Two Ways of Running the Maple Leafs: Control vs Collaboration
A lot of the debate around modern NHL teams — including the Toronto Maple Leafs — really comes down to one simple question: how should leadership actually work inside a sports organization? Mike Richards recently argued that good organizations are run from the top down, criticizing the Maple Leafs for giving players too much say.
Historically, most sports organizations have been run top-down.
Traditionally, hockey has leaned heavily toward a strict hierarchy. Ownership sets direction, management builds the roster, coaches enforce the system, and players execute. It’s clean, linear, and easy to understand. In that model, authority flows downward. Everyone has a role, and clarity is the main strength.
There are some clear advantages to this approach. It creates structure. It reduces confusion. It makes accountability easier to define because responsibility sits at the top. Players know exactly where they stand, and coaches can impose standards without negotiation. In high-pressure markets like Toronto, that kind of order can feel especially important when things go wrong.
There are limitations to a hierarchical model in NHL team leadership.
But there are also real limitations. Top-down systems can become rigid. Communication can slow down. And most importantly, decision-makers can become disconnected from the people actually doing the work — the players on the ice. When that happens, you risk building a system that looks organized on paper but doesn’t fully reflect reality.
The alternative is a more collaborative model. This doesn’t mean players “run the team.” That’s the exaggerated version critics often jump to. It means players are part of the conversation. Their experience, feedback, and perspective help shape decisions alongside coaches and management.
This model is more common in high-functioning organizations outside of sports. In schools, hospitals, research environments, and modern companies, leadership tends to be distributed. The people closest to the work often have the most accurate understanding of what is actually happening. Ignoring that input can lead to blind spots at the top.
The value of a collaborative decision-making process.
The strength of collaboration is buy-in. When people feel heard and involved, they tend to commit more fully to the outcome. Culture becomes shared rather than imposed. But the weakness is also clear: if accountability isn’t shared equally, collaboration can drift into softness, where standards become unclear, and responsibility gets diluted.
That’s where the Maple Leafs debate really lives. Critics see too much influence from star players and assume the hierarchy has broken down. But a more generous interpretation is that the organization is choosing to operate in a modern, collaborative way. The truth is that the hierarchical model simply didn’t produce enough playoff success to justify itself in hindsight.
And that’s the uncomfortable truth in sports: winning decides how leadership gets interpreted. If you win, it’s empowerment. If you lose, it’s dysfunction.
Craig Berube emphasized personal accountability and structure.
Craig Berube represented the more traditional, structured model — clear roles, clear authority, top-down accountability. The current direction in Toronto, with figures like Mats Sundin and John Chayka involved, feels more aligned with relationship-based leadership and shared ownership.
Personally, I lean toward the collaborative model. My experience studying leadership outside of sports suggests that the best environments usually involve trust, constant dialogue, and expertise flowing upward as well as downward. Hockey may not be identical to schools or organizations, but it isn’t immune to those same principles either.
The question now is simple: is the NHL — and the Maple Leafs specifically — actually ready to operate that way?