough with is employee. In any company you need to have rules and have somebody to enforce them.

TNA is a small company right now so sure you can use that positive management style that she using and it will motivate everybody to work harder but when TNA will become bigger if they ever get there, then you'll see the ego'S come out and try to get there own way because she will be look at as a weak person that they can get anything they want out of.

So personally i rather have vince style of management then Dixie's because at the end of the day look where Vince'S style brought The WWE since Vince bought it compare to were TNA is since she bought it.

 

[Davi323]

Amen, psykohurricane, I was wondering the same thing...How do we know if we can trust Dixie Carter's appraisal of Vince McMahon? Has she ever worked for him? Has she ever actually seen him backstage? Or does her information come from disgruntled Ex-WWE employees who are trying to curry favor by telling their new boss just how bad it was at their last job, and how wonderful it is in TNA? Please. The first things former employees do when they go to work somewhere else is badmouth their former employer. Hell, Taz does it right there on national television.

She left out the part where Vince pays for rehab for every former employee, all they have to do is ask. She leaves out the part where Vince has to be tough, because the nation is watching when HIS wrestlers screw up. If a TNA wrestler gets busted for running a mobile pharmacy in his car, does that get on TMZ? If a TNA wrestler gets pulled over for drunk driving, does anyone notice? They certainly notice when a WWE wrestler does.

There also comes a point where being "nice" is a detriment. Nice is for someone trying to be your friend, not a leader. General Patton was not a "nice" guy to his troops, because the situation didn't call for "nice." Her comment is quite ironic, considering the situation she placed TNA in. Maybe SHE doesn't have a tiered system for how each TNA wrestler gets treated, but, Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff certainly do. The two egomaniacs she put in charge. She can claim the high ground and say she treats everyone equally, while ignoring the fact that the people she left in charge of TNA are two of the most ego-centric individuals in wrestling, who won't even blink at hiring their friends and giving them spots over others...Nepotism is a wonderful thing, if you are the one gaining the advantage because of it...

I remember when WCW folded, reading interviews about how much better run the WWE was, about how chaotic the WCW backstage was, about how nobody knew what was going on, etc. You know, the WCW where Eric Bischoff, Hulk Hogan and Vince Russo had the bulk of backstage power? Being nice is fine and good for a small time organization, which TNA most definitely is, but that kind of management simply doesn't work in a company the size of the WWE. That is a lesson Dixie Carter will be forced to learn, if she is serious about one day being competition for the WWE. The bigger the company, the bigger the hard ass the leader of that company has to be in order to keep things rolling.

 

[lghikas]

I think they way Dixie tries to run things creates for a better atmosphere, on the surface but when it comes down to some people become lazy and feel they can get away with things. Vince's way sure if you aren't one of the guys, you might feel like you're are being held down, but there are actual rules which a company needs and if you do something wrong for the most part you do get in trouble.

As for positive or negative reinforcement, I would rather have them just tell me straight up and tell me how it is. I don't need someone feeding bullshit and telling me I am doing good, when I'm not. And I don't need someone always saying I am doing shitty. I guess if I had to pick I think I would rather have the negative reinforcement that way it makes me push and try to work harder. But too much of it I might feel like my work is appreciated. The positive reinforcement can be good but if I'm not doing good but being told I am, I might not wanna strive to work harder and my work rate would probably go down.

If I had to pick one....I think I would have to pick the way Vince does thing, because with the structure something Dixie doesn't really have imo, will get shit done and in the end, in a business sadly results are the only thing that matters.

Also Dixie's way of doing business looks good on paper but the way SHE does it doesn't appeal to me personally. And I will admit I do have a bias disdained dislike for the way Dixie runs things in TNA.

 

[Dan E. Inferno]

If I was a boss, I'd be like Dixie. I'd want my boss to be like Dixie.

This is a good way to look at it. I know I'd respond much better to a Dixie type boss rather than a McMahon type boss. The difference is I would actually want to do my best for the boss out of respect for him/her rather than doing it because I'm going to get a freshly ripped new one if I don't. I think it's just much easier to work in a positive environment where I'm shown respect. If I had a boss watching me like a hawk because he didn't trust me, I'd either get frustrated or crumble under the pressure.

As for which approach is better, I'm going to say a positive approach but both have good points. Although a negative approach causes bad morale, it's a way of making sure things are getting done. For example, if you're the boss of a bunch of easy going people, you need to stay on top of them to make sure they are productive. Even if this means you have to be very strict and the workers' don't like or respect you. The positive approach works when you trust your workers to do their jobs to a good standard. However, it's important not to be too nice or friendly as that is when they are likely to start taking liberties. So, the best management philosophy has elements of both but to choose one, I'd pick positive because of the good morale it causes and consequently the high productivity it causes.

If I were to run a wrestling company, I'd adopt Dixie's style. Partly because it's more natural for me but also because it appears Dixie has struck the right balance. She is approachable, but not someone who you can take liberties with. Vince's methods have obviously worked over the years, but it has mostly produced a bunch of yes men who are afraid to stand up for what they believe in. That obviously doesn't create a good morale or a good work environment for some employees and I wouldn't want to run a business in that way.

 

[pyrusane]

With that being said I would like everyone to take into consideration a couple of things:

I really like this thread Sid. Let me see what I can do here...

1) Which management philosophy do you think you would personally enjoy working under more?

Personally, I like to know that my boss appreciates what I'm doing, and get positive reinforcement. There has to be a good balance though. Feedback is a gift, as an old company I used to work for liked to say, and if you only tell me what I'm doing well, then how will I ever fix the things I'm doing poorly. So, yeah, I want my boss to let me know when I do a good job, but don't be afraid to tell me when I screw up.

2) Which management philosophy do you feel is best for business and productivity? Positive reinforcement or Negative reinforcement?

This is where it gets interesting. I used to be a mid-level manager for a Fortune 500 company, and had sixteen direct reports. My team absolutely loved me, because I told them daily all of the things they were doing well, and told them how they could use those positives to build on and improve the areas where they were weaker. And every day I saw their performance get worse and worse and worse.

One day, my boss pulled me aside. He asked if I had seen our latest numbers, and told me basically that my team had gone from being one of the top performers in our location to middle of the pack at best. And he reminded me of something that I still hold close to this very day. When it comes down to it, as the boss, your job isn't to be friends with your employees, it isn't to make sure they are happy and satisfied and smiling all day. Your job, as the boss, is to make sure that the people who work for you keep their jobs.

Smiley faces and happy words might make for a more positive work environment, but if you don't let someone know that there are consequences for screwing up, and tell them when they do so, eventually that employee will smile themselves right onto the unemployment line.

3) Which management philosophy do you feel is the right philosophy, all things considered ... IF you had to pick one philosophy to manage a wrestling company?

I would say a hybrid of the two, assuming that both companies are actually run under the philosophies that Dixie describes. No one wants to go to a job where they are miserable all day, everyone wants to have a positive work environment. However, if my choice is to have to occasionally eat a mouthful of shit, or else starve to death because my boss didn't kick my ass enough to make sure I kept my job, well, pass the salt...