Michael Jordan is a six-time World Champion with the Chicago Bulls, and a two-time Olympic gold medalist. He is often touted as the greatest basketball player of all time. Now with the increasing popularity of the documentary The Last Dance, produced by ESPN, that documents Jordan’s entire career including the baseball years, I hypothesize that Michael Jordan checks most of the boxes for the five factor model of personality; did he demonstrate low neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
Neuroticism, as defined by Northouse (2016), is a tendency to be anxious, depressed, insecure, vulnerable, and hostile; in a good leader you are looking for low neuroticism. I would claim that Michael Jordan did feel all these emotions, as most people do. But his ability to separate his emotions from the basketball court gave him the appearance for always being calm and collected even with the biggest and brightest lights shining on him. However, when MJ retired the first time in 1993 after the senseless murder of his father, I believe he was overwhelmed by neurotic feelings. Perhaps years of suppressed neurotic feelings came pouring out, stemming from the loss of his father, whom he was very close with. There is also a story from the late 90’s when he had returned to the Bulls of a scuffled that happened at a closed practice that culminated in Steve Kerr, the now head coach of the Golden State Warriors, getting punched in the face and MJ getting tossed out of practice. That indicates to me that Michael didn’t have his neuroticism under control all the time but was always cool in the biggest moments.
Michael Jordan owned the 90s. He was arguably the biggest celebrity on the planet. I am unsure about his sociability however, he seemed personable enough with the Chicago fan base, but I don’t think he was a big partier. He wasn’t seen out at night clubs, which isn’t a bad thing, but those nights out can be used as a team bonding opportunity. Extraversion is more than sociability, it is assertiveness and the ability to have positive energy (Northouse, 2016). Michael Jordan was assertive, which was deeply rooted in his self-confidence and his ability on the basketball court. He was a bad man and he knew it; he had a competitive fire unlike anything anyone had ever seen, and it may never be seen again. The mental toughness that he demonstrated, and his ability to will himself to win is uncanny.
There are four characteristics that describe openness: informed, creative, insightful, and curious (Northouse, 2016). Michael Jordan was notoriously hard on his teammates; he would try to push them past their limits. This seemed to be his round about way of building trust with his teammates. He needed to know that they were competent enough to share the court with him in the biggest moments. Maybe that’s why Michael Jordan is undefeated in the finals. This is him demonstrating his insightfulness as a leader. He was able to see potential in all his teammates. Obviously, some teammates were more capable than others i.e. Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, but Jordan pushed everyone proportionally to their ability. I can’t speak to Jordan’s curiosity or how informed he was, this might be one of those gray areas where his playing ability overcame what he lacked in leadership well roundedness. But Jordan was creative, he was able to create his own shot, and create good looks for his teammates. I’m not sure that is what creative is supposed to mean in the context of leadership, but it is applicable for basketball.
Was Michael Jordan agreeable? I doubt it. He was a winner, and sometimes that required him to force his will upon others, teammates included. He was notoriously hard on his teammates especially in practice, as touched upon in the openness section. He was weeding players out; he was breaking them down in order to build trust amongst them. One could classify this as nurturing also, not in the sense of a mother nurturing a baby, but in the way a General would nurture a soldier before battle. The message was always clear, and the endgame was always victory, but the delivery of that message was probably questionable sometimes. Yelling and berating, which is commonplace in sports, doesn’t usually help the situation but I think this is a scenario that you would need to know the individuals involved personally in order to understand the why behind the yelling as motivation.
Lastly, conscientiousness is probably Michael Jordan’s strongest leadership category, he is thorough and decisive, controlled and dependable. His ability to be decisive and dependable as a basketball player are two traits that are closely related to his athletic prowess. He made what seemed to be good decisions and appeared dependable on last shot opportunities because he was better than everyone at basketball. He was strong in these categories because they came innately to him with his competitive drive. Being controlled and thorough always take work, no one can be born thorough. One must be willing to put in the long hours studying and working long after everyone has quit for the day. Michael Jordan’s work ethic was second to none, rivaled only by Kobe Bryant. Both players were given gifts to be good, their ability to be thorough is what made them great.
I’m unsure if Michael Jordan was a good traditional leader. I know that he was the best basketball player ever to do it, and his expectations were unreachably high. I know that he made his teammates better, even after he officially retired for the last time, he left a legacy that will live on forever. He is a unique individual with a specific set of skills, the likes the world may never see again. He brought his own flare to leading the Chicago Bulls, and he lead them to 6 championships.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice, Seventh Edition. Sage Publications.
Travis Bradley says
David,
This was a tremendous and elaborate assessment of “The Greatest to Ever Do It.” I like how your final analysis suggests that albeit effective, Jordan may not necessarily be considered traditional in his leadership tactics. This addresses a noteworthy debate: do the ends really justify the means. In the concluding scene of the eighth episode of ESPN’s docuseries titled “The Last Dance,” Jordan becomes emotional while discussing the role his intensity had on the people he played with. This absolutely moved me. It was almost as if you could tell he was thinking that maybe he was too hard and maybe he even didn’t like himself for behaving the way that he did. But, they never stopped winning, and so goes the internal debate of whether or not doing what he did and treating people the way he treated them was actually a justified necessity in order for them to be successful.
This reminds me of a video clip I watched recently on Youtube that recorded J. Robert Oppenheimer’s reaction after the United States had used nuclear weapons on Japan in World War Two (link below). Yes, it did cripple Japan and lead to a military victory, and yes, it was to be one of the most important scientific developments in the 20th century, but at what costs? When it comes to success, the path that often leads us there is muddled with difficult decisions and sacrifices made, and it is therefore up to us as individuals to reconcile with ourselves and others the decisions we made and actions we took.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac)
cjb127 says
Hi David! This is a great post and highlights Michael Jordan’s leadership as the epitome of referent power. Everyone was awed by his talent and work ethic and they wanted to be a part of his success.
But I wonder, why do you suspect that his leadership was so powerful and effective on the court, yet so unimpressive off the court? If we compare him to his 1995 teammate Steve Kerr, we can see the stark difference. Steve Kerr has won 3 NBA Championships as Head Coach of the Golden State Warriors while Jordan’s ownership of the Charlotte Hornets has failed to result in anything that could be thought of as exceptional, posting losing records in 13 of the last 16 years and failing to even threaten a championship in the other 3.
I would suggest that Jordan’s referent power and talent were so strong that they had an outsized impact while he was in the position of a player, where those traits would prove most important. But when he was in a position that required a more diverse leadership approach, he was unable to meet the challenge.
https://www.cornerstoneondemand.com/rework/why-your-best-managers-are-more-steve-kerr-and-less-michael-jordan