Loved hearing from Jackson. It was the highlight of the week. Everyone should listen to his interview on MMM where he outlays the problems and what he calls simply but not quick solutions.

I've represented it in image form.

The first image is the problem.

The second is the solution.

None of this will make us play better this week. That's up to the players. It won't even make us better this year, thats on the players and coaches, but if we have to solve our long term problems the first steps will be changing the flow of the footy department. The second step will be employing people who can fulfill the jobs.

I'll tell you what, I am loving the sudden trend towards graphs and charts here. If I had any nous with a computer I'd put up a five-columned bar graph with a raised middle bar indicating my current sentiments towards the club.

Obviously it's easy to walk into a door and point out faults, and it's obviously harder to put your money where your mouth is and fix it.

Having said that and with everything I've heard to date from PJ - it would have been scary to see what further mess this club would have been in 2yrs from now under Schwab.

4 in a row

Loved hearing from Jackson. It was the highlight of the week. Everyone should listen to his interview on MMM where he outlays the problems and what he calls simply but not quick solutions.

I've represented it in image form.

The first image is the problem.

The second is the solution.

None of this will make us play better this week. That's up to the players. It won't even make us better this year, thats on the players and coaches, but if we have to solve our long term problems the first steps will be changing the flow of the footy department. The second step will be employing people who can fulfill the jobs.

Like the post.

But don't those graphs also reflect Essendon's current football department reporting lines ...

Who's going to head up unity??

Todd Viney seems a little lost there. Shouldn't recruitment and list management report directly to the Head of Football.

I'd say there is some potential for really clean structure there, but I'd also suggest its going to need 3-4 new people who aren't bringing the emotional baggage of our previous structure to make it work.

surely the coach talks to the recruiter?

Obviously it's easy to walk into a door and point out faults, and it's obviously harder to put your money where your mouth is and fix it.

Having said that and with everything I've heard to date from PJ - it would have been scary to see what further mess this club would have been in 2yrs from now under Schwab.

I'm pretty sure paying to be a member equates to one "putting their money where their mouth is".

As a member you have the capacity to challenge the club.

too many chiefs ... and not the right focus on the "warriors".

Rabbit Warren

surely the coach talks to the recruiter?

of course. But one of the first signs I didn't like about Neeld was him being so involved in recruiting. He should've just listed his priorities and left it to the experts.

And I'm thinking where our list is at we really need a teaching and hands on 110% instructing coach. There isn't time or energy for someone to control the footy department and be the big boss.

Like the post.

But don't those graphs also reflect Essendon's current football department reporting lines ...

It seems to be working for them. If we can't put it together ourselves, why not copy one of the more successful clubs? Though I am aware that Craig is no Bomber Thompson.

I'm pretty sure paying to be a member equates to one "putting their money where their mouth is".

As a member you have the capacity to challenge the club.

I'm talking about PJ - when I say it's easy to walk in and pick faults, but is he going to have enough time and will he stick around to see his changes through, or will he throw the grenade and bail when and if it gets hard.

Loved hearing from Jackson. It was the highlight of the week. Everyone should listen to his interview on MMM where he outlays the problems and what he calls simply but not quick solutions.

I've represented it in image form.

The first image is the problem.

The second is the solution.

None of this will make us play better this week. That's up to the players. It won't even make us better this year, thats on the players and coaches, but if we have to solve our long term problems the first steps will be changing the flow of the footy department. The second step will be employing people who can fulfill the jobs.

Great post mate, that's all i have to say.

It's Monday - whiteboard wednesday's in 2 days

For what it's worth, I have a background in organisation restructure. The existing structure is a classic example of one created to fit in individuals, not one designed for efficiency of control and communication. The proposed one, while more coherent, suffers from similar faults - it doesn't start from basic principles of good organisation design. To start with, there should be two, and only two, positions reporting to the CEO. The head of the Football Department, and the head of the Administration Department. Pretty basic stuff.

I should add, that if a business set out to undertake a major restructure like this, all senior positions should require re-advertisement. This should definitely not apply to positions down the line, and other staff should be placed in similar positions wherever possible, provided new senior staff agree. A spill of every position would paralyse the whole organisation. I should also add that a major restructure should happen off-season.

Edited May 13, 201312 yr by Blinkybill

For what it's worth, I have a background in organisation restructure. The existing structure is a classic example of one created to fit in individuals, not one designed for efficiency of control and communication. The proposed one, while more coherent, suffers from similar faults - it doesn't start from basic principles of good organisation design. To start with, there should be two, and only two, positions reporting to the CEO. The head of the Football Department, and the head of the Administration Department. Pretty basic stuff.

I was going to propose that but at the same time I think that coaching might almost be a third structure. Like admin, football department and then the hands on coaching. Most football clubs have the coach as the head of the department. I do agree with the gm of footy as head of the department idea. Lets the coach do his job and teach fundamentals.

