Commercial reshuffle (1 Viewer)

[Robinshio]

I am aware that there is a challenge to get a minimum of 9 points from the next 5 or we may see further changes at the club. Makes the 3 home games must win

 

---

[Tommo1993]

Aren’t they all must win! Except tomorrow.

 

[wingy]

I am aware that there is a challenge to get a minimum of 9 points from the next 5 or we may see further changes at the club. Makes the 3 home games must win

Didn't think MR looked under any pressure tbf,most relaxed for sometime,not bleary eyed or fatigued like he has done previously,laid all the card's out tbf other dept really I thought?

 

[Sky Blue Goblin]

I am aware that there is a challenge to get a minimum of 9 points from the next 5 or we may see further changes at the club. Makes the 3 home games must win

Doug King to Dean Austin, when we only get 8 points.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It’s not even specifically in this case. Ever been sat down and told you’re being let go because of “reshuffle”, “restructure” or even worse “interior engineering”? Silly cop out to make pen pushers feel better.

It’s as bad as “touch base” and “reach out”.

Agreed on corporate-speak but it’s still better than ‘Tynan Scope sacked as COO’…

We all know it’s a euphemism in the same way a minister resigns ‘due to family reasons’. It’s to save a shred of dignity for the sacked person.

Agreed on @Grendel’s ‘we’ll take that one away’ too!

 

[steve cooper]

It’s not even specifically in this case. Ever been sat down and told you’re being let go because of “reshuffle”, “restructure” or even worse “interior engineering”? Silly cop out to make pen pushers feel better.

It’s as bad as “touch base” and “reach out”.

Most companies don't sack people these days, they free-up their future

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

I am aware that there is a challenge to get a minimum of 9 points from the next 5 or we may see further changes at the club. Makes the 3 home games must win

Didn’t Coleman once say the target was 15 points every 10 games is needed to be in/ around the play offs?

that would kind of tally up

 

[Diogenes]

I am aware that there is a challenge to get a minimum of 9 points from the next 5 or we may see further changes at the club. Makes the 3 home games must win

What changes?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Didn’t Coleman once say the target was 15 points every 10 games is needed to be in/ around the play offs?

that would kind of tally up

That comes to 69 points over a whole season, which isn’t really enough. Though given his reputation I assume he had that number on his mind anyway

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

That comes to 69 points over a whole season, which isn’t really enough. Though given his reputation I assume he had that number on his mind anyway

His reasoning was you will have 60 points after 40 games, and then you try and have a real push in the last 6 matches to get as many points as possible and make the playoffs.

I think the 15 from 10 games was his marker to keep in touch with the pack

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

His reasoning was you will have 60 points after 40 games, and then you try and have a real push in the last 6 matches to get as many points as possible and make the playoffs.

I think the 15 from 10 games was his marker to keep in touch with the pack

Either way, I doubt any heads will be rolling in 5 games’ time barring an absolute catastrophe

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

That comes to 69 points over a whole season, which isn’t really enough. Though given his reputation I assume he had that number on his mind anyway

Think it was to hit 60 points after 40 then have a run at it. I did always think that was a low. 16/17 points per 10 is probably more like it

 

[duffer]

Most companies don't sack people these days, they free-up their future

In truth, it's pretty hard to sack people in the corporate world, in my experience (lucky for me, eh).

Unless it's gross misconduct, I think you usually get a few warnings first, and a 'performance plan'.

I'd guess they will either make the position redundant, or they'll have agreed a reasonable payoff.

I'm not sure it's fair to put all of the club's failings at his door, but regardless, he's not exactly a monster. Personally, I wish him well and hope he finds something soon (assuming he hasn't already got another role lined up).

 

[robbiekeane]

In truth, it's pretty hard to sack people in the corporate world

*laughs in american*

 

[StrettoBoy]

That reminds me. I'm still waiting for some tickets in the board room he offered me about 5 years ago

I wrote to Jimmy Hill when I was eight to inquire about becoming a ball boy. He replied, saying that I had been put on the waiting list and he would let me know when I reached the top.

I will be 70 in a few months time and I’m still waiting.

 

[Grendel]

In truth, it's pretty hard to sack people in the corporate world, in my experience (lucky for me, eh).

Unless it's gross misconduct, I think you usually get a few warnings first, and a 'performance plan'.

