Dean Bailey did pysche testing to get the job in 2007.

I was really enamoured with the process that got Dean Bailey.

I liked the process more than the decision.

Psych testing is essential rpfc, but like any form of assessment, it is only part of the final decision. There is also no pass/fail on a psych test, it is simply a relative scale - I would be interested to know the name of the 'successful AFL coach who is on the way to a premiership this year' who WJ believes 'wouldn't pass a psych test if his life depended on it'.

I appreciate what I suspect is cynicism or sarcasm in your comments on process, but seriously, am I correct in recalling that Sheedy walked away from the MFC interview with words to the effect of 'what a joke'? Who's laughing now!

I would be interested to know the name of the 'successful AFL coach who is on the way to a premiership this year' who WJ believes 'wouldn't pass a psych test if his life depended on it'

That's gotta be Clarko.

He's one flick of the switch away from blowing a fuse on a good day.

That's gotta be Clarko.

He's one flick of the switch away from blowing a fuse on a good day.

Given that he's a teacher by profession, that could be a problem if it really was true.

Given that he's a teacher by profession, that could be a problem if it really was true.

Clarkson being restrained:

Clarkson punching wall:

Result of Clarkson's punch:

Not sure he would last as a teacher these days.

I appreciate what I suspect is cynicism or sarcasm in your comments on process, but seriously, am I correct in recalling that Sheedy walked away from the MFC interview with words to the effect of 'what a joke'? Who's laughing now!

That process that Sheedy 'laughed at' as you say involved psyche testing.

The helpfulness of such tests in the search for AFL coaches is far from certain.

And in our case, was no insight into a man who, by Jim's learned eyes, couldn't handle the FD and used the players to shore up his position.

Clarkson being restrained:

Clarkson punching wall:

Result of Clarkson's punch:

Not sure he would last as a teacher these days.

Teacher at the School of (very) hard knocks, I would say.

That process that Sheedy 'laughed at' as you say involved psyche testing.

The helpfulness of such tests in the search for AFL coaches is far from certain.

And in our case, was no insight into a man who, by Jim's learned eyes, couldn't handle the FD and used the players to shore up his position.

My recollection is that it wasn't the psych test Sheedy was laughing at, rather it was that he wasn't allowed to make his presentation, but I'm open to correction.

I'd be interested to see the research on the usefulness of psych tests in selecting coaches, AFL or otherwise.

I'm also guessing any MFC supporter would have been happy to have had Sheedy coaching us for mega years and achieving what he did at Essendon - but having said that, I've never been a Sheedy supporter - just making a point.

My recollection is that it wasn't the psych test Sheedy was laughing at, rather it was that he wasn't allowed to make his presentation, but I'm open to correction.

I'd be interested to see the research on the usefulness of psych tests in selecting coaches, AFL or otherwise.

I'm also guessing any MFC supporter would have been happy to have had Sheedy coaching us for mega years and achieving what he did at Essendon - but having said that, I've never been a Sheedy supporter - just making a point.

Not sure what the point was.

We did psyche tests in a thorough process that netted a failed coach.

There is no right process to get an AFL coach.

Sometimes it just falls in your lap like Malthouse has for Carlton, sometimes you go surreptitiously and head hunt a guy in negotiations with his club, and sometimes you hear an uncompromising attitude and get the guy in there.

That process that Sheedy 'laughed at' as you say involved psyche testing.

The helpfulness of such tests in the search for AFL coaches is far from certain.

And in our case, was no insight into a man who, by Jim's learned eyes, couldn't handle the FD and used the players to shore up his position.

Prove that AFL coaches are meaningfully different to, let's say, senior execs trying ot CEO's and you'd have an argument.

OK, so my issue in some small way is the testing. It is an issue but it is not the big issue. The big issue is that we look dumb in terms of how we think about people and how we treat people. Does anyone reckon that the board knew why DB was failing or the state of our recruits & recruiters? Do you think that the board initiated a recruitment process to find someone who fitted the needs of the group and accurately assessed his abilities to do so?

Now, as WJ points out, I have not been on the inside to see how this process worked. I have no idea what the board was thinking. All I know is that they chose to use a primitive method of selection to get a relatively unknown quantity who had recently had neurosurgery to perform a job in a club riven with faults and pressures.

Now, he may well be the right man and he might well have built the right team around him. That does not mean that, if he works, the board process was good. If they know why they succeeded, then it it good. BUT BUT BUT if it fails and they don't know why, they'll just repeat the same method with the same flaws and get the same result - a completely random oucome that they don't understand. That is the problem from my point of view - not that they did not use psych testing but why they didn't.

