Shortly after the Atlanta Braves ended their 2024 season by losing to the San Diego Padres in the Wild Card round of the Major League Baseball (MLB) playoffs, the team decided not to bring back three of their coaches for the 2025 season. (Note: All three coaches are under contract for 2025 and will be paid their contracted salaries.) The most notable of those coaches was their primary hitting coach, Kevin Seitzer. Seitzer has been a major league hitting coach for most of the past eighteen years, with the last ten years being with the Braves. His ten-year stint with the Braves is particularly notable in that the average tenure of an MLB hitting coach with a single team is 2.3 years, and Seitzer has been in his position with the Braves longer than both of his “bosses” have been in theirs; i.e., Brian Snitker (manager, 8.5 years) and Alex Anthopoulos (general manager, 7 years).
There is no argument with Seitzer’s success as a hitting coach with the Braves. In fact, as recently as 2023, the Braves had one of the best hitting seasons in MLB history, leading the majors in virtually every major hitting category, including batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, runs scored, and home runs, and for his efforts, he was named the 2023 MLB Coach of the Year. So, why was Seitzer not retained in his position for the 2025 season? Clearly, the Braves hitting performance declined significantly in 2024 relative to 2023. While they still hit pretty well for power (4th in MLB in home runs; 9th in slugging percentage), they were middle of the pack (15th or 16th) in batting average, on-base percentage, and the all-important runs scored. However, some of this decline can certainly be attributed to a number of their star players (Ronald Acuna Jr., Austin Riley, Michael Harris II, Ozzie Albies, and Sean Murphy) being out for significant chunks of the season due to injury. Some have speculated that given Seitzer’s long-term tenure with the Braves and the limited turnover of the team’s roster that maybe Anthopoulos and Snitker thought the Braves’ hitters needed “a new voice” to help improve their hitting. The concept of “a new voice” is not a new one; neither in sports nor in leading and managing a business or organization. In today’s column, I will explore this concept and help you identify when a new voice might be needed in your organization.
It has become clear to me over the past few decades, through a number of organizations, that employees can become complacent or stale with the same leaders or managers over a long period of time. Back in February of 2023, when I wrote a column for the Augusta Business Daily (ABD) on my decision to step down as Dean of the Hull College of Business at Augusta University, I indicated that after six years as Dean, maybe the organization was tired of my “voice” and needed a new leader to better communicate either a similar message and/or a new message. Employees and colleagues sometimes become jaded toward how one leader may attempt to motivate them. That is why we often see sports teams at the collegiate and professional levels change the type of coaches they have. Teams will often transition from a more autocratic coach to more of a players’ coach or vice versa in order to have their team better receive the message and improve their performance accordingly. The key questions we should always ask are when is a new voice needed and how we choose the “right” new voice.
Clearly, the first indicator is the performance of the employees/organization. If performance is declining or has plateaued, it might be time to find a new voice to lead them. It does not necessarily mean that their leader is doing a poor job; it may just mean that they have grown complacent and routinized under current management. In addition to performance, it is important to examine the tenure of not just the leader, but also the tenures of the people working for her/him. Recent firings in the sports world of long-tenured leaders, in which needing “a new voice” was mentioned, including Seitzer and Seattle Mariners manager Scott Servais (9 years as manager), were instances in which both the leader and many of the players were with the team for an extended period. Oftentimes, long tenures on both sides of the equation lead to complacency and resistance to change. In addition to AU/Hull, I saw this happen in other academic institutions which are typically characterized by static leadership and faculty.
It is important to realize that often neither the leader nor the followers are necessarily to blame for this complacency or “staleness,” so change needs to be made without “throwing anyone under the bus.” The leader may serve better in a position in which her/his message is new and resonates. Deciding on which “new voice” is the trickiest part of this issue. In most cases, bringing someone in from outside the organization is preferred as they will be more likely to shake the group out of its complacency. However, it is important that a person brings in credibility and a record of success, as messaging will not matter if there is not adequate substance behind it.
The decision to bring in a new voice is often difficult, yet necessary for an organization’s success. If it is done correctly and appropriately, it will bring greater success. I wish the Atlanta Braves and you the best as you each deal with this important issue, so the hits will keep on coming!
