Will the NHL ever see a female head coach?

[WarriorofTime]

I think it could happen. Possibly not in my lifetime and would require a cultural shift but there is no reason why a woman wouldn’t be just as capable of coaching an NHL team as a man.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I found a funny parallel to these things, and the plight my fellow Asians had when trying to gun for leadership positions in North America.

We were essentially told, we were weak, had no leadership skills, couldn't inspire etc, because we aren't obnoxious, don't cut each other down, don't do that bro-culture thing.
Was pretty damning to see that play out in Silicone valley, where 40% of the workforce were Asian, yet less than 5% of the management were, and none of the executive management.

What did those guys do?

Well, the Ivy League educated guys from MIT, Harvard, Yale etc... who were considered 'weak leaders' at Apple went back to Korea and joined Samsung who then proceeded to absolutely shit-stomp Apple in market share by nearly double.

So if the results are there, do people still think they're weak leaders? Honda did the same. So did Sony, Tencent, and a f*** load of other companies where the Asians were never promoted beyond middle management.


The truth is, MOST people have an incredibly distorted view of what constitutes "Leadership".
A lot of people seem to think Leadership is giving a compelling speech. Or a boisterous attitude. Or being a sociopath.

It's not any of those things, and never were. Movies are wrong, and media is wrong. Sure that nonsense looks great on a screen.

William Wallace asking everyone to die on a battlefield for freedom looks great in cinema, but that isn't how leadership works.


Leadership is experience meets empathy.


Babcock is a psychopathic piece of shit with zero empathy, and it was astouding everyone believed him to be the best coach in the league at one point.
He reminds me of the type of boss to say this shit:

Would you work hard for this piece of shit? Would you give up your weekends working relentless overtime to make this asshole more rich?


Men are rapidly finding out that women can be incredible leaders.
And it's not because they're testosterone filled sociopaths who can give speeches like Al Pacino.

 

[DuckyGirard]

What does any of that have to do with a woman potentially coaching an nhl team?

Everything.

Disagreeable-Agreeableness is a trait that directly correlates to competitiveness.

As in some people argue that the spectrum of disagreeableness should be broken down into hostility and competitiveness. As in not only are women far more agreeable, they are far more likely to be hostile than competitive if they are the rare one that is highly disagreeable.

At the same time the variety of spatial reasoning needing to observe a game and make fast paced coaching decisions is also heavily associated with males and prenatal testosterone levels.

A third element is obsessiveness and again there's a strong connection to prenatal testosterone levels.

It's very very rare to meet a obsessive competitive women who's also amazing at doing on the fly coaching decision based on her ability to see where the puck will be two changes from now.

A women like this may exist, but the odds they have any interest in hockey is super super low.

And as I said that doesn't mean she's bad at everything.

As I called out someone for suggesting, women aren't useless in the NHL, women are statistically better than man when it comes to social relations. In lots of different environments they'd have a serious advantage in drafting players, having a better capacity for making trades, reading the emotional temperaments of 15 year old boys, connecting with scouts resolving conflicts between coaches/players/refs etc.

And I'm absolutely on the side of the equation where coaches should have less power. They are the eyes on the ice during game time, their role shouldn't be much beyond that. Not really a big fan of rainmaker coaches who keep arguing that if they're given more time they'll be better at taking credit for the work done in the backend.

 

[SoupNazi]

What does any of that have to do with a woman potentially coaching an nhl team?

It doesn't. At all.

 

[DuckyGirard]

What does how many 6'6 women there are have to do with whether a woman will coach in the NHL?

Because it's easy to appreciate how a bell curve works, when using an example that everyone can spot.

Height is a tangible thing and if I tell you there are gender differences in height, you'd never disagree.

But for whatever reason people insist when non visible gender differences crop up that they can't exist "because sexism"

The reality is gender isn't all that different from height. Girls and Boys can be all different heights. Girls and Boys can all have different ways in which they see the world.

But the odds a woman shows up masculine in multiple aspects of their brain is super super low.

 

[DuckyGirard]

I found a funny parallel to these things, and the plight my fellow Asians had when trying to gun for leadership positions in North America.

We were essentially told, we were weak, had no leadership skills, couldn't inspire etc

And were they pointing to actual data when they said that?

, because we aren't obnoxious, don't cut each other down, don't do that bro-culture thing.

Great job trying to slide that backhander under the radar.

Was pretty damning to see that play out in Silicone valley, where 40% of the workforce were Asian, yet less than 5% of the management were, and none of the executive management.

What did those guys do?