And a point about testing. The Saint's CEO was on the radio months ago saying that they put their applicants through a "rigorous on-line 2 hour series of tests". Let me guarantee you that if it was online it was not rigorous and highly likely to be invalid. Some psychs and some tests are garbage. Internet tests are invalid for the simple reason that you can almost never be sure who the hell is completing the test! Really good tests are often not put on line. IQ tests are best done in person so you can see how someone solves problems rather than just whether they can or not.

am I correct in recalling that Sheedy walked away from the MFC interview with words to the effect of 'what a joke'? Who's laughing now!

You would be correct if you recalled that Sheedy did not attempt to participate in the process. I dont know why he even turned up to the I/V at all.

Prove that AFL coaches are meaningfully different to, let's say, senior execs trying ot CEO's and you'd have an argument.

OK, so my issue in some small way is the testing. It is an issue but it is not the big issue. The big issue is that we look dumb in terms of how we think about people and how we treat people. Does anyone reckon that the board knew why DB was failing or the state of our recruits & recruiters? Do you think that the board initiated a recruitment process to find someone who fitted the needs of the group and accurately assessed his abilities to do so?

Now, as WJ points out, I have not been on the inside to see how this process worked. I have no idea what the board was thinking. All I know is that they chose to use a primitive method of selection to get a relatively unknown quantity who had recently had neurosurgery to perform a job in a club riven with faults and pressures.

Now, he may well be the right man and he might well have built the right team around him. That does not mean that, if he works, the board process was good. If they know why they succeeded, then it it good. BUT BUT BUT if it fails and they don't know why, they'll just repeat the same method with the same flaws and get the same result - a completely random oucome that they don't understand. That is the problem from my point of view - not that they did not use psych testing but why they didn't.

And a point about testing. The Saint's CEO was on the radio months ago saying that they put their applicants through a "rigorous on-line 2 hour series of tests". Let me guarantee you that if it was online it was not rigorous and highly likely to be invalid. Some psychs and some tests are garbage. Internet tests are invalid for the simple reason that you can almost never be sure who the hell is completing the test! Really good tests are often not put on line. IQ tests are best done in person so you can see how someone solves problems rather than just whether they can or not.

They are helpful tests.

They should not be used to find AFL coaches.

That is my opinion.

We were lauded for our process that landed Bailey. Lauded and applauded.

My point is not about the value of psyche tests - it is that the process to find an AFL coach should not be akin to finding a CEO.

It's a job that the emotionally unstable sometimes excel at.

They are helpful tests.

They should not be used to find AFL coaches.

That is my opinion.

We were lauded for our process that landed Bailey. Lauded and applauded.

My point is not about the value of psyche tests - it is that the process to find an AFL coach should not be akin to finding a CEO.

It's a job that the emotionally unstable sometimes excel at.

Sorry rpfc, but these are strange statements!

Of course, psych tests alone should not be used to select a coach (or anyone for any job for that matter).

Of course, selecting a coach and a CEO are different, but not that different - it's what the selection panel deems more important that matters.

Who would want an emotionally unstable coach or CEO - what are you saying?

Sorry rpfc, but these are strange statements!

Of course, psych tests alone should not be used to select a coach (or anyone for any job for that matter).

Of course, selecting a coach and a CEO are different, but not that different - it's what the selection panel deems more important that matters.

Who would want an emotionally unstable coach or CEO - what are you saying?

I am saying that if I was trying to find a CEO I would do administer psyche tests.

I am saying that if I was trying to find a coach I would not go near psyche tests.

My recollection is that it wasn't the psych test Sheedy was laughing at, rather it was that he wasn't allowed to make his presentation, but I'm open to correction.

....

I'm also guessing any MFC supporter would have been happy to have had Sheedy coaching us for mega years and achieving what he did at Essendon - but having said that, I've never been a Sheedy supporter - just making a point.

Sheedy did not have a presentation at his I/V. Waltzed and said "here I am" in an indignant and arrogant fashion without any reference to the terms set for the conduct of the interview. Poor form.

I wouldnt want him then or now.

I am saying that if I was trying to find a CEO I would do administer psyche tests.

I am saying that if I was trying to find a coach I would not go near psyche tests.

Respectfully, you are wrong.

You have also not addressed the issue of an emotionally unstable coach.

Sheedy did not have a presentation at his I/V. Waltzed and said "here I am" in an indignant and arrogant fashion without any reference to the terms set for the conduct of the interview. Poor form.

I wouldnt want him then or now.

