When the U.S. national ice hockey team stepped onto the ice in Lake Placid in 1980, it wasn’t just a game against the Soviet Union. It was a clash of worldviews.
On one side: a meticulously engineered collective of professional players who had trained together for years.
On the other: a group of young college players – amateurs on paper, individuals in reality.
Behind them stood Herb Brooks. Not the most liked coach. Not the most pedagogical. But without question one of the most uncompromising leaders in modern sports history.
The question is: would Herb Brooks be allowed to lead a team today?
Leadership That Intentionally Abrades
Herb Brooks was not interested in being liked. He was interested in winning – on his terms. He pushed his players harder than anyone else. Psychologically. Physically. Mentally.
The legendary scene from the film Miracle, where he forces the team to skate until they nearly collapse, repeatedly asking:
“Who do you play for?”
…is not Hollywood fiction. It is a condensed version of his philosophy.
Brooks wanted to break down individual ego to build something greater. Not through motivational speeches. But through friction.
Today’s leadership literature speaks of:
-
psychological safety
-
inclusive leadership
-
coaching-based approaches
Herb Brooks worked with the opposite:
-
controlled insecurity
-
constant testing
-
total transfer of responsibility to the team
Leadership Ahead of Its Time – or Too Late?
The paradox is that Herb Brooks was, in many ways, far ahead of his time.
He selected players who could think for themselves. Who could read the game. Who could adapt. He built a system where the team could make decisions without him.
This is exactly what modern organizations claim they want today:
-
self-managing teams
-
adaptive systems
-
distributed responsibility
But the path to get there is where the conflict lies.
Today we want results without pain, development without conflict, transformation without friction. Brooks understood something we prefer to forget:
Real change hurts.
Would HR Approve Herb Brooks?
Let’s be brutally honest.
Herb Brooks would never pass:
-
a modern HR review
-
a workplace well-being policy
-
a corporate values workshop
His methods would be classified as:
-
psychological pressure
-
authoritarian leadership
-
potentially abusive
And yet, he delivered something very few leaders ever achieve:
total internal discipline without external control.
He didn’t need to micromanage the game. He had already done the work long before the puck was dropped.
Leadership Is Not About Methods – It’s About Timing
The biggest mistake in today’s leadership debate is that we argue about right or wrong methods, instead of the right method in the right context.
Herb Brooks would never have worked:
-
in a stable, complacent system
-
in an organization without existential pressure
-
in a team that was already the best
But in 1980, the U.S. was:
-
inferior
-
questioned
-
fragmented
It required leadership that could create unity through resistance.
Today, many organizations are in exactly the same position:
-
disruptive markets
-
AI changing everything
-
leaders who have lost direction
Yet we often choose what feels kind over what is true.
Herb Brooks in Today’s Business World
Translate Herb Brooks into corporate life.
He would be:
-
the uncomfortable project leader asking too many questions
-
the leader who doesn’t accept PowerPoint answers
-
the manager who pushes the team beyond their self-image
Not popular. But often decisive.
Today, such people are often filtered out early:
“Not a cultural fit.”
“Too demanding.”
“Creates insecurity.”
But the question remains:
What happens when no one dares to set uncomfortable demands anymore?
The Difference Between Destructive and Demanding
This matters.
Herb Brooks was not a sadist. He was not arbitrary. His demands were:
-
consistent
-
predictable
-
tied to a clear objective
That is the difference between destructive leadership and demanding leadership.
Today, the two are often confused.
High expectations have become suspicious. But without demands:
-
no discipline
-
no movement
-
no real sense of team
Brooks built a team where every individual knew:
“I am here for something bigger than myself.”
Is Herb Brooks Possible Today?
Yes – but not everywhere.
He is possible:
-
in crisis
-
during transformation
-
where something must be built from scratch
He is not possible:
-
in organizations obsessed with frictionless comfort
-
where safety has become more important than direction
-
where leadership has been reduced to emotional regulation
The problem is not that Herb Brooks–style leadership is impossible.
The problem is that we often no longer dare to need it.
The Uncomfortable Conclusion
We say we want:
-
innovation
-
courage
-
accountability
But we design systems that suffocate those very qualities.
Herb Brooks was not a universal role model. But he was a reminder of something fundamental:
Leadership is not meant to protect people from discomfort.
It is meant to lead them through it.
And sometimes that requires a leader who is not afraid of being misunderstood.
Final Words
The Miracle on Ice was never just about hockey. It was about a team becoming greater than the sum of its parts – through leadership that dared to go against the norm.
The question is not whether Herb Brooks would work today.
The real question is:
Can we afford to always reject leaders like him?
By Chris...
Add comment
Comments