When first pondering this article, I was stumped about what title to give it. Of course, it helps to make your title clever and interesting. But, it also has to be on topic. This essay is about leadership, and sadly, the above phrase is best associated with aliens from another planet landing and asking for directions to Washington, (the city - not the state). I say "sadly", because I believe in recent years, leadership has been a very "alien" concept in the Mariners organization. At this point, Seattle fans everywhere are also hoping that the newly arrived regime has brought some direction with them.

The first and most obvious question in discussing leadership is simply, "What IS leadership?" Honestly, I think despite the howls of pain and frustration at its lack, not only in regards to baseball franchises, but also politics and life in general, most people really don't know what leadership is. I suspect that the stock answer from most people would have something to do with someone "being in charge", or someone that "others will follow." To me, this actually misses the point of leadership completely. Every MLB team has a GM, a Manager, 25 players. Many seem to have no "leadership".

Of course, baseball is a very different sport than most. It's almost certainly the most individual performance dominated team sport on the planet. In basketball the entire team plays all the time. In baseball, the focal point of each play begins with a one-on-one duel between pitcher and catcher. In football, the Quarterback is a natural leadership position. In basketball, the point guard. But, in baseball, the team leader can be anyone. Except for the closer, there is no specific control over when a player gets a chance to be the hero. You cannot just give the ball to MJ or Manning, and let him win it. This focus on individual achievement makes baseball uniquely frustrating when contemplating leadership - and more specifically, GOOD leadership.

My years of experience in watching sports, working in the real world, and occasionally moonlighting as a musician, (both in bands and more recently as Music Director at my church), has led me to a simple conclusion about leadership. What leadership really happens to be, in my opinion, is the capacity for a single individual to make the individuals around him better. This can be seen in sports very clearly. As good as MJ was, his work ethic, determination and fire, were all evident to his teammates. Jordan made Pippen and Rodman and even Scott Williams better.

In business or politics or the military, the great leaders manage to produce greater achievements with the tools at hand than those they are compared with. And though rarely if ever mentioned, it is not only possible, but quite common to have negative leadership. When fans and pundits refer to players as being "clubhouse cancers", they are really expressing the idea that a given player is making the other players around him worse by his company.

In Seattle, for 2009, there is new leadership. A new GM named "Z". A new Manager named "W". Only time will tell whether one or both is a good leader. Typically, the manager is the one saddled with leadership responsibilities. He's the one who directly deals with the players. Ultimately, it is the managers job to not only get the most out of each player, but also to get the most out his lineups. It's a tricky dance to perform, finding that perfect balance between keeping your best players in the lineup without letting them wear down, while keeping your bench players engaged and sharp enough to perform at their best level without atrophy.

Typically, the GM isn't viewed as a leader. He's viewed by most simply as the talent acquisition guy. The stock view of GMs seems to be that they just need to balance production and dollars reasonably, and the rest is out of their hands. I believe this is a gross oversimplification. However, I believe that this may in fact be a common reality for the worst run baseball organizations. If one is only concerned about individual production of player X, then it will be the wildest stroke of luck to actualy acquire players that make other players better. I believe the best GMs understand that there is more than simply production to look at. Obviously, they don't exclude production in their roster construction plans - but I believe the best GMs have a sense, (be it concious or subconcious) about what type of players will mesh with those already in place.

Additionally, there is no simple equation that assures that a specific type of player will "always" be a "leader". For a person to make those around him better, one must take into account those people as well. Making a group of Marines perform better does NOT require the same type of leadership that making a group of housewives work better together. If you add a fiery, egotistical SOB to the right clubhouse, he may be the spark that ignites them to greatness. If you add that same player to a different clubhouse, he may be the flame that burns them to the ground.

The GM has an interest task in that he needs to understand the group conciousness of what he's already dealing with in addition to discerning the potential impact of acquisition and departures from that mix. San Fran dumps AJ Pierzynski in 2005 because he's a clubhouse cancer. The White Sox end up winning the World Series with him, assisted by other clubhouse cancers like Frank Thomas and Carl Everett. It's not a simple equation.

