timD

That's profound. Actually, the proof will be on the sporting field, not in some pudding.

I think we'll see a few early wins, then a long trough followed by looking good over the last 6-8 rounds as the gameplan finally sinks in to those more permanent members of the team. Our improved fitness will see losing margins reduced and our improved midfield will do well on the back of some NQR's that fill roles. Morton will emerge as a strangely effective mid that gets into our best players list consistently in the last half of the year - and his rise is universally acknowledged on demonland while causing mass bewilderment And cattle mutilations will be up.

And neither playing group permitted a loss of 186. The playing group which you so support produced one of the wretched performances in AFL/VFL history. BEFORE neeld, not after. They played weak, unacountable footy all that year and only beat teams when the opposition was at a low ebb. I'm glad you embraced such a shameful set of performances produced by that group. I'm rapt that you 'back' the playing group - a group that is rumoured to have had half of its members not complete Dave Misson's fitness program before pre-season commenced. A group whose members have spoken alomst openly about not buying in to the new coach's plans for part if not all of the season. Be proud Hardnut. The group has done a wonderful job under adversity.

Don't know about the EI - too much made of it wiht too little actual research support IMO. I think a proper focus is the start of it and a process that involves appropriate measures is part of that.

Craig says that it is the people that make the big difference? Hmmm, I wonder how we can maximises our chances of getting the best of them...

Are you deliberately ignoring that if Hawthorn kicked as accurately as Adelaide did, then the hawks win by 8-10 goals? Is this one of those situations where the reality just doesn't suit you so you will just spend time ignoring it and speaking in strident tones? As for Craig, well, it was him who got them fit, got them ready and stated that it was a team with more talent than he had seen before. But you'll spit on everything he built and crown the blow-in as a champ. FMD.

CH 7 are awful. BT is awful. His snide asides to Richo are just annoying and his commentary makes 'banal' and 'insightless' look like endearing qualties.

He is a troll. A troll A troll A troll. Or cognitively compromised. no, a troll. He has never heard that the AFL has a team called the Sydney Swans. He has never heard of players like GARY ABLETT, SAM MITCHELL, PODSIADLEY etc etc. i can't do this any more. TROLL

My position, FWIW, it that I am a Dee for life but that doesn't mean I'll stick around forever. There will be no other teams, no other codes. But I will not turn up week in/week out to watch garbage. I will not pay my hard-earned if I think the club is being run by monkeys. I'd argue that all relationships are conditional - my affection for Melbourne is permanent but I'll not stick around if all I get is disappointment and heartache.

Signed up myself, my 5 year old, my 2 year old and my 2 day old last week. Am expecting a call from DHS.

MBA's are overhyped, what is your point? Prove that Norm Smith would do badly in a psych test. Which one/s? Testing what? Against what norms/tandards? Screening for which attributes? I'd guess that hardworking, inflexible, highly intelligent, loyal and emotionally controlled would come up. Why would that be bad?

Sometimes attitudes can be, Biffen, and sometimes they cannot. As a thought experiment, think of a loved one. Have they ever tried to change something about you? Have you actually changed? now Gys is at a footy club - it is his job. How much have you changed for an employer? I've left several when change rubbed against the grain. "You hire people for what they can do; you fire them for who are they are".

What I like jaded is the living out of that motto: never forgive; never forget. I endorse it wholeheartedly.

Now I need RPFC to find a shot of a nail being pounded by a hammer...

RPFC, the overthinking I would argue stems from not understanding what you are doing (not you personally, but you get what I mean). The psychologist's job is to provide a recommendation along with the test results presented in plain english. What a lot do is provide you pages and pages of generic computer printouts. It is poor practice, but I'd argue you get what you pay for. Lots of places watn quick tests that people can do from home that are obvious, not invasive, and give you perfect results without spending anything on them. They get carp and they deserve carp. Confusion is from not knowing what the group needs and what is liekly to work best. Those questions are not hard to answer but you do need to answer them. The psych shuld be able to tell you :candidate A has these strengths/weaknesses; candidate B has these ones and FOR YOUR GROUP at this time given your organistion, candidate A is a better fit. THe tests give you part of this, the talent/experience of the psych should provide the rest. It aint perfect by any means but it beats the pants off the alternative. The question for carlton is whether Malthouse is what they actually need. Does he provide them with more than ratten did? Will he magically create a FB, CHF and FF ('cause they don't have em now)? Will he need his on hand-picked assistants? How long will it take to get and then bed-down that team? Will he need to re-jig their fitness program too? What is the transition period going to be? How long will it take to tweak a game plan (which is inevitable)? Getting a coach, as is now apparent to me, a potentiall BIG shift. Malthouse is known for being difficult and pernickity. Are Carlton really lucky? Will it be right? Was ratten that bad? I think comparing the processes and suggesting that rushed and singleminded works because it might for for carlton is along bow to draw.