I'd guess they will either make the position redundant, or they'll have agreed a reasonable payoff.

I'm not sure it's fair to put all of the club's failings at his door, but regardless, he's not exactly a monster. Personally, I wish him well and hope he finds something soon (assuming he hasn't already got another role lined up).

I think it’s very easy to get rid of people.

I was told once to get rid of a staff member. As you say they go on performance plans but in reality will fail them.

I told this guy we can play games all day long but he needs to maximise his financial opportunity. I told him to tell me he might retire and then I got him a big pay off.

The system is geared to the company and not the individual

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I think it’s very easy to get rid of people.

I was told once to get rid of a staff member. As you say they go on performance plans but in reality will fail them.

I told this guy we can play games all day long but he needs to maximise his financial opportunity. I told him to tell me he might retire and then I got him a big pay off.

The system is geared to the company and not the individual

Interesting. I personally think since the pandemic the pendulum has shifted hugely in favour of the employee - thus making it significantly more challenging to actually get rid of people, even if their performance is consistently poor.

There's now a pretty stringent process you now have to go through, especially if a person has been in employment longer than two years - granted it's a lot easier if they've been employed less than that.

 

[duffer]

Interesting. I personally think since the pandemic the pendulum has shifted hugely in favour of the employee - thus making it significantly more challenging to actually get rid of people, even if their performance is consistently poor.

There's now a pretty stringent process you now have to go through, especially if a person has been in employment longer than two years - granted it's a lot easier if they've been employed less than that.

I think it's always been a bit tricky to sack someone, if you follow the rules and regs.

But I'm actually broadly in favour of that. Most people don't go to work to do a bad job. If they're struggling, the right path (imho) is to try to help them with whatever issues they're facing. Fair, honest, and sympathetic management, can really help here.

If people can't or won't be helped, then it's a different issue, but as someone who's gone through redundancy more than once, it's a hell of a thing losing your job - it can completely break people and tear families apart.

So, personally speaking, I think it's completely correct to make sure that there's a fair and open process that has to be followed.

 

[Grendel]

Interesting. I personally think since the pandemic the pendulum has shifted hugely in favour of the employee - thus making it significantly more challenging to actually get rid of people, even if their performance is consistently poor.

There's now a pretty stringent process you now have to go through, especially if a person has been in employment longer than two years - granted it's a lot easier if they've been employed less than that.

There is a process but HR departments are geared to follow procedures and represent the company.

I’ve to my knowledge known of only one person who got through a performance review and survived.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I think it's always been a bit tricky to sack someone, if you follow the rules and regs.

But I'm actually broadly in favour of that. Most people don't go to work to do a bad job. If they're struggling, the right path (imho) is to try to help them with whatever issues they're facing. Fair, honest, and sympathetic management, can really help here.

If people can't or won't be helped, then it's a different issue, but as someone who's gone through redundancy more than once, it's a hell of a thing losing your job - it can completely break people and tear families apart.

So, personally speaking, I think it's completely correct to make sure that there's a fair and open process that has to be followed.

I don't disagree with any of the above. Unfortunately there are people that go to work that don't want to work, or rather will do their best at trying to skirt through by doing the absolute bare minimum.

I had a bad hire last year who started well but quickly showed he just couldn't be at all bothered. I checked in continuously to see if there was any extra support we could give, gave him several chances, and even pulled him aside for a few 1-1s, but he still made constant errors, his work was sloppy and he was distant (almost rude) with fellow staff and would just generally not put in any effort.

Shame really as he could be successful if he tried but he just had absolutely zero work ethic. Not sure if there's any kind of common denominator but a number of my clients have gone through the same issues recently with people of a similar age range.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

There is a process but HR departments are geared to follow procedures and represent the company.

I’ve to my knowledge known of only one person who got through a performance review and survived.

Companies like Amazon are putting employees on PIPs (Performance Improvement Plans) to show they've done everything possible to give the employee in question a pathway to improve their output over a certain amount of days/months.

Certainly for PIPs I have heard of some companies putting in difficult objectives or targets and/or timeframes for improvement simply to ensure the employee in question fails. Obviously that's not ethical whatsoever but very hard to prove they're being set up for failure really as targets are entirely subjective.

Regardless though, once you get to the stage of a performance review it's pretty obvious you're not going to last.

