[Goose]

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.

I am going to challenge this statement, at least as written. It may apply to larger hierarchical organizations above a certain level, but IMHO it doesn't apply well to organization like football teams and organizations with less than about 200 participants. These organization are small enough that everybody knows the "leader". There are many different styles of leadership, but the leader has to lead. That takes a special kind of guy that can get people to follow them. There is no place to hide, and you aren't a name on an email.

The subordinates to the leader need to fill the gaps in the leader's capabilities. These subordinates will be working closely with the leader and must "fit" into the organization. Thus, if you are a "CEO" type coach (Herm Edwards), you need strong Xs and Os guys at both the OC and DC positions. Those guys may not be head coaching material, now or ever. That is OK, the HC doesn't care. The AD might, but in this case he doesn't get a vote. If, OTOH, the HC is an "offensive guy" (David Shaw) or a "defensive guy" (Justin Wilcox), you can live with a guy that is more of a "people person" as the coordinator in the area where the HC is involved. This guy may also be recruiting coordinator and manage other things the HC doesn't want to do or can't do. The HC should choose the guy on that basis. He then needs a great Xs and Os guy in the other position.  The HC needs to hire the best guys he can to do the coordinator job as the HC defines it. Shaw for instance is never going to hire an Air Raid guy as his OC, no matter how smart or how good he may be. The clash of styles just would never ever work, and Shaw is the leader. He does need to hire somebody who is capable of independent thinking and articulate enough to sell his ideas to Shaw. AFAIK, Tavita might be just that. Wilcox might hire an Air Raid guy, and may have to any minute now.

Some guys are "pointy end" guys. Some are "organization guys". Both types can work, but the people they hire need to compliment their strengths, not duplicate them. Chip Kelly is a "pointy end" guy, who hates recruiting and alumni relations. He needs an OC who is good at both.

The analogy is that good platoon leaders often don't make good company commanders, and that good company commanders often don't make good field grade officers. They are different skill sets. Hopefully, some of those at each level can rise to the next, but it is job performance in the job they have, not their potential, that is paramount. It is great if the subordinates have other skills, but the ones the leader wants are paramount.

[Goose]

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.

I am going to challenge this statement, at least as written. It may apply to larger hierarchical organizations above a certain level, but IMHO it doesn't apply well to organization like football teams and organizations with less than about 200 participants. These organization are small enough that everybody knows the "leader". There are many different styles of leadership, but the leader has to lead. That takes a special kind of guy that can get people to follow them. There is no place to hide, and you aren't a name on an email.

The subordinates to the leader need to fill the gaps in the leader's capabilities. These subordinates will be working closely with the leader and must "fit" into the organization. Thus, if you are a "CEO" type coach (Herm Edwards), you need strong Xs and Os guys at both the OC and DC positions. Those guys may not be head coaching material, now or ever. That is OK, the HC doesn't care. The AD might, but in this case he doesn't get a vote. If, OTOH, the HC is an "offensive guy" (David Shaw) or a "defensive guy" (Justin Wilcox), you can live with a guy that is more of a "people person" as the coordinator in the area where the HC is involved. This guy may also be recruiting coordinator and manage other things the HC doesn't want to do or can't do. The HC should choose the guy on that basis. He then needs a great Xs and Os guy in the other position.  The HC needs to hire the best guys he can to do the coordinator job as the HC defines it. Shaw for instance is never going to hire an Air Raid guy as his OC, no matter how smart or how good he may be. The clash of styles just would never ever work, and Shaw is the leader. He does need to hire somebody who is capable of independent thinking and articulate enough to sell his ideas to Shaw. AFAIK, Tavita might be just that. Wilcox might hire an Air Raid guy, and may have to any minute now.

Some guys are "pointy end" guys. Some are "organization guys". Both types can work, but the people they hire need to compliment their strengths, not duplicate them. Chip Kelly is a "pointy end" guy, who hates recruiting and alumni relations. He needs an OC who is good at both.

The analogy is that good platoon leaders often don't make good company commanders, and that good company commanders often don't make good field grade officers. They are different skill sets. Hopefully, some of those at each level can rise to the next, but it is job performance in the job they have, not their potential, that is paramount. It is great if the subordinates have other skills, but the ones the leader wants are paramount.