So I spent first semester doing a subject called "People and Change", which is a theoretical look at organizational change and how people adapt and react to it. Fascinating -- but challenging -- stuff.

I decided to do the "advanced" version of this subject this semester, and decided to choose Melbourne Football Club as my case study, at the support of my lecturer, who said it was a great example (after I showed her evidence to back up my case, as she is American and didn't understand the situation or sport).

Fascinatingly, there is an uncanny correlation between the issues the club has faced in the past 16-or-so months, and the issues that company's face when they fail to adapt to change.

Basically, going by what I've learnt in the subject, the Melbourne Football Club has failed miserably in its effort to change, but I don't need to tell you all that.

The problem I see immediately -- I haven't analysed the situation extensively enough yet -- is that the club isn't quite sure whether it's implementing an "evolutionary" or "revolutionary" change: it's taking a little from column A, and a little from column B.

For your records:

Evolutionary - Slow, but persistent change and progress, far more reliable and stable.

Revolutionary - Immediate change, the hardest to deal with, far more unstable.

So what's the problem?

The club's "boys club" culture would suggest a slow, evolutionary change would be more beneficial to avoid a complete collapse of the like we've seen over the past two season...however, that same culture would be hostile to change, so a slow, evolutionary change would be equally good and bad, and equally as risky as a revolutionary change. It's a mind-f*** of a challenge for anyone in charge. I've developed sympathy for McLardy, and even Schwab to a degree.

The club, however, as adopted a revolutionary change, which would explain the collapse.

1. Neeld came in with a clear, direct idea of what needed to be changed.

2. McLardy drove these changes home, and argued for a completely clean slate for the club (a diplomatic way of saying they're completely changing the fabric of the club -- awfully risky considering the club's persistently unstable financial situation -- a double-edged sword because change was needed).

3. Older, leading players struggled to adapt to the changes (Moloney) and were therefore made the equivalent of redundant: I'd argue that being traded or given the freedom to sign elsewhere is the same in active AFL playing terms as being made redundant by your employer.

4. New, young faces are unsure how to incorporate the changes, or how to embrace the club, because it's at such a low point and struggling to form an identity. Imagine going to an organisation as an intern, only to learn the organisation is bleeding money, is far, FAR behind its competitors, and has no clear future. I'm sure you might be regretting your decision.

Now, this is all a very mechanically theoretical way of looking at how change happens at a football club. The fabric is different because the teammateship is far more embedded into the foundations of the organization than it would be in a corporate world, where individualism can still take priority: you want to eventually strive for the benefit of yourself, rather than for the success of the wider team.

I'm still very early in my case study and have months of reading ahead of me, but I am really looking forward to applying different theoretical frameworks to the club, its recent changes, failures, successes and challenges.

I also hope the final outcome will provide more of an insight into how the club has gone wrong, and perhaps how it can adapt to change in a more efficient, effective manner. Although, Peter Jackson may do this more promptly than I can between now and November.

/thesis

The MFC remind me a lot of KODAK as a company.

Kodak were the film company of the 50's through to the 90's.

they were even the first company to design a digital camera.

But chose to not go with it sticking with the roll of film.

They went out of business, no longer exist.

Good stuff, Cudi.

In your case study, don't forget the impact emotion has on decision making. Until Peter Jackson arrived, everyone involved would have been unable to separate their love for the club with dispassionate decision making.

Good OP there

"Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative." - H. G. Wells

The MFC has been stuck in its own self created tar pit aka as the halcyon times of great achievement. 50's / 60's ( til the dreaded NSC )

It has spent so much time looking in the rear view mirror its failed to take any real notice of all the traffic ahead. Result.. a perpetual car crash

This club has thoroughly stuffed up the understanding let alone implementation of change.

I'll nominate a 3rd category of change. Corrective. Bit like re-railing. Its just about getting back on track first and heading in a direction without accident.

In terms of the OP I think we'll need revolutionary change which will then set us up for continued evolutionary improvements and adaptations.

Thanks Cudi.

Please keep us informed as you go along.

I am fascinated to see what thoughts are in future months.