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.

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.

Hey Jack. Sorry I missed the post - damn newborns and their agendas! Benjamin Charles D born on 3/9/12 at 3.30 pm. Baby and mother doing well. Am yet to sign him up - will try for today. i think that if you are trying to find the best people then you need to do more than interview them because interviews are full of bias and really only tease out social skills. And that finding has been clear for 85 years. There is not one method or set of tests - they are dependent on what you want and what you want to screen for. But to not interview more widely, to not bother with psych tests and to use interviews as the main tool is plain ignorant. Now most people do not need to know about excellence in hiring at executive level. The board does. The CEO does. Not everyone needs to understand how to create a great atmosphere - the board and CEO do. Are you satisfied that they get it - that without great people were are dead - and that they have the insight and talent to implement the right methods to do this?

Thanks Hardnut - though I have to say that the post is the result of a lot of thought about stuff that I know I only know a small amount about. What I don't get is why it took me so long to see this? We might not get great players but a system/philosophy/method/emphasis needs to exist so that we maximise our chances. So to with every 'line' or 'staff' position. And it is this devotion to 'excellence in process' that the board, admin and FD need to embody. So when things work we'll know why...and when things fail we'll know why. I'd guess that things are not always going to work no matter what you do. However, if you can figure out why, you are able to make change that are based on real insight rather than emotion, moment-to-moment fashions, groupthink etc.

FMD. I reckon this post and the issue highlighted is like an IQ test in disguise. This is not about neeld; it is about the way we got him. Think of it this way: EVERYTHING a footy club does is about people. The product is the quality of footy you play - dependent on the players, their coaches (the footy club culture is mainly a product of the interaction of these two variables) and the facilities. The facilities are dependent on the board and the footy admin (business side). So, every single thing that you need at a footy club is produced by a person or utterly depedent on a person (or team of them). This makes PEOPLE the most crucial resource of the club. In my mind this means that, if you want success, you need good people. Maybe great people. How do you get great people? Now, I would presume that this would be different for each area you looked at. However, at the heart of things is that you need an emphasis on how you find, attract and retain great people. The recruiting of the coach, the firing of DB, the selection of players are all examples of areas where we have failed to have a thorough and/or successful process. If we stuff up the basic business of footy - getting great people - then we are effed.

Talking about realism with BH is like talking about negativity to Tony Abbot. Seriously, read a bit before you pot one of the best commentators about the game/club on the site.

Left wing all right. The right wing would allow you your views...but sue you so hard and so often that you would lose everything you had to "defend" the expressed view. Then they'd deny that it was about free speech. Why sully the exercising of power with a dirty inconvenience like the truth? BP does deserve to be flogged for eternity. But don't forget the coach. I doubt that BP did everything just cause. I would bet that there was a direction to go tall in the cook/darling draft. They come as a pair, Bails and BP. For my part, I will make it a point to never forget them.

BH is highlighting a process fault. He is highlighting that we did not do things as part of the selection process for a senior coach that look obvious to do. That are arguably bloody silly NOT to do. And when people now claim that this, too, is just a "molehill", I will start to wonder just how many of these little molehills does it take to start wonder if it is actually a mountain? Has our perspective of competent decision-making has been altered to accept a low level of performance off field far more than on field?

Perhaps you think that the board, their behaviour, decisions and views are a 'molehill'. That what they say doesn't matter. That what they do doesn't matter either. That little inconsistencies here and there are just by-the-by. Perhaps it has escaped your attention that this club is a shocking embarrassment on & off the field. I think it is now 31 games in 6 years that we have won. We've been saved from collapse by the members. We've sacked two coaches, lost two head recruiters, changed fitness regimes at least twice, lost good sponsors...and you are clearly not bothered by the behaviour of the people responsible for the running of the club. We are a total and complete joke. The oldest club and what do we have to show for it? A legacy we can never return to. A shambles everywhere you look. Not a single star on the field where there are clubs with several and who have had several in successive teams over decades. We've had one in 40 years. A team that, just three years ag, trained on a field without goalposts for half the year; clubrooms that were possum-infested; coaches offices with maggots falling out of the ceiling. You might not get this yet, but what our boards say and do is actually important. It deserves scrutiny. Details are actually important. And "navel gazing" is weak as the proverbial.

Uh, let me get this straight: If I understand psychology then I won't mind what people say and do? And I won't think about apparent problems and contradictions? Did you think about this before you wrote it? No, don't tell me. I might make something of it.... THe only thing worse than this is when people start asking whether I know what they are thinking before they say it...and then I have to go gently point out that 'psychologist' and 'psychic' are different. And where am I navel-gazing? Whose navel are you talking about? NO! Don't answer that question either! I do not need to know. I definitely don't want to be accused of making a mountain/molehill of anyone's navel. That would just get wierd.