 

[MalcSB]

Interesting. I personally think since the pandemic the pendulum has shifted hugely in favour of the employee - thus making it significantly more challenging to actually get rid of people, even if their performance is consistently poor.

There's now a pretty stringent process you now have to go through, especially if a person has been in employment longer than two years - granted it's a lot easier if they've been employed less than that.

Not for much longer,

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Not for much longer,

True. Hence why in my business I'm moving more towards a freelance model.

Which to be honest is what I've been gradually doing anyway due to how difficult recruitment for permanent staff is at the minute and has been for a few years. I've been having to pay far above market rate even to attract pretty average talent.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

I don't disagree with any of the above. Unfortunately there are people that go to work that don't want to work, or rather will do their best at trying to skirt through by doing the absolute bare minimum.

I had a bad hire last year who started well but quickly showed he just couldn't be at all bothered. I checked in continuously to see if there was any extra support we could give, gave him several chances, and even pulled him aside for a few 1-1s, but he still made constant errors, his work was sloppy and he was distant (almost rude) with fellow staff and would just generally not put in any effort.

Shame really as he could be successful if he tried but he just had absolutely zero work ethic. Not sure if there's any kind of common denominator but a number of my clients have gone through the same issues recently with people of a similar age range.

From personal experience I always find KPIs and the digitalisation of targets has led to this.

Once you know your KPIs and how to reach them and even work around them you can easily game the system. After all it’s just numbers on a spreadsheet.

you can easily doss because the people auditing this aren’t your direct day to day interactions. They look at a screen and think you’re doing great

 

[Mild-Mannered Janitor]

I don't disagree with any of the above. Unfortunately there are people that go to work that don't want to work, or rather will do their best at trying to skirt through by doing the absolute bare minimum.

I had a bad hire last year who started well but quickly showed he just couldn't be at all bothered. I checked in continuously to see if there was any extra support we could give, gave him several chances, and even pulled him aside for a few 1-1s, but he still made constant errors, his work was sloppy and he was distant (almost rude) with fellow staff and would just generally not put in any effort.

Shame really as he could be successful if he tried but he just had absolutely zero work ethic. Not sure if there's any kind of common denominator but a number of my clients have gone through the same issues recently with people of a similar age range.

Skill versus Will - You can upskill someone with a willing and positive attitude, you will never improve the will of an individual as its something in them and they try to get through with their skill but will always be the last one with their hand up to volunteer when things need to get done. Sadly, try and find that out in their probationary period.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

From personal experience I always find KPIs and the digitalisation of targets has led to this.

Once you know your KPIs and how to reach them and even work around them you can easily game the system. After all it’s just numbers on a spreadsheet.

you can easily doss because the people auditing this aren’t your direct day to day interactions. They look at a screen and think you’re doing great

Yeah I'd agree with that. Working from home culture hasn't helped either as even with monitoring software it's difficult to assess output on a day-to-day basis.

All you need to do is wiggle your mouse or download software that does it for you.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Skill versus Will - You can upskill someone with a willing and positive attitude, you will never improve the will of an individual as its something in them and they try to get through with their skill but will always be the last one with their hand up to volunteer when things need to get done. Sadly, try and find that out in their probationary period.

He was excellent to start with in all fairness. It was after his probationary period that he down-tooled.

 

[chiefdave]

From personal experience I always find KPIs and the digitalisation of targets has led to this.

Once you know your KPIs and how to reach them and even work around them you can easily game the system. After all it’s just numbers on a spreadsheet.

you can easily doss because the people auditing this aren’t your direct day to day interactions. They look at a screen and think you’re doing great

Just personal experience and I'm sure its not the same in all companies / sectors but the second KPIs were bought in at my last company two things happened. A load of decent, hard working employees left because they didn't like the micro management and the majority of those left did just enough work to hit their KPI.

That was coupled with piss poor management, management rarely seems to be anything but piss poor tbh, so for example pre-KPI I was closing 10-15 jobs a day. I was given a KPI of 6 and then complained at by my manager for picking up and closing other jobs that weren't getting done because 'that's not your job'. As sure as night follows day it wasn't long before customers were complaining that it was taking a lot longer to get a response.

