Sharp Axes

[JanLorMill]

Re: Sharp Axes

Very disappointed

[Bullies]

Re: Sharp Axes

Im not worried about other teams and we need Elephants roaring until they get heard.

Having said that Im happy with the response from the President but the proof will be in the actions and changes that follow.

i was more referring to the fact that for whatever reason they love to put the boots in on Bevo and co when there are other moving targets out there.

[Bornadog]

Re: Sharp Axes

Im not worried about other teams and we need Elephants roaring until they get heard.

Having said that Im happy with the response from the President but the proof will be in the actions and changes that follow.

Strange quoting me when I was responding to something different

see above

[JanLorMill]

Re: Sharp Axes

Another internal review is the definition of accepting mediocrity.
Really upset I follow a gutless club.

[westbulldog]

Re: Sharp Axes

Internal reviews are usually "caesar unto caesar" bs which may look good but in essence are purely window dressing and they don't result in the really hard decisions being taken.

[D Mitchell]

Re: Sharp Axes

But we could do a review, get the recommendations, then choose which we want to implement. I think the point many are making (and I agree with) is that by doing it internally, there's just a bunch of stuff you won't observe or uncover cause you're inherently blinded to it - cause you live and breath it every day. Or worse, you have the option to avoid topics/areas for review cause you're scared of what you'll find/have to do with what you find.

Do an external review. Get their findings. Overlay that with your internal expertise on how OUR organisation works, and implement the things that are most likely to have a positive impact / create the environment for success.

The only reason we wouldn't do an external review is, surely, ass covering and fear by those running the review that they'd individually be called out as part of the problem, or the findings would directly contradict them and they wouldn't have the gumption to action those recommendations..approach.

I think it's a proportionate response by the Club. Examples

1. Costigan Royal Commission into Painters and Dockers 1980 - 1984. Set out to investigate allegations of criminality in the P & D Union. What emerged was Bottom-of-the-Harbour- Schemes, allegations against Packer, establishment of the National Crime Authority. It was supposed to be scheming by conservatives wanting to have the Union de registered to embarrass Labor. If that was the case, it blew up spectacularly in their faces because the Union wasn't deregistered and attention was turned on Packer and other conservatives. Whilst the outcome might please you, it illustrates the dangers.

2. A small public company for which I worked newly finished uni. The ED was an old fashioned, authoritarian but was really good at his job- vision. The Board got consultants in to review. Privately employees complained about the ED's management style, the consultants' report recommended that he be required to change, he said "My way or the highway". Bluff called and his replacement nowhere his calibre, eventually closed down.

3. Last year, Collingwood. McGuire calls in a couple of Qld Academics to run an audit over allegations made by Lamumba. Ends up having to resign. Nothing changed at the club. All that came from that review was loss of, whatever you think of him, a good club president.

What we really want is better on field performance, not heads rolling.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Re: Sharp Axes

But we could do a review, get the recommendations, then choose which we want to implement. I think the point many are making (and I agree with) is that by doing it internally, there's just a bunch of stuff you won't observe or uncover cause you're inherently blinded to it - cause you live and breath it every day. Or worse, you have the option to avoid topics/areas for review cause you're scared of what you'll find/have to do with what you find.

Do an external review. Get their findings. Overlay that with your internal expertise on how OUR organisation works, and implement the things that are most likely to have a positive impact / create the environment for success.

The only reason we wouldn't do an external review is, surely, ass covering and fear by those running the review that they'd individually be called out as part of the problem, or the findings would directly contradict them and they wouldn't have the gumption to action those recommendations.

Seems a pretty soft approach.

I'm not as adamant about this narrative necessarily being the simplest explanation of how these events might happen.

I work as a business analyst in a small team, that lead or shape multiple projects in our organisation.
We review our strategies and projects regularly, and with demonstrated professional integrity in reviewing and evaluating their impact or effectiveness.

That we initiate and run the reviews, does not mean our views or data analysis aren't shared with independent experts for input and or feedback. As long as you're not wedded to an outcome, and you're just invested in improvement and by extension, taking on board frank feedback, and making defensible decisions, then an internal review isn't really a bad thing.

I've been guilty, plenty of times, of forgetting sometimes the club is in the real world; an environment where you have 17 competing clubs, all professionals themselves, vying to reach the top whilst also trying to prevent you from doing so.

Just like in business, sometimes despite your best efforts, things don't work, and it's not always due to the personnel. Sometimes it is, and when it is you need to act, for sure.

But I just respect that I don't, (and I doubt most here either) possess the sort of inside knowledge that would enable me to be so strident about changing the coach, or so vehement in my analysis of what is wrong or what must be done. I just don't have all the inside facts required to make any sort of confident assertions, other than just make reasoned speculation for fun. And therefore I'm not going to be so vehement or strident with my convictions or so personally invested in the process.

Ultimately now KWW, Bains and Grant are directly accountable for this review, and Grant also along with, Power and Beveridge are also accountable for how their strategic plans unfold. They're all on the professional clock now.