Thanks for the recollection Rhino - back then, in the absence of anyone better, I thought he had something to bring to MFC, but I certainly agree not now, and as I said, I have never been a fan of him.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Carlton job. They seem to have bypassed any semblance of a process and gone straight for the man they want in Mick. Now’s that really is plain ignorant!

I'd call it complete diligence. Three different clubs in finals, premierships at two clubs.

But perhaps I have a different feel as to what's important.

Thanks for the recollection Rhino - back then, in the absence of anyone better, I thought he had something to bring to MFC, but I certainly agree not now, and as I said, I have never been a fan of him.

My understanding was that Sheedy crashed and burned at the first hurdle and did not get a 2nd I/V which was not surprising.

I understand Hardwick was also kneecapped in the I/V process as the Hawks scuttled his presentation at the last moment on the basis that it took too much proprietary material from them.

I'd call it complete diligence. Three different clubs in finals, premierships at two clubs.

But perhaps I have a different feel as to what's important.

Didnt Caro comment that Carlton and MM have been in secret discussions for some time? Its hardly a kneejerk by Carlton. Who else would be on their radar? Choko Williams. Add Paul Roos

Leigh Mathews did not even bring a pen to the Brisbane 'interview', however Brisbane were smart enough to identify who the best candidate was, and just surrender to him. They won 3 premierships in a row.

Carlton might do the same.

Unfortunately, the MFC did not identify the best available candidate, but selected the coach that represents the thoughts of the selectors.

Mathews said on 3aw that he was 'interested" in the Melbourne position, but was not approached.

I wonder what 'lethal' would have done with moloney, Jurrah, wona, petered, rivers, frawley, tapscott, jamar and Gysberts.

Just maybe we didn't need another rebuild.

As some here have highlights, timD the best, the issue of process is a club wide thing, not just to do with selecting a senior coach, and is a representation of the attitude and approach of the entire club to all manner of issues.

In terms of process, I am not sure how a CEO can be sacked one week and then be saved by another person losing their job, and then be reappointed for three years 12 months later. If this CEO was deemed by the Board to not be good enough one week, how can the same Board deem him worthy of being in charge of our football club through what will be possibly the leanest period in it's history?

Again in terms of process, I have reservations about our selection of a senior coach. I don't have any issue with the Ross Lyon one because it was done by Fremantle and Ross in an underhanded manner and not only would I not want our club to act in that manner, I'm not sure about the motivations of someone who says one thing to his management then deals with someone else behind their back.

My issue is more with why there were three other coaching jobs available and ultimately of the three people to get those jobs, not a single one was interviewed by us. It suggests a major flaw in our identification of potential applicants for the job if all three who would go through processes and be successful at other clubs would not even be considered by us.

Someone said it before - it's not about whether Neeld is a good coach or not, it's about whether he was the right man for the job, and did we look thoroughly enough before his appointment. To me, not interviewing any of McCartney, Sanderson or Watters is a giant red flag that there is a problem.

Now if there are questions about the handling of the appointment of the CEO and the Senior Coach, logically the next step is to wonder about the appointment or review processes to do with other important areas - admin staff, football department staff, assistant coaches, list management etc

As some here have highlights, timD the best, the issue of process is a club wide thing, not just to do with selecting a senior coach, and is a representation of the attitude and approach of the entire club to all manner of issues.

In terms of process, I am not sure how a CEO can be sacked one week and then be saved by another person losing their job, and then be reappointed for three years 12 months later. If this CEO was deemed by the Board to not be good enough one week, how can the same Board deem him worthy of being in charge of our football club through what will be possibly the leanest period in it's history?

Again in terms of process, I have reservations about our selection of a senior coach. I don't have any issue with the Ross Lyon one because it was done by Fremantle and Ross in an underhanded manner and not only would I not want our club to act in that manner, I'm not sure about the motivations of someone who says one thing to his management then deals with someone else behind their back.

My issue is more with why there were three other coaching jobs available and ultimately of the three people to get those jobs, not a single one was interviewed by us. It suggests a major flaw in our identification of potential applicants for the job if all three who would go through processes and be successful at other clubs would not even be considered by us.

Someone said it before - it's not about whether Neeld is a good coach or not, it's about whether he was the right man for the job, and did we look thoroughly enough before his appointment. To me, not interviewing any of McCartney, Sanderson or Watters is a giant red flag that there is a problem.

Now if there are questions about the handling of the appointment of the CEO and the Senior Coach, logically the next step is to wonder about the appointment or review processes to do with other important areas - admin staff, football department staff, assistant coaches, list management etc

HOORAY! You got it in one.

