One of my long-standing theories is that every successful fictional and real group has it's Roger Sterling. That is a light-heated figure who comes across as not very productive and morally dubious but who actually makes the group work.
The most obvious fictional example is Captain Renault in Casablanca. Everyone credits Bogart with making that movie so memorable and he is unquestionably very, very good but watch it carefully and it's Claude Rains who makes Casablanca not just wonderful but magnificent.
But the same is true of every sports team I was ever part of and every organization I have ever worked for. There was always a character whose record, objectively considered, didn't look that good but whom the group could not work effectively without.
The really odd thing is that this has also been true of marriages I know that ended in divorce. At the time of the divorce, there was always one partner who seemed to be contributing little to the marriage and one who seemed to be dragging this other person along as dead weight. But, every time, it became obvious within a year that the seemingly strong one needed the other person more than they realized. At the time of the separation, they obviously thought, I'll be better off out of this, but a year later they were struggling.
I agree with you about this. Its not uncommon that the most under-rated player is the glue that holds the group together. Its true in marriages also, as you say the allegedly "stronger" one thinks they can do better--the grass is always greener. In fact, their "strength" and the partner's alleged "weakness" is what makes the partnership work because each of them needs someone like the other. In many cases, if the stronger one remarries its someone not unlike the one they divorced, although they try to convince themselves that isn't the case.
ReplyDeleteI think this also speaks to how we often judge a book by its cover, although we don't want to admit we do that. We go by what is immediately apparent, and never think to look beyond that or under the surface.
ReplyDelete