I'm comfortable giving them another year to demonstrate they have identified the problems, and have a defensible plan going forward.

In some 46 years of supporting this club, this is the most prosperous, and strongest position we've ever been in as a club. And I don't think it happened by accident. Our club is not run by naive, unthinking fools. They're professionals. I am not suggesting you said this either - just a separate statement by me not aimed at you specifically or anyone in particular.

Now, should evidence come to light in the meantime that the process is unprofessional or less than integrous ,then that in and of itself would be a significant driver for BIG personnel changes in Bulldog's board, executive and/or football department.

I think an external review is really only required when:

• you lack the organisational capabilities, skill and data to effectively conduct the review
• you lack trust in your people to objectively conduct the review or implement the recommendations
• lack access to requisite independent experts or data for input or feedback
• your club is riven with conflict, dispute and/or dissent.

I am reasonably confident there will be a raft of external, evidence-based inputs that the Dog's panel will draw on to help shape their conclusions and recommendations.

[macca]

Re: Sharp Axes

Great points @YHF and enjoyed the balance you bring

I just hope the review is thorough and free of bias

Whatever comes out I hope they follow through on the recommendations

Premeriships are very hard to win , alot has to go in your favour and sometimes luck ( Ross lyon unlick bounce ) not there .

We have core players who are good enough to take us to become top 4, we just need the right supoort and development around them to give them a chance.

[jeemak]

Re: Sharp Axes

Great post YHF.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Sharp Axes

I'm not as adamant about this narrative necessarily being the simplest explanation of how these events might happen.

I work as a business analyst in a small team, that lead or shape multiple projects in our organisation.
We review our strategies and projects regularly, and with demonstrated professional integrity in reviewing and evaluating their impact or effectiveness.

That we initiate and run the reviews, does not mean our views or data analysis aren't shared with independent experts for input and or feedback. As long as you're not wedded to an outcome, and you're just invested in improvement and by extension, taking on board frank feedback, and making defensible decisions, then an internal review isn't really a bad thing.

I've been guilty, plenty of times, of forgetting sometimes the club is in the real world; an environment where you have 17 competing clubs, all professionals themselves, vying to reach the top whilst also trying to prevent you from doing so.

Just like in business, sometimes despite your best efforts, things don't work, and it's not always due to the personnel. Sometimes it is, and when it is you need to act, for sure.

But I just respect that I don't, (and I doubt most here either) possess the sort of inside knowledge that would enable me to be so strident about changing the coach, or so vehement in my analysis of what is wrong or what must be done. I just don't have all the inside facts required to make any sort of confident assertions, other than just make reasoned speculation for fun. And therefore I'm not going to be so vehement or strident with my convictions or so personally invested in the process.

Ultimately now KWW, Bains and Grant are directly accountable for this review, and Grant also along with, Power and Beveridge are also accountable for how their strategic plans unfold. They're all on the professional clock now.

I'm comfortable giving them another year to demonstrate they have identified the problems, and have a defensible plan going forward.

In some 46 years of supporting this club, this is the most prosperous, and strongest position we've ever been in as a club. And I don't think it happened by accident. Our club is not run by naive, unthinking fools. They're professionals. I am not suggesting you said this either - just a separate statement by me not aimed at you specifically or anyone in particular.

Now, should evidence come to light in the meantime that the process is unprofessional or less than integrous ,then that in and of itself would be a significant driver for BIG personnel changes in Bulldog's board, executive and/or football department.

I think an external review is really only required when:

• you lack the organisational capabilities, skill and data to effectively conduct the review
• you lack trust in your people to objectively conduct the review or implement the recommendations
• lack access to requisite independent experts or data for input or feedback
• your club is riven with conflict, dispute and/or dissent.

I am reasonably confident there will be a raft of external, evidence-based inputs that the Dog's panel will draw on to help shape their conclusions and recommendations.

God you're a BA. I stopped reading after that

Great post.

[hujsh]

Re: Sharp Axes

I'm not as adamant about this narrative necessarily being the simplest explanation of how these events might happen.

I work as a business analyst in a small team, that lead or shape multiple projects in our organisation.
We review our strategies and projects regularly, and with demonstrated professional integrity in reviewing and evaluating their impact or effectiveness.

That we initiate and run the reviews, does not mean our views or data analysis aren't shared with independent experts for input and or feedback. As long as you're not wedded to an outcome, and you're just invested in improvement and by extension, taking on board frank feedback, and making defensible decisions, then an internal review isn't really a bad thing.

I've been guilty, plenty of times, of forgetting sometimes the club is in the real world; an environment where you have 17 competing clubs, all professionals themselves, vying to reach the top whilst also trying to prevent you from doing so.

Just like in business, sometimes despite your best efforts, things don't work, and it's not always due to the personnel. Sometimes it is, and when it is you need to act, for sure.

But I just respect that I don't, (and I doubt most here either) possess the sort of inside knowledge that would enable me to be so strident about changing the coach, or so vehement in my analysis of what is wrong or what must be done. I just don't have all the inside facts required to make any sort of confident assertions, other than just make reasoned speculation for fun. And therefore I'm not going to be so vehement or strident with my convictions or so personally invested in the process.