I like your train of thought.
I think we sometimes get so caught up in the actual sport that we forget that the mfc is an organisation like any other and needs good management. I think we could use more minds like yours at the club - might not be a bad idea to send your thesis to the club. I wonder how that $100,000 plan to success we had made a few years ago is tracking (probably in the bin). I think if you really want an edge in the competition you should really be looking to areas like this - getting good people into the club that cover all areas including management and psychological progression etc. (I guess that's what PJ is doing but let's hope he isn't to focused on getting into the black and isn't afraid to spend some money to get the best).

Edited August 2, 201312 yr by Young Dee

I rather like that a thread on Evolution v Revolution has a post by 'old dee' immediately followed by one from 'Young Dee'

I rather like that a thread on Evolution v Revolution has a post by 'old dee' immediately followed by one from 'Young Dee'

Don't think my brain has stopped working yet LDC.

Although there was a few seconds on Tuesday when I thought shut down was imminent.

Good stuff, Cudi.

In your case study, don't forget the impact emotion has on decision making. Until Peter Jackson arrived, everyone involved would have been unable to separate their love for the club with dispassionate decision making.

Which is one of the reasons why the likelihood of a CEO being a sociopath is about four times that of the general population.

The MFC remind me a lot of KODAK as a company.

Kodak were the film company of the 50's through to the 90's.

they were even the first company to design a digital camera.

But chose to not go with it sticking with the roll of film.

They went out of business, no longer exist.

The corpse is still breathing WYL http://www.kodak.com.au/ek/AU/en/Home.htm just

The corpse is still breathing WYL http://www.kodak.com.au/ek/AU/en/Home.htm just

Yep, they sold off the digital and printer side of the business, but continue to operate... just.

So I spent first semester doing a subject called "People and Change", which is a theoretical look at organizational change and how people adapt and react to it. Fascinating -- but challenging -- stuff.

I decided to do the "advanced" version of this subject this semester, and decided to choose Melbourne Football Club as my case study, at the support of my lecturer, who said it was a great example (after I showed her evidence to back up my case, as she is American and didn't understand the situation or sport).

Fascinatingly, there is an uncanny correlation between the issues the club has faced in the past 16-or-so months, and the issues that company's face when they fail to adapt to change.

Basically, going by what I've learnt in the subject, the Melbourne Football Club has failed miserably in its effort to change, but I don't need to tell you all that.

The problem I see immediately -- I haven't analysed the situation extensively enough yet -- is that the club isn't quite sure whether it's implementing an "evolutionary" or "revolutionary" change: it's taking a little from column A, and a little from column B.

For your records:

Evolutionary - Slow, but persistent change and progress, far more reliable and stable.

Revolutionary - Immediate change, the hardest to deal with, far more unstable.

So what's the problem?

The club's "boys club" culture would suggest a slow, evolutionary change would be more beneficial to avoid a complete collapse of the like we've seen over the past two season...however, that same culture would be hostile to change, so a slow, evolutionary change would be equally good and bad, and equally as risky as a revolutionary change. It's a mind-f*** of a challenge for anyone in charge. I've developed sympathy for McLardy, and even Schwab to a degree.

The club, however, as adopted a revolutionary change, which would explain the collapse.

1. Neeld came in with a clear, direct idea of what needed to be changed.

2. McLardy drove these changes home, and argued for a completely clean slate for the club (a diplomatic way of saying they're completely changing the fabric of the club -- awfully risky considering the club's persistently unstable financial situation -- a double-edged sword because change was needed).

3. Older, leading players struggled to adapt to the changes (Moloney) and were therefore made the equivalent of redundant: I'd argue that being traded or given the freedom to sign elsewhere is the same in active AFL playing terms as being made redundant by your employer.

4. New, young faces are unsure how to incorporate the changes, or how to embrace the club, because it's at such a low point and struggling to form an identity. Imagine going to an organisation as an intern, only to learn the organisation is bleeding money, is far, FAR behind its competitors, and has no clear future. I'm sure you might be regretting your decision.

Now, this is all a very mechanically theoretical way of looking at how change happens at a football club. The fabric is different because the teammateship is far more embedded into the foundations of the organization than it would be in a corporate world, where individualism can still take priority: you want to eventually strive for the benefit of yourself, rather than for the success of the wider team.

I'm still very early in my case study and have months of reading ahead of me, but I am really looking forward to applying different theoretical frameworks to the club, its recent changes, failures, successes and challenges.

I also hope the final outcome will provide more of an insight into how the club has gone wrong, and perhaps how it can adapt to change in a more efficient, effective manner. Although, Peter Jackson may do this more promptly than I can between now and November.