Well, the Ivy League educated guys from MIT, Harvard, Yale etc... who were considered 'weak leaders' at Apple went back to Korea and joined Samsung who then proceeded to absolutely shit-stomp Apple in market share by nearly double.

So your point is leaving the environment you can't succeed in?

So if the results are there, do people still think they're weak leaders? Honda did the same. So did Sony, Tencent, and a f*** load of other companies where the Asians were never promoted beyond middle management.

Problem is that has no reference to biological ability. That is specific to cultural differences.

If you think American-Asians went over to asia and rocked hyper industrious japan/korea I got news for you.

Japan was dominating in manufacturing methods as early as the 1950s.

And the reason East Asia was so much better was directly because they instituted a very different conception of industrial culture.

The truth is, MOST people have an incredibly distorted view of what constitutes "Leadership".
A lot of people seem to think Leadership is giving a compelling speech. Or a boisterous attitude. Or being a sociopath.

It's not any of those things, and never were. Movies are wrong, and media is wrong. Sure that nonsense looks great on a screen.

William Wallace asking everyone to die on a battlefield for freedom looks great in cinema, but that isn't how leadership works.


Leadership is experience meets empathy.

Empathy is a misleading term. There's a massive difference between knowing what someone is feeling and caring about what someone else feels.

The problem with torts isn't that he lacks empathy in the productive sense of the term. The problem with torts is that he lacks emotional control, and isn't trustworthy.

As a leader you need the emphatic skills of reading of how people feel.

But you also need to not care when you fire someone, or completely blow them out of the water when it suits your needs.

You really have some silly ideas about Asian corporate culture if you think they have some soft cuddly version of management.

The entire east asian business model arose from riding people incredibly hard to make continuous improvements in their business. As a result east asia has a serious problem with suicides and people who can't handle the pressure of their corporate culture.

 

[DuckyGirard]

William Wallace asking everyone to die on a battlefield for freedom looks great in cinema, but that isn't how leadership works.



Men are rapidly finding out that women can be incredible leaders.

Because they change the environment as they enter the room.

It's very cyclical, women move into an environment, it becomes less focused on competition and in many ways become hostile to it.

More agreeable people of both genders move in "agreeing" to work for cheap and the competitive folk get fed up and leave.

They move into another environment, make a ton of money in ruthless competition and the cycle repeats.

Hockey isn't that environment. Hockey is more in line with a battlefield, if these playoffs proved anything the mitch marners of the world are not cut out for today's hockey.

 

[ATdaisuki]

I believe it will happen. It won't be for a while, but I believe that eventually there will be a woman that has the desire, ability, and opportunity. As many have stated in this thread, we will have to see it at the lower ranks first, meaning it likely won't be for many, many years.

To all the people that don't believe it can happen because a woman wouldn't be able to garner respect in the room, I'm sorry you don't respect woman and project that onto other people.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

And were they pointing to actual data when they said that?

Harvard business review reliable enough for you?
Asian Americans Are the Least Likely Group in the U.S. to Be Promoted to Management
Bamboo ceiling - Wikipedia
Wikipedia has a bunch of links

So your point is leaving the environment you can't succeed in?

It's called leaving for a better opportunity, when your employer doesn't appreciate your knowledge and skills.
Why the f*** would anyone stay in an environment they can't succeed in? That's terrible advice.

Problem is that has no reference to biological ability. That is specific to cultural differences.

It's because there is little to no difference in biological ability when it comes to leadership.

Empathy is a misleading term.

It's not misleading at all. I've fired several people over my career yet still genuinely cared about them. Referred them to other positions, and continued to communicate and help them beyond.
There's never EVER need to blow someone out of the water. People don't respond the way you want when you demonstrate temper.

You really have some silly ideas about Asian corporate culture if you think they have some soft cuddly version of management.

I really don't, I worked for a Japanese company at my previous job for 9 years, so I'm acutely aware of their work culture.
You'd be surprised at how similar they really are. Especially in Tech fields.

 

[Panthaz89]

I believe it will happen. It won't be for a while, but I believe that eventually there will be a woman that has the desire, ability, and opportunity. As many have stated in this thread, we will have to see it at the lower ranks first, meaning it likely won't be for many, many years.

To all the people that don't believe it can happen because a woman wouldn't be able to garner respect in the room, I'm sorry you don't respect woman and project that onto other people.

You are projecting it on them.....you got it backwards. I really wonder if any of you have been in a men's locker room after a loss in that type of environment.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Because they change the environment as they enter the room.

It's very cyclical, women move into an environment, it becomes less focused on competition and in many ways become hostile to it.

More agreeable people of both genders move in "agreeing" to work for cheap and the competitive folk get fed up and leave.

