-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
It's always interesting to take a retrospective macro look of the week, especially a particular week such as this, and reflect on the wash up.
In it, we can reflect on the review process, its outcome and consequences.
Personally, as a review that meant change occuring, this one did pretty well.
One could offer the Geelong review of late 2006 as an example, but in that case, no positional changes were made. Basically, at Geelong, all the outcomes were cultural and everyone got on with the job.
Contrast this, however with the Collingwood review of mid-2006, where, consequently, Crawford, Balme and whats-his-face now at Carlton, all left the club. There were positional changes, a fair amount of fire, and a large amount of smoke.
Reflect now on the Tiger review which was something in between. The point is that transformational review & change management can cause friction.
We all have egos, whether we like it or not. Just as we have active minds, we consequently have fears and see threats. Even when for most of us, they don't exist.
I feel for Greg, and those about him, but I offer that he should immediately apply for the role of Chief of GC17, as I believe starting a new club from scratch is exactly where his best talents lie. And for Greg, the Gold Coast is so much better to live in than East Sandy. (Hate East Sandy! Mackie joke.)
So what do we learn from it.
1. That reviews need to be transparent, clearly defined and all-encompassing. These minimise perceived fears & threats and help to facilitate the review process and make the outcomes more accepted.
2. That the feedback process needs to be given very quickly after the review process has completed. This needs to be well co-ordinated on both a intra & extra club level, ie, within the club, and to those outside the club looking in. Prolonged periods preceding feedback can only enlarge perceived fears & threats.
All in all, with the Tiger review, which did involve change, the outcome didn't cause that much smoke, although an awareness and alertness should be maintained to see that no secondary fires spring up.
Reviews are hard to perform. "Push-back", resistance to review, is not easy to manage, and sometimes can retard the review itself. In many cases it can often cause "Scapegoating". But if we have a mind for the need of the Club to hold itself accountable, at all levels, and for the Club to continue its evolution, then we need to recognise that active reviews need to take place.
In the end, for an active review, ours wasn't too bad.
I'd be inerested in your thoughts.
In it, we can reflect on the review process, its outcome and consequences.
Personally, as a review that meant change occuring, this one did pretty well.
One could offer the Geelong review of late 2006 as an example, but in that case, no positional changes were made. Basically, at Geelong, all the outcomes were cultural and everyone got on with the job.
Contrast this, however with the Collingwood review of mid-2006, where, consequently, Crawford, Balme and whats-his-face now at Carlton, all left the club. There were positional changes, a fair amount of fire, and a large amount of smoke.
Reflect now on the Tiger review which was something in between. The point is that transformational review & change management can cause friction.
We all have egos, whether we like it or not. Just as we have active minds, we consequently have fears and see threats. Even when for most of us, they don't exist.
I feel for Greg, and those about him, but I offer that he should immediately apply for the role of Chief of GC17, as I believe starting a new club from scratch is exactly where his best talents lie. And for Greg, the Gold Coast is so much better to live in than East Sandy. (Hate East Sandy! Mackie joke.)
So what do we learn from it.
1. That reviews need to be transparent, clearly defined and all-encompassing. These minimise perceived fears & threats and help to facilitate the review process and make the outcomes more accepted.
2. That the feedback process needs to be given very quickly after the review process has completed. This needs to be well co-ordinated on both a intra & extra club level, ie, within the club, and to those outside the club looking in. Prolonged periods preceding feedback can only enlarge perceived fears & threats.
All in all, with the Tiger review, which did involve change, the outcome didn't cause that much smoke, although an awareness and alertness should be maintained to see that no secondary fires spring up.
Reviews are hard to perform. "Push-back", resistance to review, is not easy to manage, and sometimes can retard the review itself. In many cases it can often cause "Scapegoating". But if we have a mind for the need of the Club to hold itself accountable, at all levels, and for the Club to continue its evolution, then we need to recognise that active reviews need to take place.
In the end, for an active review, ours wasn't too bad.
I'd be inerested in your thoughts.