 

[chiefdave]

Yeah I'd agree with that. Working from home culture hasn't helped either as even with monitoring software it's difficult to assess output on a day-to-day basis.

All you need to do is wiggle your mouse or download software that does it for you.

Decent managers don't need to monitor people, they know when people are getting shit done and when people are taking the piss. The more you micro manage people and monitor every little thing they do the more people do the bare minimum.

 

[David O'Day]

Decent managers don't need to monitor people, they know when people are getting shit done and when people are taking the piss. The more you micro manage people and monitor every little thing they do the more people do the bare minimum.

This, as you said if you micro manage decent people leave and the ones who stay know how to play the system.

Bosses sometimes don't realise they are the issue.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Decent managers don't need to monitor people, they know when people are getting shit done and when people are taking the piss. The more you micro manage people and monitor every little thing they do the more people do the bare minimum.

I don't disagree. A bespoke approach that is tailored to the individual is probably an ideal blend of the two but in larger teams that's obviously difficult.

Regardless, I think the issue now is a lot of managers have an obsession with monitoring output, leading them to inadvertently compromise on what really matters - measuring the actual results/outcome. So, essentially the focus shifts from achieving meaningful outcomes to constantly measuring every single step or fulfilling meaningless KPIs.

A classic example is that a friend of mine at Revolut is measured on an outreach per day metric, which is an utterly useless KPI. His sales cycle is relatively short but as long as he meets that target he's pretty much OK (obviously he needs to convert eventually but the point is still valid).

It's basically like measuring the success of a striker on how many shots he's had per season, with the goals being a complete afterthought.

 

[chiefdave]

I don't disagree. A bespoke approach that is tailored to the individual is probably an ideal blend of the two but in larger teams that's obviously difficult.

Regardless, I think the issue now is a lot of managers have an obsession with monitoring output, leading them to inadvertently compromise on what really matters - measuring the actual results/outcome. So, essentially the focus shifts from achieving meaningful outcomes to constantly measuring every single step or fulfilling meaningless KPIs.

A classic example is that a friend of mine at Revolut is measured on an outreach per day metric, which is an utterly useless KPI. His sales cycle is relatively short long but as long as he meets that target he's pretty much OK (obviously he needs to convert eventually but the point is still valid).

It's basically like measuring the success of a striker on how many shots he's had per season, with the goals being a complete afterthought.

One place I worked are line manager went on holiday. Without him there we got so far ahead we had to stop working as there was no room left to store stuff waiting to go out to site.

We had a more senior manager come down and give us a bollocking. He didn't care that normally it was complete chaos as our line manager wasn't on top of things and forgot to schedule jobs so we were often working in a panic to get something done in a rush.

I was planning to leave so didn't give a shit and asked him if he really preferred us looking busy, rushing around doing poor quality work at the last minute to being so far ahead we'd got no more work to do. He turned round and said he wanted us to look busy!

There's a very weird obsession with trying to push your staff to breaking point rather than be happy that the required work is being done.

 

[Samueljames1991]

One place I worked are line manager went on holiday. Without him there we got so far ahead we had to stop working as there was no room left to store stuff waiting to go out to site.

We had a more senior manager come down and give us a bollocking. He didn't care that normally it was complete chaos as our line manager wasn't on top of things and forgot to schedule jobs so we were often working in a panic to get something done in a rush.

I was planning to leave so didn't give a shit and asked him if he really preferred us looking busy, rushing around doing poor quality work at the last minute to being so far ahead we'd got no more work to do. He turned round and said he wanted us to look busy!

There's a very weird obsession with trying to push your staff to breaking point rather than be happy that the required work is being done.

I work in B2B manufacturing sales for a large publicly traded company. If I hit my full month target after a week and slow down rest of the month I get called inconsistent and bollocked by my manager. I'm leaving now for that very reason.

Nothing is ever enough for a business they want to get everything they can out of you and believe in perception of effort as much as KPIs.

 

[RedSalmon]

Decent managers don't need to monitor people, they know when people are getting shit done and when people are taking the piss. The more you micro manage people and monitor every little thing they do the more people do the bare minimum.

Utterly agree with every word.

 

[Robinshio]

I am aware that there is a challenge to get a minimum of 9 points from the next 5 or we may see further changes at the club. Makes the 3 home games must win

Adds to the pressure. Nothing before Leeds but that becomes very important