Why is everyone obsessed with managerial stability?

People talk about lack of stability killing us over the past 35 years or more but really how many of those managers didn't deserve to be sacked? Sven definitely imo. Then you can make a small case for Reid and Horton but we weren't really going anywhere.

The rest outstayed their welcome rather than being sacked too early.
 
Management teams have a life cycle in almost every instance... It's why the most successful companies move their top managers around from operation to operation in 2-3 year cycles. The first months are great, with the enthusiasm and your "go to" tricks for improving performance.. but stay longer and you lose your fresh perspective on people and your enthusiasm for driving positive change. And you start to believe your own bullshit, and you get paranoid, and lose your ability to maintain healthy perspective because that particular job starts to define you. You start to become familiar, and the people that work for you start to resent you, because all managers are knobs, because all humans are knobs. But for the first 24-36 months you can suspend belief and present the illusion of a messiah with magic powers that can get people to reach beyond their natural level of ability.
 
jay_mcfc said:
People talk about lack of stability killing us over the past 35 years or more but really how many of those managers didn't deserve to be sacked? Sven definitely imo. Then you can make a small case for Reid and Horton but we weren't really going anywhere.

The rest outstayed their welcome rather than being sacked too early.

I agree and the two managers imo who might have both brought success to us, Billy McNeil and Howard Kendal both left when they received better job offers from elsewhere.

I've a feeling that after whats happened over the last few days with the number of coaching casualties we'll go down a more continental approach where the club hire various coaches for different jobs, the footballing philosophy so to speak will be laid down by Bergistini and Soriano ie playing 4-3-3 at all levels of the club, plus all transfers dealt with by them. They will appoint a coach as opposed to a manger and his sole job will be to coach the team and win football matches.
 
I have to say that the opening post in this thread hit a fair few nails smack on the head. “Stability” is simply a new buzz word, yet another slogan that replaces clear thought and even the need for any thinking at all by people with column inches to fill. More than that, though, it flows from the myopic obsession with one club, and particularly one individual. Stability must be desirable because Manchester United are its incarnation. But are they? Ferguson had the same job for nearly 27 years, but that doesn't mean United were “stable”. In the time United were in the hands of the Edwards family, then they “floated”, were bought out and de-listed because they were bought by the Glaziers. They've bought and sold players, broken the British transfer record more times than any other club, Ferguson has had God knows how many assistants in those 26 years, how many CEOs, directors and God knows what.. Stability isn't a feature of big organisations, and certainly not of football clubs. Among employees – and that's all the manager is – change is a more necessary process. Ferguson was there for 26 years not because it's better to keep him per se, but because he was good enough at what he did not to invite the sack.

The point is that United and City and every football team in the world does not enter a competition for the medal for the longest serving manager. In England PL teams enter to play every other team in the PL twice, to compete for the FA and League cups and, if possible, to qualify for the CL. Those are the aims of our club, not to provide jobs for life for the boys. Those responsible for the success of our club took the decision that the club was not working on the lines likely to ensure finishes in these competitions commensurate with the owner's aims and expectations. I may have disagreed with him, or I may not, but he had a reasoned approach, and I never screamed at him that what I wanted was stability. I wanted to watch City! Just as I don't go to the local supermarket to by stale bread and flat beer at sky high prices because the check out staff have been there years!
 
Yet another buzz word, relentlessly spouted by the media and regurgitated by fans who are seemingly unable to think for themselves.

Baconchops aside, there is little or no evidence to suggest that keeping a manager for a ridiculous length of time means guaranteed success.

One look at the very successful clubs around Europe shows that they change managers often and it doesn't seem to stop them.
 
Skashion said:
The two most successful footballing dynasties in England have been built on managerial stability.
You talking about which 'two fotballing dynasties in England'?

Why is everyone obsessed with managerial stability?

That was main excuse of Mancini's fanboys when he failed, what was very often.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.