Ultimately now KWW, Bains and Grant are directly accountable for this review, and Grant also along with, Power and Beveridge are also accountable for how their strategic plans unfold. They're all on the professional clock now.

I'm comfortable giving them another year to demonstrate they have identified the problems, and have a defensible plan going forward.

In some 46 years of supporting this club, this is the most prosperous, and strongest position we've ever been in as a club. And I don't think it happened by accident. Our club is not run by naive, unthinking fools. They're professionals. I am not suggesting you said this either - just a separate statement by me not aimed at you specifically or anyone in particular.

Now, should evidence come to light in the meantime that the process is unprofessional or less than integrous ,then that in and of itself would be a significant driver for BIG personnel changes in Bulldog's board, executive and/or football department.

I think an external review is really only required when:

• you lack the organisational capabilities, skill and data to effectively conduct the review
• you lack trust in your people to objectively conduct the review or implement the recommendations
• lack access to requisite independent experts or data for input or feedback
• your club is riven with conflict, dispute and/or dissent.

I am reasonably confident there will be a raft of external, evidence-based inputs that the Dog's panel will draw on to help shape their conclusions and recommendations.

I get where you're coming from (also a BA) but I imagine your reviews are post project or post sprint and more about iterative improvement. Maybe the club feels that iterative improvement is exactly what they need (add a goal or two to each game and we are top 4) but for a lot of supporters it feels more like something is broken on a sub and now water is leaking in and we need to find and fix it or drown (and to some that broken piece is Bevo).

The fact we supposedly had a big review last year and the main change we made (bringing in Lade) seems to be the same thing we're doing now (bringing in Dew) so the likelyhood that the club needs external feedback feels higher. If your team was delivering over budget or producing a broken product and made changes to make sure that didn't happen after review but then failed to deliver in the exact same manner (actually worse) next time I imagine someone outside the team would be getting pretty interested in what's going on.

[Grantysghost]

Re: Sharp Axes

I get where you're coming from (also a BA) but I imagine your reviews are post project or post sprint and more about iterative improvement. Maybe the club feels that iterative improvement is exactly what they need (add a goal or two to each game and we are top 4) but for a lot of supporters it feels more like something is broken on a sub and now water is leaking in and we need to find and fix it or drown (and to some that broken piece is Bevo).

The fact we supposedly had a big review last year and the main change we made (bringing in Lade) seems to be the same thing we're doing now (bringing in Dew) so the likelyhood that the club needs external feedback feels higher. If your team was delivering over budget or producing a broken product and made changes to make sure that didn't happen after review but then failed to deliver in the exact same manner (actually worse) next time I imagine someone outside the team would be getting pretty interested in what's going on.

[josie]

Re: Sharp Axes

There's undoubtedly something wrong. The email suggests its been identified and work on the problem(s) proposed. At the end of the day, we finished a game out, not bottom, not captain wanting to leave, not players being asked to take pay cuts. Independent Reviews can be unpredictable, like Royal Commissions. I'm OK that there won't be a full on review.

Agree we are not at 2014 crisis stage, however some external input I think would not only have better optics, it is more likely to lay bare decisions the club made that with benefit of hindsight we can learn from, and less likely to be influenced by group think or sunk cost bias, no matter how upright, caring and intelligent the board and management teams are. It might be semantics regarding terms such internal or external/independent reviews. I want the review to be thorough, and I think it should involve external people. The 2016 Richmond review was called an internal review however involved external consultant with extensive experience in sports organisation reviews. https://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/3...l-re-structure

We will probably end up with similar recommendations either way (having seen consultants deliver recommendations for companies I?ve worked for and thinking ?sheesh!!!, we paid that insane amount of money for a report we knew what recommendations would be prior to review, and indeed shared with the consultants during the review?), but I?d feel more comfortable if we embraced a similar approach to what Richmond did, in our ?internal review?. Perhaps that?s what we are planning anyway, however if it is I wish Kylie and the Board would share that with us.

[jeemak]

Re: Sharp Axes

Perhaps the issues we find are the issues we found last year, or are at least very similar and our fixes were insufficient or couldn't be executed last year.

With coaches on multi-year contracts and resources limited, it's not as if you can always find the right person and secure them at a reasonable cost. Perhaps bringing in Lade was one piece of the same puzzle and Dew is another.

It's not unusual in an operation to find that the fixes you put in didn't go far enough, in fact it happens all the time.

[MrMahatma]

Re: Sharp Axes

I am reasonably confident there will be a raft of external, evidence-based inputs that the Dog's panel will draw on to help shape their conclusions and recommendations.

Good post. Won’t quote it all to save scrolling!
I guess for me, given we did an internal review last year, what’s different this year? It doesn’t really make sense. The club haven’t articulated how it’ll be different.

I agree they aren’t idiots. They are human. And I don’t see downside in an external review given they can still chose to not implement some of the findings.