RPFC, I don't think you understand what testing does or says. What if the testing (this is hypothetical and is no way based on fact, rumor or innuendo - it is done for the sake on an example please don't sue me) for clarkson reveals that he is very bright, a flexible problem solver with a great understanding of big picture and little details, is happy to delegate and has a leadership style that is trasnformational and charismatic. What if it also says that he is egotistical and does not feel threatened often because of his high opinion of himself and his genuinely high IQ. However, if he is disappointed or threatened, he shows poor controls over emotions, personalises problems and blames others aggressively if he is threatened or disappointed...

He'd have some great qualities and some others that require the club to manage him. But they'd know that. And you'd know what you were getting and could structure parts of your other appointments around that...Now, maybe it is just me, but I reckon knowing more about what you are buying is a damn sight better than knowing less. RPFC, were you a board member, you would be choosing to know less about your coach and make up the rest as you go. If you can find a reason that this is a good way for a board to operate, please let me know.

Leigh Mathews did not even bring a pen to the Brisbane 'interview', however Brisbane were smart enough to identify who the best candidate was, and just surrender to him. They won 3 premierships in a row.

Carlton might do the same.

Unfortunately, the MFC did not identify the best available candidate, but selected the coach that represents the thoughts of the selectors.

Mathews said on 3aw that he was 'interested" in the Melbourne position, but was not approached.

I wonder what 'lethal' would have done with moloney, Jurrah, wona, petered, rivers, frawley, tapscott, jamar and Gysberts.

Just maybe we didn't need another rebuild.

Ah, you're back. Nothing's changed I see. Still trotting out hypothetical nonsense. Of course Matthews would have been alongside Jurrah to stop him getting involved in the brawl. Matthews would have solved Wona's family issues. Matthews would have given Petterd a heart. Matthews would have magically prevented Jamar's injuries. Matthews would have pandered to Moloney's wishes and made him captain. What's wrong with Tapscott and Rivers? They've both had good years. Come on, get real.

Edited September 4, 201212 yr by Crawf52

HOORAY! You got it in one.

RPFC, I don't think you understand what testing does or says. What if the testing (this is hypothetical and is no way based on fact, rumor or innuendo - it is done for the sake on an example please don't sue me) for clarkson reveals that he is very bright, a flexible problem solver with a great understanding of big picture and little details, is happy to delegate and has a leadership style that is trasnformational and charismatic. What if it also says that he is egotistical and does not feel threatened often because of his high opinion of himself and his genuinely high IQ. However, if he is disappointed or threatened, he shows poor controls over emotions, personalises problems and blames others aggressively if he is threatened or disappointed...

He'd have some great qualities and some others that require the club to manage him. But they'd know that. And you'd know what you were getting and could structure parts of your other appointments around that...Now, maybe it is just me, but I reckon knowing more about what you are buying is a damn sight better than knowing less. RPFC, were you a board member, you would be choosing to know less about your coach and make up the rest as you go. If you can find a reason that this is a good way for a board to operate, please let me know.

I am aware of what is involved, although not as much as you Tim obviously.

I have said that these tests can be helpful. I have said that I would endorse the use of them.

But it is these tests, and the predispostion to worry about the EI (and everything else one learns from those taking these tests), can lead to over-thinking.

It is the kind of thinking that leads to Darling and Martin being overlooked in drafts.

I can understand why they didn't bother, and I can see the merit of them.

It doesn't guarantee a better process and outcome, just as the way we arrived at Neeld doesn't guarantee a better process and outcome.

Carlton is about to land a great coach and their process was a mix of dumb luck and poor recent performance.

I am saying that if I was trying to find a CEO I would do administer psyche tests.

I am saying that if I was trying to find a coach I would not go near psyche tests.

You'd have to be crazy to want to be a head coach

So you probably do need a psych test for the coach just to ensure he is crazy enough

Simple really n'est ce pas

Ah, you're back. Nothing's changed I see. Still trotting out hypothetical nonsense. Of course Matthews would have been alongside Jurrah to stop him getting involved in the brawl. Matthews would have solved Wona's family issues. Matthews would have given Petterd a heart. Matthews would have magically prevented Jamar's injuries. Matthews would have pandered to Moloney's wishes and made him captain. What's wrong with Tapscott and Rivers? They've both had good years. Come on, get real.

Its amazing how Stynes leadership got the whole club unified.

It seems now we are fragmented.

The ability to manage the behaviour and attitude of young men is important. One must have emotional intelligence.