They move into another environment, make a ton of money in ruthless competition and the cycle repeats.

Hockey isn't that environment. Hockey is more in line with a battlefield, if these playoffs proved anything the mitch marners of the world are not cut out for today's hockey.

Haha, quoting Jordan Peterson for hockey.

You're misconstruing a lot of what he said.

The bell curve of disagreeableness for men vs women is divided by roughly 60/40. But it's not 0%.
The highest aptitude of men and women in those fields becomes more glaring at the extremes, but it's never 0%

So is it possible for a Woman to become a coach? Well yeah, it's definitely possible. There's sociopathic women, and disagreeable women.

It's possible for us to have women world leaders too. Hillary Clinton was pretty close at winning the White house.


You gonna really say a women can't coach hockey because of biology? Hillary Clinton operated a f***ing war machine. There's ruthless women like her out there. Sure they may not be as numerous as men, but they are out there.

 

[winnipegger]

I found a funny parallel to these things, and the plight my fellow Asians had when trying to gun for leadership positions in North America.

We were essentially told, we were weak, had no leadership skills, couldn't inspire etc, because we aren't obnoxious, don't cut each other down, don't do that bro-culture thing.
Was pretty damning to see that play out in Silicone valley, where 40% of the workforce were Asian, yet less than 5% of the management were, and none of the executive management.

What did those guys do?

Well, the Ivy League educated guys from MIT, Harvard, Yale etc... who were considered 'weak leaders' at Apple went back to Korea and joined Samsung who then proceeded to absolutely shit-stomp Apple in market share by nearly double.

So if the results are there, do people still think they're weak leaders? Honda did the same. So did Sony, Tencent, and a f*** load of other companies where the Asians were never promoted beyond middle management.


The truth is, MOST people have an incredibly distorted view of what constitutes "Leadership".
A lot of people seem to think Leadership is giving a compelling speech. Or a boisterous attitude. Or being a sociopath.

It's not any of those things, and never were. Movies are wrong, and media is wrong. Sure that nonsense looks great on a screen.

William Wallace asking everyone to die on a battlefield for freedom looks great in cinema, but that isn't how leadership works.


Leadership is experience meets empathy.


Babcock is a psychopathic piece of shit with zero empathy, and it was astouding everyone believed him to be the best coach in the league at one point.
He reminds me of the type of boss to say this shit:

Would you work hard for this piece of shit? Would you give up your weekends working relentless overtime to make this asshole more rich?


Men are rapidly finding out that women can be incredible leaders.
And it's not because they're testosterone filled sociopaths who can give speeches like Al Pacino.

Be careful not to let resentment control you. It's a dangerous and sometimes fatal drug.

 

[DuckyGirard]

Haha, quoting Jordan Peterson for hockey.

You're misconstruing a l0t of what he said.

The bell curve of disagreeableness for men vs women is divided by roughly 60/40. But it's not 0%.
The highest aptitude of men and women in those fields becomes more glaring at the extremes, but it's never 0%

I was very interested in prenatal develop and testosterone levels for far longer than Peterson was famous.

I'm autistic and so is my wife. She's one of those rare females who has certain traits that are more masculine. But guess what she detests violence, because you know that's how the odds work.

And you're completely missing the point.

It isn't about one statistical distribution. It's about the overlapping of many.

If 1 person in 100 is over 6 foot 5, and 1 in 100 is strong enough to play basket, that doesn't mean 1 percent of the population is capable of playing basketball it means 1 in 10,000 have that ability.

There are correlations between curves so it isn't that symmetrical but the whole thing spans out.

You can get lucky and draw an ace of spades from a deck of cards. But when you need to draw aces out of 5 decks your odds plummet. That is the nature of competitive sports.

FYI you probably understand less than nothing about jordan peterson if that isn't absolutely obvious. I really don't care if you love or hate the guy, but if you can't understand one of the most base level things he's ever talked about don't bring up his name.

So is it possibly for a Woman to become a coach? Well yeah, it's definitely possible. There's sociopathic women, and disagreeable women.

disagreeable, and they have to have high spatial reasoning skills to understand the actual game on the ice.(ace from deck 2)

And as I said disagreeable hostile and disagreeable competitive are not the same thing. Women tend to be more hostile, and when they are less agreeable they often suffer borderline personality disorder etc.

You need that high spatial reasoning (ace from deck 3)

You need that obsessiveness to pull you a long(ace from deck 4)

And I'm sure there's a few intangible that give you a massive bonus and keep you from being a kyle dubas(like actually breaking an arm while playing etc),.

It's possible for us to have women world leaders too. Hillary Clinton was pretty close at winning the White house.

