|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 25, 2024 8:15:48 GMT
It is if the managers are idiots. If some pratt further down the chain tries to bypass their immediate manager and stir it up with their manager's manager the managers manager backs the manager and both of them give the practice who is trying it on a bollocking. Simple. I've seen that problem where there is a matrix mamagement structure (somebody genuinely has more than one immediate manager) but as far as I can see there isn't a matrix management structure - its a straightforward pyramid structure with single reporting lines. What exactly do you think the reporting lines are? Do you really think the players don't talk to both. Thus isn't the army with that rigid reporting structure this is normal life, Walters will talk to players and NP will also. That's when a player or players can play one off against the other. Worked in pyramid structures seen it working and seen it not. Only takes a little resentment. Whose players are they? Walters is the one to chose them but assume NP selects the team and there is the possible flash point particularly if a player is dropped or not chosen to play. Of course they speak to Walters but if Walters is letting some player manipulate him to favour them and undermine the Head Coach he isn't fit for the job. I'm sure that goes on in all walks of life (in fact I know it does) but bog standard good practice is for the senior manager to be aware that some creep might do this, keep a degree of distance and avoid getting too matey and if someone does try to undermine their immediate manager support the manager by jointly reprimanding them. What you are suggesting is that every organisation just have the one big boss who everyone else reports to which is nonsense. Any organisation over a certain size has to organise itself by having chains of commanded and there are established practices for making it work. If the senior managers don't behave professionally then yes what you describe can happen but if it does the organisation either falls apart or the incompetent senior manager gets sacked. |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Sept 25, 2024 8:32:38 GMT
Do you really think the players don't talk to both. Thus isn't the army with that rigid reporting structure this is normal life, Walters will talk to players and NP will also. That's when a player or players can play one off against the other. Worked in pyramid structures seen it working and seen it not. Only takes a little resentment. Whose players are they? Walters is the one to chose them but assume NP selects the team and there is the possible flash point particularly if a player is dropped or not chosen to play. Of course they speak to Walters but if Walters is letting some player manipulate him to favour them and undermine the Head Coach he isn't fit for the job. I'm sure that goes on in all walks of life (in fact I know it does) but bog standard good practice is for the senior manager to be aware that some creep might do this, keep a degree of distance and avoid getting too matey and if someone does try to undermine their immediate manager support the manager by jointly reprimanding them. What you are suggesting is that every organisation just have the one big boss who everyone else reports to which is nonsense. Any organisation over a certain size has to organise itself by having chains of commanded and there are established practices for making it work. If the senior managers don't behave professionally then yes what you describe can happen but if it does the organisation either falls apart or the incompetent senior manager gets sacked. Exactly my point! Walters has little or no managerial experience, hence the fallout from sacking SS when he did and how he did. I do know how management works as well ad how it fails. |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Sept 25, 2024 9:22:14 GMT
TP defined the style of play, was responsible for assessing the market, was hands on in contract negotiation, recruited his own players to play the way he wanted them to play, made decisions on who to move on, told the coaches to train them in the way he wanted them to play, picked the team, decided on subs and dealt with a load of crap that goes with being a manager. NP leads the coaching team in developing the players brought on by the SD to play a style of play determined by the SD's recruitment policy, has a relatively minor part in recruitment, picks the team and decides on the subs. It's a different job. It's massively trimmed down and focused entirely on getting the best out of the players recruited by the backroom staff. NP couldn't do TPs job even if he wanted to (he doesn't - he wants to be HC, not a manager) and TP wouldn't put up with not having the level of control he had (he's a manager not a head coach). Pretty much everything did depend on TP and successs was massively dependant on that person in that role. The HC is a cog in a machine and what happens in the backroom is just as important as what NP acheives on the training ground. It's a completely different way of working and if you don't get that you really don't understand how this model is supposed to work. Ok simple question, if it all works the world is your lobster, but if it doesn't who gets the sack? The SD? The HC or both? The SD bought the players and so dictates the style of play, if the HC gets them playing that way he's done his job, however if the team keeps losing it has to go back to the SD surely? This is why I'm not a big fan, it seems to easy for the SD to hide behind the head coach and put all the blame on them. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 25, 2024 12:51:00 GMT
