I see the man management patrol are out in full force, beating posters with their verbal truncheons about how Mancini has no ability in it. Here's my thoughts.
I remember when I worked at one of the many placed I've worked at in the past and I had a manager who had X qualities. He was great, and I always worked hard at that job even though it was dead end, and a largely thankless job. For my last week in that job we had a new manager come in. He was the polar opposite of the old manager. I don't think he was a bad manager. But he was different to the old. That final week of employment I can say was pretty unproductive for me. I've literally not thought about that since I left until recently. The psychology of "man management".
When you start a job, assuming your manager isn't a total twat, you just get on with your job and do your work. In this scenario there is no way that you, as an employee, have any bearing on your boss' employment. None whatsoever. In this situation, you know that if you fail to deliever, you're out the door. Not your boss.
In a different circumstance where you know that, if you don't work hard, and you piss about, but you know it's your boss who will be out and not you. The selfish person just kicks back and twiddles with their thumbs until someone new comes and cracks the whip. Until then the weight is totally off your shoulders.
These two scenarios aren't much different to our City, and the ManUre.
I think that Fergie's so called "genuis" at man management doesn't nessesarily come from his day to day "chat's with the lads", or any of this "taking you under my wing". That may play a small part, but I think there's a much deeper psychological reason for it. Every player in the Scum's dressing room knows that, under achieving means you don't play. Look at Berbaflop. From the fans to the board room staff, underachieving is seen as a bottom-up problem. Certainly not Fergie's doing!
Look at the display at Wigan today. They were shite, but I've not heard a whisper from ANYONE that, "Fergie's tactics were wrong!" or "Fergie lost the dressing room, that's why they played no better in the second half". Very interesting. (This isn't just the scum either, you see it at Barca, Arsenal, and even at Wigan stick by Martinez!)
Now look at City. Let's take what people on here perceive to be our "worst performance" of the season, Arsenal away. After that game, this board lit up like Edison's front room with threads of "Shit tactics", "Mancini's lost the dressing room", or "Mancini has lost the plot". You didn't see many threads titled, "Players failed to deliver winning tactics". That's mainly because you don't know what the tactics were, nor if they were delivered or not. Only the players and the manager know that. But based on the yelling and pointing coming from the technical area, I'd suggest it was the players not delivering. An alarming amount of people seem to think it's Mancini's "Man management issues"
The message this attitude sends out is very dangerous to a club, because it undermines the authority of the management and turns the problem into a top-down scenario, unlike the down-up scenario you'd see at the swamp.
Take two examples here, Dzeko and Berbatov. When Dzeko lost his form, suddenly, Mancini isn't playing to his strengths etc bla bla bla. Have you ever heard anyone connected with the scum ever say "Fergie isn't playing Berbatov right, his tactics are wrong!" ????
It's no secret that as far as 'cumulative team form' goes, it never rains but it pours. Once it goes bad, it goes bad for a while, and people start to play the blame game. If that blame goes squarely on the manager, then the responsibility is lifted off the shoulders of the guilty. Once that "psychological responsibility" is perceivably gone, they're free to do as they want, as it's all the managers fault so they can't be doing anything wrong. Right? Wrong!
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that, because Fergie has been their so long, everyone is used to his style of man management, be it "taking players under the wing", or "harsh and distant". Whatever your modus operandi, it will work for you because you'll employ people who perform under that methodology. It's not a managers fault who's at a club when he arrives.
The players who are coming out saying Mancini's way is not for them, have all either left, or at his old club. Well who cares, somethings suit other people. I read an article about how the old Inter keeper didn't like the way Mancini did things, well who gives a fuck? I only care that it's keeping Hart on top of his game. Another thread people were picking apart what Richards said about Mancini. Richards is in the form of his life, he can't be that upset over the way his boss treats him. Richards even said in the article he knows Mancini rates him! If 1% of a work force aren't happy with the way things are running, do you hire a new boss and make the 99% change, or stick with it, and replace the 1%. Simple answer for me.
Players and clubs need time to get used to the way things are and then they will understand the philosophy of the bosses. They will eventually understand how they motivate, and will be all the better for it. Mancini has bought in 17 players, and as far as I know, none of them have come out with this "He couldn't make me happy" bullshit.
One more thing, and I genuinely don't know the answer to this as it was a bit before my time. But I bet you quite a few people in United's dressing room after Fergie was appointed didn't like his "man management".
Change breeds resistance. Stability breeds conformity and progression.