/thesis

great post, good topic well done!

I'll see if I can find the sports psych reference I recently read on this topic - a beaut article with a good reference list to boot.

"I'll see if I can find the sports psych reference I recently read on this topic - a beaut article with a good reference list to boot"

No don't, I am sure I speak for some of the more mature posters on this board, when I say this is what is wrong with modern sport, oh for the days of just watching 22 guys chasing the ball around and then wondering which pub to go to for a few drinks afterwards, and bumping into the 22 guys there as well.

Which is one of the reasons why the likelihood of a CEO being a sociopath is about four times that of the general population.

Or in Essendons case, coach.

The MFC remind me a lot of KODAK as a company.

Kodak were the film company of the 50's through to the 90's.

they were even the first company to design a digital camera.

But chose to not go with it sticking with the roll of film.

They went out of business, no longer exist.

In a way I agree WYL, Melbourne conservative nature makes it resist change & opening up, to be an all aboard, open doors & windows club... no-one wants to give up anything, so that we can increase our supporter bases breadth, & demographics. we're suffocating in the closet with the Napthline flakes.

We have to appeal to a broader audience than just Volvo & SUV drivers.

Edited August 2, 201312 yr by dee-luded

In a way I agree WYL, Melbourne conservative nature makes it resist change & opening up, to be an all aboard, open doors & windows club... no-one wants to give up anything, so that we can increase our supporter bases breadth, & demographics. we're suffocating in the closet with the Napthline flakes.

We have to appeal to a broader audience than just Volvo & SUV drivers.

Yes, let's appeal to everyone who possesses snow chains regardless of car type.

The MFC remind me a lot of KODAK as a company.

Kodak were the film company of the 50's through to the 90's.

they were even the first company to design a digital camera.

But chose to not go with it sticking with the roll of film.

They went out of business, no longer exist.

My dad worked at Kodak. He was involved in doing studies and experiments with diffraction gratings, the work would eventually lead to the development and production of the Compact Disc. Dad wasn't the man behind it all, there was this genius who he worked with who single handedly designed and built the machinery that pretty much produced the first compact disc (I have what I believe to be the first example in the world of the compact disc in my possession). They wanted support from Kodak to further develop the project but Kodak, in conjunction with the government at the time, basically sold the technology to the Yanks for peanuts. It was a devastating decision from Kodak, to just sell off brilliant intellectual property like that. The guy took it pretty bad, he told Kodak that no one could have his machine and he would take a sledge hammer to it immediately. A heap of other stuff went down but I won't go into detail, let's just say I've seen plenty of 'evidence' first hand.

Back in the day Kodak had world leaders in this technology working for them, Australia was a pioneer in that industry and Kodak somehow managed to [censored] it all up. What's even sadder is the above story only scratches the surface of the absolute tragedies that took place there due to mismanagement and incompetance.

Great thread.

Love the topic, Cudi.

I find this stuff fascinating, and will endeavour to contribute where I can.

Can I ask what you are studying?

(If you said, I missed it)

"I'll see if I can find the sports psych reference I recently read on this topic - a beaut article with a good reference list to boot"

No don't, I am sure I speak for some of the more mature posters on this board, when I say this is what is wrong with modern sport, oh for the days of just watching 22 guys chasing the ball around and then wondering which pub to go to for a few drinks afterwards, and bumping into the 22 guys there as well.

You are entitled to speak for yourself only. Anyway I doubt you will read this response, because you'll subscribe to the "if the topic doesn't interest you, you won't open the thread" mantra won't you?

Great topic and good luck with the research.

Would be good to begin the analysis at the last point the organisation could be considered healthy or at least competitive. I would argue that was our last finals tilt under Daniher. Standard change is evolutionary - young players replace old. Failures started with the end of Danners time..

- Danners didn't blood enough new players.

- Bailey had too big a task - a complete rebuild. Luckily he identified a good mature leader in James Macdonald - made him captain.

- Sacked James Macdonald! The plan was obviously to fast track evolutionary change with young blood. Somehow they forgot that 'culture' is an important transmission in the cycle.

- Deliberately lost games to put the evolutionary change on steroids with high picks. This was another cultural disaster.

- Young picks went sour or were duds, some good talent. Big wins and big losses.