I never said anything about politics, I went out of my way to say women are probably possessing certain advantages when it comes to scouting, general management etc.

You gonna really say a women can't coach hockey because of biology? Hillary Clinton operated a f***ing war machine. There's ruthless women like her out there. Sure they may not be as numerous as men, but they are out there.

Again ruthlessness is just one requirement among several.

And this is same thing over and over.

Chara's 6 9, finding another person 6 foot 9 doesn't mean you found the next chara.

Finding a disagreeable person doesn't mean you found the next torts.

Even if she magically possessed all the necessary traits, you'd have to explain why hiliary clinton would have any interest in hockey. And this is the part which makes the odds of a female coach so incredibly unlikely. NHL coaches stay in the game forever for the obvious fact there's very very few humans cut out for the task.

 

[DuckyGirard]

Harvard business review reliable enough for you?
Asian Americans Are the Least Likely Group in the U.S. to Be Promoted to Management
Bamboo ceiling - Wikipedia
Wikipedia has a bunch of links
View attachment 446385

Problem is you can't have it both ways. Asians over perform in certain ways it's absurd to think they over perform in all ways.

Obviously for whatever cultural reasons on average asian americans value certain aspects of financial planning and education. It's not a shock to find out that this behaviour mike make it harder to get into higher mangement.

That's assuming you're not conflating Asians and Asian Americans, and trying to double count people.

And that's assuming you're accounting for the part where white workers are likely relocating from across the continent versus AAs who more often than not grew up around silicon valley.

It's called leaving for a better opportunity, when your employer doesn't appreciate your knowledge and skills.
Why the f*** would anyone stay in an environment they can't succeed in? That's terrible advice.

The point is you didn't prove that these people were a good fit with that kind of corporate culture, they left for another one altogether.

And again you're being really unclear.

Were these asias speaking poor english, or were they Asian Americans moving in mass to East Asia?

Did the fact that these AAs spoke perfect english have some influence on whether they succeeded in asia?

It's because there is little to no difference in biological ability when it comes to leadership.

Between groups of people or between genders?

My point was no one ever said asian men failed because of their genetics. They said they couldn't because of their behaviours.

And it's been noted more than a few times that the values of Asian industrial culture prioritise conservative choice making in creative endeavours.

It's not misleading at all. I've fired several people over my career yet still genuinely cared about them. Referred them to other positions, and continued to communicate and help them beyond.

There's never EVER need to blow someone out of the water. People don't respond the way you want when you demonstrate temper.

Let's not mix two separate conversations.

one is about a different culture, the other is about empathy.

When you're a coach you don't have time to be upset by so and so breaking their arm, you aren't thinking about their parents etc. You're thinking about the next line change. That moments of hesitation and distraction can cost you an entire playoff run.

You also can't be shocked when your AC causes someone to leave the rink in a stretcher.

I really don't, I worked for a Japanese company at my previous job for 9 years, so I'm acutely aware of their work culture.
You'd be surprised at how similar they really are. Especially in Tech fields.

Worked in actual Japan?

Because I'm gonna find that one hard to believe.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

You are projecting

You know what projection is?

'Cause my dude, you've spent this thread arguing that male professional athletes will never, EVER respect a woman authority figure.

 

[Shortstuff]

I could see female trainers making an appearance in the future. Female head coaches? Sure but it won’t be for a very long time.

 

[Bondurant]

Babcock is a psychopathic piece of shit with zero empathy, and it was astouding everyone believed him to be the best coach in the league at one point.

Winning the Stanley Cup, getting to the final another 2 times and coaching your team, at all levels, to the playoffs almost every you coach will do that.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

I couldn’t get past the first page of this thread. Holy cringe.
Yes you can have a female coach, but don’t expect it anytime soon. Not because of “young high testosterone men not buying what a woman has to say” (what the f***?). Far simpler than that, the leagues are dramatically further apart in terms of development, and only started a public relationship like... literally this season. With some societal changes that appear to be happening, if the male and female hockey institutions moved closer together the way the NBA and WNBA have or the USMNT and USWNT have, sure, the greatest sports minds will start to become higher profile and find their way into the sport. Will it be head coach first? Most definitely not. Baby steps.

 

[TheBeard]

Because it's easy to appreciate how a bell curve works, when using an example that everyone can spot.

Height is a tangible thing and if I tell you there are gender differences in height, you'd never disagree.

But for whatever reason people insist when non visible gender differences crop up that they can't exist "because sexism"

The reality is gender isn't all that different from height. Girls and Boys can be all different heights. Girls and Boys can all have different ways in which they see the world.