Have faith, and things will come good.
This is all my humble opinion, of course, and as usual.
I remember when I worked at one of the many placed I've worked at in the past and I had a manager who had X qualities. He was great, and I always worked hard at that job even though it was dead end, and a largely thankless job. For my last week in that job we had a new manager come in. He was the polar opposite of the old manager. I don't think he was a bad manager. But he was different to the old. That final week of employment I can say was pretty unproductive for me. I've literally not thought about that since I left until recently. The psychology of "man management".
When you start a job, assuming your manager isn't a total twat, you just get on with your job and do your work. In this scenario there is no way that you, as an employee, have any bearing on your boss' employment. None whatsoever. In this situation, you know that if you fail to deliever, you're out the door. Not your boss.
In a different circumstance where you know that, if you don't work hard, and you piss about, but you know it's your boss who will be out and not you. The selfish person just kicks back and twiddles with their thumbs until someone new comes and cracks the whip. Until then the weight is totally off your shoulders.
These two scenarios aren't much different to our City, and the ManUre.
I think that Fergie's so called "genuis" at man management doesn't nessesarily come from his day to day "chat's with the lads", or any of this "taking you under my wing". That may play a small part, but I think there's a much deeper psychological reason for it. Every player in the Scum's dressing room knows that, under achieving means you don't play. Look at Berbaflop. From the fans to the board room staff, underachieving is seen as a bottom-up problem. Certainly not Fergie's doing!
Look at the display at Wigan today. They were shite, but I've not heard a whisper from ANYONE that, "Fergie's tactics were wrong!" or "Fergie lost the dressing room, that's why they played no better in the second half". Very interesting. (This isn't just the scum either, you see it at Barca, Arsenal, and even at Wigan stick by Martinez!)
Now look at City. Let's take what people on here perceive to be our "worst performance" of the season, Arsenal away. After that game, this board lit up like Edison's front room with threads of "Shit tactics", "Mancini's lost the dressing room", or "Mancini has lost the plot". You didn't see many threads titled, "Players failed to deliver winning tactics". That's mainly because you don't know what the tactics were, nor if they were delivered or not. Only the players and the manager know that. But based on the yelling and pointing coming from the technical area, I'd suggest it was the players not delivering. An alarming amount of people seem to think it's Mancini's "Man management issues"
The message this attitude sends out is very dangerous to a club, because it undermines the authority of the management and turns the problem into a top-down scenario, unlike the down-up scenario you'd see at the swamp.
Take two examples here, Dzeko and Berbatov. When Dzeko lost his form, suddenly, Mancini isn't playing to his strengths etc bla bla bla. Have you ever heard anyone connected with the scum ever say "Fergie isn't playing Berbatov right, his tactics are wrong!" ????
It's no secret that as far as 'cumulative team form' goes, it never rains but it pours. Once it goes bad, it goes bad for a while, and people start to play the blame game. If that blame goes squarely on the manager, then the responsibility is lifted off the shoulders of the guilty. Once that "psychological responsibility" is perceivably gone, they're free to do as they want, as it's all the managers fault so they can't be doing anything wrong. Right? Wrong!
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that, because Fergie has been their so long, everyone is used to his style of man management, be it "taking players under the wing", or "harsh and distant". Whatever your modus operandi, it will work for you because you'll employ people who perform under that methodology. It's not a managers fault who's at a club when he arrives.
The players who are coming out saying Mancini's way is not for them, have all either left, or at his old club. Well who cares, somethings suit other people. I read an article about how the old Inter keeper didn't like the way Mancini did things, well who gives a fuck? I only care that it's keeping Hart on top of his game. Another thread people were picking apart what Richards said about Mancini. Richards is in the form of his life, he can't be that upset over the way his boss treats him. Richards even said in the article he knows Mancini rates him! If 1% of a work force aren't happy with the way things are running, do you hire a new boss and make the 99% change, or stick with it, and replace the 1%. Simple answer for me.
Players and clubs need time to get used to the way things are and then they will understand the philosophy of the bosses. They will eventually understand how they motivate, and will be all the better for it. Mancini has bought in 17 players, and as far as I know, none of them have come out with this "He couldn't make me happy" bullshit.
One more thing, and I genuinely don't know the answer to this as it was a bit before my time. But I bet you quite a few people in United's dressing room after Fergie was appointed didn't like his "man management".
Change breeds resistance. Stability breeds conformity and progression.
Have faith, and things will come good.
This is all my humble opinion, of course, and as usual.