I also work as a staff member for a university sports team, so this was a very familiar topic. I thought about it for a while. Somehow... I felt a vibe that might be interpreted as an older generation imposing their
And first and foremost, there's a possibility that Ichiro's own statements have more context. If I heard it directly from him, it would be different. For reporters who say, 'I agree with Ichiro,' not Ichiro himself, I felt a need to apply the brakes a little, questioning how much understanding, how much selective quoting, and how much generalization went into their opinions. I can't just blindly accept it.
In terms of word definition, we may need to think carefully about context. For example, simply put, there is strict kindness and kind strictness. Strictness is not about intimidation, nor is kindness about giving leeway.
I don't think there's a need to think in terms of generational comparison.
I am reading a book called "Leadership BS" by Professor Jefferey Pfeffer of Stanford University. What I found interesting and wrote about here is that many leaders tend to seek charisma and tell their own legendary tales. However, in reality, it's often unclear if these stories are true, they only speak of good things, and they often exaggerate. The book argues that leaders fail in their roles because these stories don't offer direct solutions to the challenges faced by their subordinates. Isn't that interesting? It might be true. I've seen several people who grandly talk about 'When I was young...' at drinking parties. And I never had a boss who took the time to listen to me, extract the key points, and work with me through the problem-solving process to directly address the challenges I was facing.
What's the point of categorizing by generation? If you want to feel at ease by lumping together things you, as an elder, cannot understand, it is not for the benefit of those who want guidance. It is merely the ego and anxiety of the one giving guidance.
Also, when it comes to topics like sports, there are always people who immediately make country comparisons like 'In Europe and America...'. I find that uncomfortable too. Take America, for example. Americans don't share a common cultural ethic. I've seen many military-style, high-pressure leaders who share the goal of 'winning the war' without any detailed context. Of course, there are excellent leaders too. That's precisely why I feel there's a danger in lumping things together like this.
It's not about that kind of talk...
The relationship between a mentor and a mentee is established because there are people who want to be mentored. Times change every second. Demands change. A coach is someone who can sense these changing requirements and think about and present what kind of guidance is needed – the solution. There might be tough solutions, and there might be gentle solutions.
(Example: As electric cars increase to match the times, guidance that relies solely on sound to detect approaching cars will cease. Guidance to avoid danger will emerge in new forms.)
Right, focusing on those who need guidance, if the guidelines are not considered and understood, it will be a harsh situation where anyone, in any era, in any country, will find it difficult to grow. Therefore, if you want to affirm the benefits of 'strictness' across the board, perhaps 'you' are not suited to be a coach.
Coaching is difficult, which is why continuous learning is necessary.
When I received sports coaching in the past, the coach would talk about 'legendary' stories from even further back... If we keep repeating that, education without the involvement of the people concerned... I think it's futile.