But the odds a woman shows up masculine in multiple aspects of their brain is super super low.

John Tortarella is 5’8.

 

[The Sweetness]

The worst OHL players would absolutely dismantle a team of the best women players in the world

So what you essentially are saying is that men are better coaches because they are stronger/faster than women?

 

[MrSnrub]

What does “females can’t compete with men athletically” have to do with anything?

Did Barry Trotz win the Islanders job because of his dirty dekes?

 

[Pavels Dog]

How many 6 foot 6 women have you ever met? How many can bench their body weight?

Making comments like this in a thread about whether a woman could coach in the NHL is quite literally the definition of sexism.

"They're weaker"
"Their brains are smaller"
"They can't command the same authority"
"Their voices are too soft"
"They have to be home with the children"
"They're distracting"
"They're not competitive enough"
"They're too competitive"
"They're not ambitious enough."
"They're too ambitious."

etc etc.

Always excuses, always grasping at some.. reason.. for why they can't get more opportunities.

Coaching in the NHL is still very much stuck in the stone-age. So female head coaches are probably a long time away. There aren't even any european head coaches and many similar excuses are used for that.
Not long ago there were few or no european captains. A while before that not many european players. European players were too soft, couldn't compete as hard. Didn't have the same winning mentality. Seems strangely familiar.
Most NHL teams still seem more than okay with hiring some re-run failed coach, maybe because he had a good season once, or maybe becuase he was a good player (which is 100% meaningless), instead of looking at who is actually most competent for the job.

Now the journey is starting with more women being hired into NHL organizations. But many steps probably need to happen before we can start looking at serious candidates to actually coach in the NHL. The kind of thinking that some people in this thread are displaying is exactly what we need to combat on every level of the sport though to get more women to #1 get into the sport, and #2 stay in the sport.

 

[rangersfansince08]

I found a funny parallel to these things, and the plight my fellow Asians had when trying to gun for leadership positions in North America.

We were essentially told, we were weak, had no leadership skills, couldn't inspire etc, because we aren't obnoxious, don't cut each other down, don't do that bro-culture thing.
Was pretty damning to see that play out in Silicone valley, where 40% of the workforce were Asian, yet less than 5% of the management were, and none of the executive management.

What did those guys do?

Well, the Ivy League educated guys from MIT, Harvard, Yale etc... who were considered 'weak leaders' at Apple went back to Korea and joined Samsung who then proceeded to absolutely shit-stomp Apple in market share by nearly double.

So if the results are there, do people still think they're weak leaders? Honda did the same. So did Sony, Tencent, and a f*** load of other companies where the Asians were never promoted beyond middle management.


The truth is, MOST people have an incredibly distorted view of what constitutes "Leadership".
A lot of people seem to think Leadership is giving a compelling speech. Or a boisterous attitude. Or being a sociopath.

It's not any of those things, and never were. Movies are wrong, and media is wrong. Sure that nonsense looks great on a screen.

William Wallace asking everyone to die on a battlefield for freedom looks great in cinema, but that isn't how leadership works.


Leadership is experience meets empathy.


Babcock is a psychopathic piece of shit with zero empathy, and it was astouding everyone believed him to be the best coach in the league at one point.
He reminds me of the type of boss to say this shit:

Would you work hard for this piece of shit? Would you give up your weekends working relentless overtime to make this asshole more rich?


Men are rapidly finding out that women can be incredible leaders.
And it's not because they're testosterone filled sociopaths who can give speeches like Al Pacino.

I love how you try to take the moral high ground and then essentially say all white leaders are obnoxious, cut each other down and engage in bro culture but "Asians" never do that.

 

[rangersfansince08]

Haha, quoting Jordan Peterson for hockey.

You're misconstruing a l0t of what he said.

The bell curve of disagreeableness for men vs women is divided by roughly 60/40. But it's not 0%.
The highest aptitude of men and women in those fields becomes more glaring at the extremes, but it's never 0%

So is it possibly for a Woman to become a coach? Well yeah, it's definitely possible. There's sociopathic women, and disagreeable women.

It's possible for us to have women world leaders too. Hillary Clinton was pretty close at winning the White house.


You gonna really say a women can't coach hockey because of biology? Hillary Clinton operated a f***ing war machine. There's ruthless women like her out there. Sure they may not be as numerous as men, but they are out there.

I don't think anybody is disagreeing with that. There are only 32 NHL jobs though. It just makes it unlikely. Not biologically impossible.

 

[hoglund]

If they're good enough, yes. Contrary to popular belief there is no discrimination in sports, most teams care about winning more than anything and male or female, black or white if it makes your team better you'll be on the team.