Since the departure of Lou Piniella, Seattle has been cursed with precious little positive leadership. The 2003 club was basically just coasting on the momentum left over, (and was in fact nearly identical to the 2002 club). But when the last of the talent faded from the likes of Edgar and Olerud and Boone, the reins of team leadership, (from among the players), fell to Ichiro. It's the nature of baseball to annoint the best player as "default" leader, barring reasons to go elsewhere.

The problem here is twofold. The most obvious is the language/culture barrier. Ichiro's work ethic was never questioned. But his methods were so foreign to the American psyche that it was probably impossible for Ichiro to ever hope to become a true team leader. His personal methods of training, experimentation, decision making in the field -- each one was likely at best neutral in regards to making players around him better. His reluctance to dive for balls, like was a leadership detriment.

Mind you, this is not a negative reflection on Ichiro. I suspect that in Japan, he could be one of the most powerful leaders around. This is an observation of the environment that Ichiro was working within. As a cog in the Mariner machine that was built in the 90s, Ichiro was a sterling addition. As a leader of ANY American franchise, Ichiro would begin from a position of handicap.

The franchise reboot under Bavasi began by bringing in Sexson and Beltre. Sexson was the older and more productive player. With the limitations on Ichiro's ability to lead, Sexson became the new default leader. Given the general mentions of Sexson being perceived as "lazy" or a bit "snooty", this is NOT an ideal candidate for leadership on a team. The club was attempting to bring up some young guys, (Reed, Lopez, YuBet), and in 2005, they had a mish-mosh of choices to latch onto or emulate. The over-the-hill Boone, the foreign Ichiro, or the hired gun Sexson. This isn't a clubhouse culture. This is Ellis Island.

In 2006, Johjima is added, and predictably is more atuned to Ichiro than the Americans. But this is the year Ibanez became the most productive player. Ibanez is probably not a bad leadership type. He's a yourneyman, who finally got his first real shot after age 30. But, did he make the players around him better? I don't think so. I think the hodgepodge of a team in 2006 was just that.

In 2007, the club added Guillen and Vidro to the lineup, and they suddenly had a marked jump in success. Guillen was the kind of vocal cheerleader and in-your-face personality that was, in fact, a leader. Of course, in some of his previous stops, he had been viewed as a cancer. Yes, both assessments can be true. The 2006 club was desperate for leadership, and Guillen and Vidro added it. Guillen was the mouthpiece. But Vidro was a lot like Ibanez -- a blue collar player. Come in, do whatever the club wants to the best of your ability and be thankful for it.

I do not believe it was Guillen's production that was missed in 2008. I think it was, in fact, his leadership. Not because he is a brilliant leader - but rather because the club, as constructed, was so completely devoid of any other options. Guillen likely helped make everyone else better in 2007. Ibanez/Ichiro became the default leaders again in 2008, and the results were horrendous. Both were guys that focus on their personal production. But, when the club stumbled, they had no one to help them right the ship. And it is dreadfully obvious that McLaren was utterly hopeless in the task.

My personal belief is that it is likely easier and more common for leadership to be produced from WITHIN an organization than by acquiring it. If a club desires to build an organizational culture, then it stands to reason that the players who have grown up within the organization and have a common frame of reference are more likely to be in tune with it. In the corporate world, the knee jerk reaction to imported management is fear and loathing. The perception of the "outsider" is going to typically demand an adjustment period of simple acceptance before you can even begin to move beyond that into helping make others better.

And the outsider doesn't have the knowledge base of the skills and personalities of the people already there to be in a position to purposefully introduce a positive impact on others. Oh, it can happen by chance, especially when replacing a previous negative influence. The removal of a tyrant will make the arrival of anyone a welcome change. So, it is important to remember there are TWO parts of the equation -- who is lost as well as who is gained.

Seattle, in 2009, has no player leadership. It is rudderless. Ichiro is simply the resident talent. This does not mean one cannot emerge. Branyan, perhaps? Lopez? The leader for a baseball team needs to lead by example first and foremost. No one is prone to follow the least productive player on the team, (and would you want that to be the case?). But, the homegrown talent has not shown much in the way of helping others around them to be better. The Mariners need a team leader -- but the organization needs to seriously consider the future and how it can begin producing the team leaders for tomorrow.