I was going to propose that but at the same time I think that coaching might almost be a third structure. Like admin, football department and then the hands on coaching. Most football clubs have the coach as the head of the department. I do agree with the gm of footy as head of the department idea. Lets the coach do his job and teach fundamentals.

Thanks. Personally I have serious problems with the coach reporting to the GM. He should be insulated as far as possible from the politics/distraction of the running of the club.

Todd Viney seems a little lost there. Shouldn't recruitment and list management report directly to the Head of Football.

I'd say there is some potential for really clean structure there, but I'd also suggest its going to need 3-4 new people who aren't bringing the emotional baggage of our previous structure to make it work.

Agreed. That structure makes him appear a little redundant. If we're talking of costing cutting too, I'd be looking at cutting Todd or shifting him into the coaching side of the FD (if his being there is still not too much of a conflict of interest).

For what it's worth, I have a background in organisation restructure. The existing structure is a classic example of one created to fit in individuals, not one designed for efficiency of control and communication. The proposed one, while more coherent, suffers from similar faults - it doesn't start from basic principles of good organisation design. To start with, there should be two, and only two, positions reporting to the CEO. The head of the Football Department, and the head of the Administration Department. Pretty basic stuff.

Interesting - Essendon obviously have had similar issues with their FD, with different but equally (potentially) disastrous consequences. Jackson has made no comment on the organisation of the Admin side, so presumably that's in order (fingers crossed ...). One wonders whether this newfound explosion in the size of FD's across the board haven't led to a few teams playing catch-up, making it up as they went along. Having Elite Performance Managers and Directors of Strategy is all well and good ... but without the right structures in place, it seems that we're not getting what we should out of these additional positions. Good to hear that Jackson has spent time visiting European soccer clubs to see first-hand how the Big Boys do it.

For what it's worth, I have a background in organisation restructure

I should add, that if a business set out to undertake a major restructure like this, all senior positions should require re-advertisement. This should definitely not apply to positions down the line, and other staff should be placed in similar positions wherever possible, provided new senior staff agree. A spill of every position would paralyse the whole organisation. I should also add that a major restructure should happen off-season.

I agree there should be few direct reporting lines to the CEO where each position has proper responsibilities and accountabilities. In your case there are two positions.

And by moving to new structure you will effectively spill every position that reports to the CEO and create uncertainty. there is no doubt some positions and people will go and some will stay. You will paralyse a whole operation if you went to re advertise for each of those positions without doing an "internal audit" of the existing talent to determine of the right people are there.

I would have thought the major restructure would be underway now with any changes announced in August when the seasons effectively dead ( if it isn't already dead). From the comments Jackson made on the weekend about reporting lines and structures the process has started without the current structure outed as being rightly dysfunctional.

For what it's worth, I have a background in organisation restructure. The existing structure is a classic example of one created to fit in individuals, not one designed for efficiency of control and communication. The proposed one, while more coherent, suffers from similar faults - it doesn't start from basic principles of good organisation design. To start with, there should be two, and only two, positions reporting to the CEO. The head of the Football Department, and the head of the Administration Department. Pretty basic stuff.

I should add, that if a business set out to undertake a major restructure like this, all senior positions should require re-advertisement. This should definitely not apply to positions down the line, and other staff should be placed in similar positions wherever possible, provided new senior staff agree. A spill of every position would paralyse the whole organisation. I should also add that a major restructure should happen off-season.

For what it's worth, I have a background in organisation restructure. The existing structure is a classic example of one created to fit in individuals, not one designed for efficiency of control and communication. The proposed one, while more coherent, suffers from similar faults - it doesn't start from basic principles of good organisation design. To start with, there should be two, and only two, positions reporting to the CEO. The head of the Football Department, and the head of the Administration Department. Pretty basic stuff.

I should add, that if a business set out to undertake a major restructure like this, all senior positions should require re-advertisement. This should definitely not apply to positions down the line, and other staff should be placed in similar positions wherever possible, provided new senior staff agree. A spill of every position would paralyse the whole organisation. I should also add that a major restructure should happen off-season.

The appointment of Chris Connolly as (I've forgotten the title of the position), after after not choosing him as coach, would seem, in retrospect, the height of this problem. The "old boys" network problem was in full swing. The lack of proper process has been endemic at this club as long as I can remember. The fact that Garry Lyon has entered the picture as part of the coach selection process on two occasions is another. The amateurism of the structure is breathtaking!

Loved hearing from Jackson. It was the highlight of the week. Everyone should listen to his interview on MMM where he outlays the problems and what he calls simply but not quick solutions.

I've represented it in image form.

The first image is the problem.

The second is the solution.

None of this will make us play better this week. That's up to the players. It won't even make us better this year, thats on the players and coaches, but if we have to solve our long term problems the first steps will be changing the flow of the footy department. The second step will be employing people who can fulfill the jobs.

I think you will find in the new structure that only the FD manager will report to the CEO and that Neil Craig's position will be redundant.

Is this the time and place to remind everybody that the Board overlooked Stuart Fox twice as CEO?