Jose Mourinho has made a spectacular return to football management in the English Premiership. In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Mourinho is announced to the world as the new manager of Tottenham Hotspur football club. Mourinho is a big character : his spells as manager of Chelsea (twice), Real Madrid, Porto, Inter Milan and Manchester United have been characterised by great successes, spectacular lows, and occasional controversy. What has been unstinting has been his belief in his own ability and his sense that he is somehow set apart from other managers : ‘special’.
In his paper on Hero-Leaders in business and cinema* Olivier Fournout summarises the qualities displayed by hero-leaders in a matrix of six features that are held in seemingly competing pairs. In the first place, hero-leaders take on roles. “[They] play at being someone different from who they really are… They may wear masks. They make the show.” At the same time, the hero-leader “has depth – deep emotions and sensations… [and] they exaggerate how strongly they are connected to their sensations, thoughts and emotions”. Mourinho has often been the very embodiment of this tension between the role-player (playing up to the crowd on the touchlines, and acting out the ‘special one’ persona in press conferences) and somebody who displays a profound interiority (reacting instantly and emotionally to incidents on the pitch, or to perceived slights from interviewers).
Hero-leaders are on a mission – striving to achieve “some practical results”. For Mourinho this is winning football matches, bringing trophies to his club. Whilst this is standard for all managers, what marks out the hero-leader is the tension that they create between the desire to win, and the way that they achieve this “through creative or unorthodox moves, by being divergent.” This can lead to the achievement of success despite the odds being against the endeavour (Chelsea’s Premier league success was often achieved through a defensive approach that flew in the face of the broader direction of travel in coaching and tactics at the time). But divergence can have other implications. Hero-leaders bring change, and with it, relative chaos and improvisation.” There is a case for saying that Mourinho’s attempts to impose his vision on Manchester United – to change and improvise at a club with a long and deeply ingrained culture and ethos – was always going to be a tough ask.
Finally, hero-leaders seek to reconcile the tension between acting as negotiators (“opening the door to win/win [outcomes], compromise and shared leadership”) and as ‘special ones’ – holding super-powers that lead them to act “in sudden bursts of all-powerful authority” and “with a sense of omnipotence”.
Fournout contends that managers at all levels will display hero-leader behaviours at various stages in their careers and in response to particular circumstances at particular times. However, he also identifies a particular aspect of the hero-leader that seems to resonate particularly with Mourinho’s managerial career to date : “With time, it seems the features of the hero-leader are pushed forward, intensified, exaggerated, and become more and more spectacular… Not only does this shed light on why it is not easy to be a manager today, but it may also help understand how burnout situations can arise among… top managers who – up to the point where they break – do their job quite successfully”.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mourinho fits Fournout’s hero-manager mould perfectly (and the same is probably true for Guardiola and Klopp, although they seem better able to hold the tensions in creative balance). I genuinely hope that Mourinho is successful at Tottenham. I have a deep affection for Spurs – a club that always tries to play the game the right way. It will be interesting to see whether Mourinho 2019 is a little wiser, a little cooler and a little more able to hold his hero-leader qualities in check. If not, it will at least be fun while it lasts!
* “The Hero-Leader Matrix in Business and Cinema : Fournout O. : Journal of Business Ethics (2017) Vol. 141 pp.27-46