- 186 - evolutionary change declared unsuccessful and a Revolution was needed. Bailey sacked, leaders Green, Moloney etc. newtered, new hardline coaches and approach.

- Without pointing out all of his faults again, Neeld turned out to be a terrible choice to lead the club in a Revolution. Appoints 20-30 game players as captains. Poor coaching and player management all round. Lost more playing talent than we gained. Slid down the ladder well below where we were under Bailey.

- Neeld tries to re-engage an evolutionary approach by drafting elder players, these are mostly poor players. This fails too. We go even further backwards.

- Club declared unable to look after itself, goes into administration

- We now have the worst of both worlds. No leaders, no direction, no development, no coach, no bosses. And we have to try believe in yet another round of structural renewal.

LOOKING AHEAD...

As a natural optimist!, I believe in a Peter Jackson rebuild. One constant through all the disaster outlined above was Cameron Schwab. He is gone and now we have a clear minded CEO to bring people of substance in and get this grand old dame back on her feet. We have AFL money, we will have a priority pick, we have passionate supporters and fans and we will rise again. I am ready to get back on board and follow the next coach through the turmoil and trials and watch our team grow again.

As long as we all get behind a healthy new vision and direction, which is there now, there can be real joy in watching a young team develop. Some of my favorite football memories were of watching a young Shane Wowoedin learn how to play by tagging Hird and Kouta and doing ok! He eventually won a brownlow. The Gold Coast Suns are one of the more compelling teams to watch. We can be compelling and enthusiastic like that as of next year. I for one am really looking forward to it!

I lean towards the opinion of Satyriconhome above, and long for the days when what we are talking about is the 22 men who run out, fit, fed and inspired and give it their best shot at winning a game of football. I am getting soooooooo tired of footy politics, changing coaches, drugs in sport, which CEO agrees with the AFL on blah blah, equalisation strategy etc...

But the MFC is an excellent choice for an academic study on the nature of change in a business organisation.

The drive and motivation for change initiated by Jim Stynes was right on the money. If you looked at a rule book for organisational change, as Jimmy brought in Chris Connolly, Dean Bailey, Cam Schwab, etc... all the key change indicators were being followed and implemented. This organisational "revolution" had all the right factors but with one essential flaw - personnel. The people recruited were friends,colleagues, or those admired and respected but they were not agents of change - they were managers of a system. Schwab and Connolly could implement strategy but not drive change in culture.

We failed in recruiting the right people.

The corpse is still breathing WYL http://www.kodak.com.au/ek/AU/en/Home.htm just

that's interesting. I thought they had completely gone.

Same result though. They are no longer relevant sadly.

I miss the yellow boxes!!

"I'll see if I can find the sports psych reference I recently read on this topic - a beaut article with a good reference list to boot"

No don't, I am sure I speak for some of the more mature posters on this board, when I say this is what is wrong with modern sport, oh for the days of just watching 22 guys chasing the ball around and then wondering which pub to go to for a few drinks afterwards, and bumping into the 22 guys there as well.

You have NFI. As is none. As in, you are on ebay trying to buy someone else's idea but you're in the tennis section looking at used socks instead.

We have had Jim Stynes and Gary Lyon making the calls. Prendergast and Bailey. Neeld et al. All footy people. All reckon that THEY know - cause they are used to watching blokes run around and, you know, ran around a bit themselves.

Have you ever taken the time to think that this is the approach that has led us to this position - "inner sanctum" types who reckon they know but they actually don't? Because let me guarantee you that this type is the only type we've bothered with and they are bad at their jobs. Their judgement has buried us. Their calls. Their lack of skill, lack of insight, lack of ability, lack of brains, lack of responsibility. The effing gap between ego and ability at our club has been extraordinary.

But you reckon that we need more simplistic analysis from blokes who, you know, reckon they know.

You, sir, are a clown.

Yesterday threw a spanner in the works. I need to work on how I can measure failure in the face of change. Thankfully with a sports club I have statistics to strengthen the analytical approach.

Edited August 4, 201312 yr by Cudi_420

Yesterday through a spanner in the works. I need to work on how I can measure failure in the face of change. Thankfully with a sports club I have statistics to strengthen the analytical approach.

divide it by 2 multiply it by 20 and take away 3

that wont give you the answer but will make your paper seem very logical and fact ridden

if non of that works mark the top page s2 combined with so. and then nobody will read it