Monday, January 13, 2014

Efficiency And Productivity

I would say that there is a difference between being efficient and being productive. Being efficient has mainly to do with how you go about accomplishing something. How well are you doing it? Being productive has to do more with what kind of results you are attaining. Are you actually getting the job done? You might see a student study hard and put in all the effort, but that does not necessarily mean he gets the best grades. He is efficient, but not necessarily productive. You can say that efficiency has to do with the means, while productivity has to do with the ends.

Let me give two examples with quarterbacks from the NFL. Most fans would say that Tim Tebow was not an efficient quarterback. His mechanics were bad and he would sometimes make bad decisions. And yet, this guy had success as a starter as a Denver Broncos quarterback. He led them into the playoffs and won a playoff game. Not every quarterback that has gone through the NFL can say that. Tebow might have been inefficient, but his time in Denver was not unproductive. On the other hand, you can bring up Alex Smith. He is efficient. He is a solid quarterback and people frequently point out that he makes few mistakes. These same people may also point out that he does not make big enough plays to be considered a great quarterback. He is considered by many as a "game manager" type of quarterback. Currently the starting quarterback on the Kansas City Chiefs, many would consider the starting running back as the main player on the offense, not Alex Smith. He is just there to keep things efficient. The other players actually make the big plays and help the team be productive.

When you talk about the overall success of a football team, or most sports teams, where does the responsibility of efficiency fall and the responsibility for productivity fall? I don't think everything falls on the players. The coaches are also responsible for a lot. Of course, the coaches cannot actually run onto the field and start playing. It is up to the players to actually produce. It is the job of the coaches to run things efficiently to put their players in the best position possible to produce. I would say efficiency is the ultimate responsibility of the coaches and actually being productive is left in the hands of the players.

How does that translate to pro wrestling? When you talk about the overall success of a pro wrestling promotion, who is ultimately responsible for keeping things efficient and who is responsible for productivity? I think it is easy to figure out what I am going to say based what I had just said. Just like coaches in sports are responsible for efficiency, backstage officials are responsible for efficiency in pro wrestling. The company itself is responsible. The performers are the ones that actually have to go out there and connect with the fans. That connection with the fans is what matters.

Let's focus on the diva division. Go back to the first golden age. A lot of people might give all the credit to Trish and Lita for making it great, but give the WWE credit for making the right decisions to make the division respectable and efficient. Problem is, they did not do it because their driving motivation is to be efficient to put their workers in a position to be productive, get over, and be made into stars. They ran a great division back then because they were getting what they wanted out of whom they wanted to be their top stars. Trish and Lita did not exactly debut into a great division. It was messy. It was not until they started developing Trish Stratus that efficiency really settled in. That is when they got out of the first dark age.

What has gone wrong in the diva division since then? It is not a matter of the women not being able to be productive. It is a matter of the WWE not holding up on their end. Coaches have to put their players in the best position to be productive and succeed. The WWE is not doing a good job of that. If the WWE was doing that and none of the divas could take advantage to get over, then you would have an issue with the productivity of these women. Why this collapse? The WWE was no longer able to get what they wanted. The women they developed to follow in Trish's place did not work out. The WWE continued to run an efficient diva division right after Trish and Lita left. Their chosen centerpieces were not productive. And the WWE just slowly lost interest. Can you imagine a coach completely giving up on his team when his star players go down to injury or start making big mistakes? A coach like that will get fired. Overall point is, just like the WWE deserves credit for making the division run so efficiently at one time, they deserve the ultimate blame for allowing the collapse, not the divas. You can't even blame a lot of the divas that are not getting over now for not getting over. They are not being treated properly.

Why not say something about TNA's KO division? They are famous for having been so efficient. That made them respectable. People brought up how the segments featuring the women would get the best ratings at one time. Of course, that has taken a hit in recent times. They still have glimpses of greatness here and there, like when Gail Kim faced Taryn Terrell last year, but the division has lost what it once had. Moreover, I would question the productivity of this division. Based on this way of analyzing a promotion, with efficiency falling on the shoulders of the ones running the promotion and productivity resting on the performers, how productive is this division? It really hasn't helped them get to that next level. They can connect great with wrestling fans, but you need to go beyond just those fans to compete against the WWE. Is this an issue with the women not being able to connect with a wider range of fans? Or the promotion not running things properly. I believe in a lot of the women that have been in that division. But it is TNA's lack of being consistent that hurts them. They may have been efficient in a lot of ways, but they are not putting these women in the best position to succeed. The overall division may have been productive in some ways, but not productive enough to takes things to the next level. Where does the blame fall? On the promotion for making bad decisions? Or the women for never producing at that high level? TNA has had some women that could have been great stars if they were just pushed more consistently. I don't blame the women for the slight collapse in this division. TNA should have done better earlier on in making stars.

No comments:

Post a Comment