Kickers v Kissers

As far as I can tell, there are basically two different models for the way a group operates, based on the personal and social styles of the individual members.

In the first model, highly motivated individuals acquire skills and knowledge far exceeding the minimal job performance requirements, in order to achieve optimal performance of a mission that is the organizations reason for being.
Members of the organization are assigned tasks based on their competence and move up in the group hierarchy based on merit.
Interpersonal relationships may develop, but are secondary in importance to the mission. For example, if a members “friend” makes a mistake that compromises the mission, the member doesn’t hesitate to point it out, because the mission is more important than the “friendship.” Right and wrong are constant, regardless of the personalities involved.

My dad would call this a “kick-ass” crew, because everyone in it is an “ass-kicker” in her/her own right.

In the second model, the stated mission takes a backseat to social interaction.
Individuals acquire just enough knowledge and skill to satisfy the minimum job performance requirements and no more. Indeed, anyone who exceeds that is considered suspect.
Members of this group are assigned tasks based on social relationships, in particular, social relationships with the leadership of the group, and moving up in the hierarchy is based on how well “liked” the member is.
There is a social in-group/out-group double standard. Right and wrong are infinitely variable, depending on the personalities involved. An action decried as wrong if done by a non-friend, is defended as being right if done by a friend.

My dad would call this one a “kiss-ass” group, comprised of “ass-kissers.”

Ass-kickers and ass-kissers.
My dad wasn’t exactly a nice guy, and he didn’t know much.
But he’d spent time in Europe during WWII as an infantry grunt.
My own experience in the service suggests to me that my dad probably knew the difference between these two styles.

I’ve seen both of these models in action.
So have you.

If you have ANY familiarity with ANY professional sport team, you know the first model. The mission of the team is to win games – and make big bucks doing it. You change tactics, strategy and players with that goal in mind, and you don’t worry too much about hurting anybody’s feelings doing it.
Today you might play for Boston, and you do your best for them because you’re a pro and that’s what you do. You might get to be great pals with your team members. Tomorrow you get traded to Chicago. And you do your best for them, too, because you’re a pro and that’s what you do.
What happens when you play against your old pals from Boston? You play to win – and so do they. It’s understood. Friendship has nothing to do with it. You can be on a team and NOT be friends with somebody, and you can be on opposing teams and still be friends.
Separate things, see?

On the flip side of that, take a corporate golf group.
Playing a good game of golf isn’t the point. It’s an exercise in kissing. How does the boss feel about losing? Maybe you better drop a stroke or two. Who do you compliment? Who do you ask for tips? What’s the role of shoes, clothes, clubs? The importance of cost? This golf game has nothing to do with golf. It’s 18 holes of office politics with more puckering


I’ve seen the same two models in music, too.
I’ve played in a lot of bands over the years. One of the best was run by a vocalist who came to town riding on a pony with her saddlebags full of charts. Hired some guys to play them. Our mission was the music. We didn’t have to be “friends” to play well together, just good musicians. In fact, there was this one guy…. He and I were like cobra and mongoose. I thought we was a prize jerk – and maybe he thought the same of me.
But, man, could he play. And that’s what mattered. When we were on stage, you’d have thought we were twin sons of different mothers. He never blew a cue, was always where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there. OFF stage? I don’t think we ever said three kind words to each other in succession.

On the flip side would be the garage band I played in when I was about 14. It was all about “friends.” They agonized about getting a better “lead guitar” player because the current guy – who didn’t play all that well – was a pal. In the end, they stuck with their pal and changed the music, rather than stick with the music and change players.
I stuck with the music and changed bands.
But then, he wasn’t my pal.

In general, if I get to choose, I prefer the first model to the second.
I was never very good at ass-kissing and I don’t care much for people who are – because they usually aren’t much good at anything else.
Don’t have to be.
And I don’t care to have anyone puckering up toward my haunches, either. I prefer to associate with people who are honest and straight-forward, even if we disagree.

Quoth Cyrano: They make friends as dogs make friends and when I see the manner of their canine courtesies, I say to myself, “Thank god, here comes another enemy.”

I might just get that tattooed on my chest.


With some organizations, maybe it doesn’t much matter if works like it’s an elite team or a social clique.
But with some organizations, it matters a hell of a lot.
A Fire Company, for example.


But it seems like our national style, socially and politically, is firmly entrenched in the ass-kissing model.
Forget about what’s right or wrong, honorable or dishonorable, legal or illegal.
It’s all about how to gain political advantage. Tell different vague lies to all different factions, tell them what they want to hear.
No principles; all pucker.

Too bad.

I heard that, once upon a time, we were real ass-kickers.
Stood up for something.

Maybe that was just a rumor


sj