Of course they speak to Walters but if Walters is letting some player manipulate him to favour them and undermine the Head Coach he isn't fit for the job. I'm sure that goes on in all walks of life (in fact I know it does) but bog standard good practice is for the senior manager to be aware that some creep might do this, keep a degree of distance and avoid getting too matey and if someone does try to undermine their immediate manager support the manager by jointly reprimanding them. What you are suggesting is that every organisation just have the one big boss who everyone else reports to which is nonsense. Any organisation over a certain size has to organise itself by having chains of commanded and there are established practices for making it work. If the senior managers don't behave professionally then yes what you describe can happen but if it does the organisation either falls apart or the incompetent senior manager gets sacked. Exactly my point! Walters has little or no managerial experience, hence the fallout from sacking SS when he did and how he did. I do know how management works as well ad how it fails. It wasn't you point. Your original point was that problems might stem from having two masters- that is an organisational structure issue. You are now saying the problem is how Walters is doing the job - that's not an issue with the organisational structures, it's an issue of how Walters is (alledgedly) not doing the job properly. You can argue that the organisational structure is wrong AND Walters isn't doing the job properly but they are two seperate issues. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 25, 2024 12:57:15 GMT
Ok simple question, if it all works the world is your lobster, but if it doesn't who gets the sack? The SD? The HC or both? The SD bought the players and so dictates the style of play, if the HC gets them playing that way he's done his job, however if the team keeps losing it has to go back to the SD surely? This is why I'm not a big fan, it seems to easy for the SD to hide behind the head coach and put all the blame on them. Every organisational structure has issues. For years people have been moaning about how changing the manager means a complete change in strategic direction and another rebuild. As soon as we we put a structure in place that addresses that issue people start moaning about how the SD/HC structure creates all sorts of other potential problems without any evidence that those problems have actually occurred. The lesson appears to be that people will find fault regardless of what the club does. |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Sept 25, 2024 13:03:02 GMT
Exactly my point! Walters has little or no managerial experience, hence the fallout from sacking SS when he did and how he did. I do know how management works as well ad how it fails. It wasn't you point. Your original point was that problems might stem from having two masters- that is an organisational structure issue. You are now saying the problem is how Walters is doing the job - that's not an issue with the organisational structures, it's an issue of how Walters is (alledgedly) not doing the job properly. You can argue that the organisational structure is wrong AND Walters isn't doing the job properly but they are two seperate issues. I can argue both as its a structural issue to have an inexperienced SD and an inexperienced HC and a Walters issue for him to be an inexperienced SD. Whether he is doing his job successfully ( not properly) only time will tell. With both being inexperienced it's easy to see how they could be played against each other. An experienced manager should be able stop that happening. We obviously aren't going to agree so no point in continuing, we will probably know by Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by pavel on Sept 25, 2024 13:26:14 GMT
This is why I'm not a big fan, it seems to easy for the SD to hide behind the head coach and put all the blame on them. Every organisational structure has issues. For years people have been moaning about how changing the manager means a complete change in strategic direction and another rebuild. As soon as we we put a structure in place that addresses that issue people start moaning about how the SD/HC structure creates all sorts of other potential problems without any evidence that those problems have actually occurred. The lesson appears to be that people will find fault regardless of what the club does. The reality is that every structure that is put in place whether in football or business is interpreted differently and often implemented differently within the management structure by CEO's/Owners and the managers below, especially when strict and clear guidelines have not been set out. Even then different characteristics of the people of power within these structures can further change dynamics and the power balance in that said structure. Collaborative working within the same structure can be radically different from command/control with the outcomes being not recognisable as coming from the same blueprint. There will be instances where the experienced, highest level head coach will hold most of the power and instances where the DOF/SD will be top dog, the basic laid down roles of the two will probably align with the basic DOF/HC model but the power dynamics will change that one way or another. Therefore whatever structure a club/business has, it will have issues as you say, in both what the weaknesses and strengths that said structure are as as well as how interpretation, implementation and power dynamics modify that structure to a greater or lesser extent. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 25, 2024 13:33:52 GMT
It wasn't you point. Your original point was that problems might stem from having two masters- that is an organisational structure issue. You are now saying the problem is how Walters is doing the job - that's not an issue with the organisational structures, it's an issue of how Walters is (alledgedly) not doing the job properly. You can argue that the organisational structure is wrong AND Walters isn't doing the job properly but they are two seperate issues. I can argue both as its a structural issue to have an inexperienced SD and an inexperienced HC and a Walters issue for him to be an inexperienced SD. Whether he is doing his job successfully ( not properly) only time will tell. With both being inexperienced it's easy to see how they could be played against each other. An experienced manager should be able stop that happening. We obviously aren't going to agree so no point in continuing, we will probably know by Christmas. It is not a structural issue to have an inexperienced SD and an inexperienced HC - it's a recruitment issue. It's not easy to see that Walters won't do his job properly. You are making the assumption that just because Walters is inexperienced he won't do the job properly. What you are saying might happen but the way you are saying it implies either it is happening or will happen without the slightest bit of evidence. We disagree because I'm not leaping to the same conclusions about Walters not being up to he job or that the structure we've adopted won't work because the people in it are relatively inexperienced. Walters is fully qualified for the role he's in and any course he's completed would have covered how organisations structures should work and the professional behaviours expected of those in post. If he doesn't get that he wouldn't have got his qualifications and if he doesn't apply what he's learned he should be sacked. However implying that he isn't up to it without any evidence is just blind prejudice. |
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Sept 25, 2024 13:38:21 GMT
Let’s be honest, it’s unlikely that Pelach will be in charge in 18 months time.
However hope springs eternal and hopefully this time it will be all great
|
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Sept 25, 2024 13:44:50 GMT
Let’s be honest, it’s unlikely that Pelach will be in charge in 18 months time. However hope springs eternal and hopefully this time it will be all great it’s the hope that kills ya |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Sept 25, 2024 13:52:51 GMT
Let’s be honest, it’s unlikely that Pelach will be in charge in 18 months time. However hope springs eternal and hopefully this time it will be all great Key issue is will he be in 6 or even 3 , 18 will look after itself |
|
|
|
Post by wakeypotter on Sept 25, 2024 15:04:38 GMT
This is why I'm not a big fan, it seems to easy for the SD to hide behind the head coach and put all the blame on them. Every organisational structure has issues. For years people have been moaning about how changing the manager means a complete change in strategic direction and another rebuild. As soon as we we put a structure in place that addresses that issue people start moaning about how the SD/HC structure creates all sorts of other potential problems without any evidence that those problems have actually occurred. The lesson appears to be that people will find fault regardless of what the club does. Absolutely this. I do wish they would make there beach towels bigger though 😃 |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Sept 25, 2024 15:48:01 GMT
Both Walters & Pelach will be under a lot of pressure this weekend if we lose,fans could turn very nasty,seeing a majority wanted Shue to stay.
|
|
|
|
Post by premieraj on Sept 25, 2024 15:51:58 GMT
Both Walters & Pelach will be under a lot of pressure this weekend if we lose,fans could turn very nasty,seeing a majority wanted Shue to stay. How do you assess a majority just out of interest? |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Sept 25, 2024 16:27:40 GMT
This is why I'm not a big fan, it seems to easy for the SD to hide behind the head coach and put all the blame on them. Every organisational structure has issues. For years people have been moaning about how changing the manager means a complete change in strategic direction and another rebuild. As soon as we we put a structure in place that addresses that issue people start moaning about how the SD/HC structure creates all sorts of other potential problems without any evidence that those problems have actually occurred. The lesson appears to be that people will find fault regardless of what the club does. I just prefer the straight forward manager role although I can understand people wanting change given our recent record. |
|
