John Ralph

[cwrcyn]

Just on SEN. Basically said that Watters had lost EVERYONE at the club, and the the decision to move him on HAD to be taken. The only criticism was that it hadn't been done earlier. Ralph stated that the positive was that the players and the club could start pre-season with a coach they could work with.

[saintspremiers]

Just on SEN. Basically said that Watters had lost EVERYONE at the club, and the the decision to move him on HAD to be taken. The only criticism was that it hadn't been done earlier. Ralph stated that the positive was that the players and the club could start pre-season with a coach they could work with.

In a way we should deride him much more than Lyon.

Watters has cost us players probably sponsors and members as well.

[Cairnsman]

Just on SEN. Basically said that Watters had lost EVERYONE at the club, and the the decision to move him on HAD to be taken. The only criticism was that it hadn't been done earlier. Ralph stated that the positive was that the players and the club could start pre-season with a coach they could work with.

Almost sounds like another Mark Neeld type, maybe the Mick Malthouse stable only produced the autocratic types...that style of management worked last century but then again who knows anything.

[stinger]

Just on SEN. Basically said that Watters had lost EVERYONE at the club, and the the decision to move him on HAD to be taken. The only criticism was that it hadn't been done earlier. Ralph stated that the positive was that the players and the club could start pre-season with a coach they could work with.

In a way we should deride him much more than Lyon.

Watters has cost us players probably sponsors and members as well.

that's if you believe ralph....and i might add ..he was spot on with all the scoops...which were later claimed by jaxons as his own.....so...may be something in it.......which makes a change....

[magnifisaint]

Which begs the question "How the hell did they get the process wrong with selecting the coach? "
It doesn't fill me with mur confidence.

[Spinner]

The reaction in the media was surprisingly as it was the right one.

The delusional article by Robo.

Carolines articles.

Now Ralph.

Sounds like everyone was off side and it was the right decision.


When's the last time this has happened?

[stinger]

The reaction in the media was surprisingly as it was the right one.

The delusional article by Robo.

Carolines articles.

Now Ralph.

Sounds like everyone was off side and it was the right decision.

makes one wonder....

[dragit]

Which begs the question "How the hell did they get the process wrong with selecting the coach? "
It doesn't fill me with mur confidence.

I think you can have the right process and still end up with the wrong result.

There's no fool proof formula, people can present one way and turn out completely differently.

Scott obviously presented very well, confident, talked up leadership and quality people blah, blah, blah... In the end he shyed away from being a good coach.

[Cairnsman]

The reaction in the media was surprisingly as it was the right one.

The delusional article by Robo.

Carolines articles.

Now Ralph.

Sounds like everyone was off side and it was the right decision.


When's the last time this has happened?

Mark Neeld

[White Winmar]

I wonder what sort of objective tests they used to assess him? If they used self report type psychometric tests then he might have fooled them. If he has poor insight and lacks self awareness, which appears, in hindsight, to be the case, then it's a case of rubbish in, rubbish out. If they fell for the trap of hiring him largely on the interview, then the panel should hang their collective heads in game. Up to 85% of hiring decisions are still made on the strength of interviews, which have consistently been proven to be the least reliable measure of future performance.

[Spinner]

I wonder what sort of objective tests they used to assess him? If they used self report type psychometric tests then he might have fooled them. If he has poor insight and lacks self awareness, which appears, in hindsight, to be the case, then it's a case of rubbish in, rubbish out. If they fell for the trap of hiring him largely on the interview, then the panel should hang their collective heads in game. Up to 85% of hiring decisions are still made on the strength of interviews, which have consistently been proven to be the least reliable measure of future performance.

Interesting stats!

What are the more reliable?

Experience? Education? Referrals?

[cwrcyn]

How many people lie in interviews. I've interviewed hundreds of people for jobs over the years and believe me, people try it on. I got burnt a few times early on, so then I re- structured 90% of my questions around behaviour and ethics, and my success rate improved dramatically. Still, it's never foolproof. You can improve people's technical skills, but you can't change their personalities.

FRom a management perspective, the number one pre-requisite is people skills. How you work with those below you and above you, and the critical thing is, as a manager you still have to be part of a team and respect people's input. You have to create a harmonious and team focussed environment where everyone is respected, no matter what their position. Otherwise, you fail

We've seen how Watters is with the media. Comes across quite as a very agreeable chap. Would have presented just the same in an interview.

Not the first club to be burnt in this way. Won't be the last

[The OtherThommo]

Just on SEN. Basically said that Watters had lost EVERYONE at the club, and the the decision to move him on HAD to be taken. The only criticism was that it hadn't been done earlier. Ralph stated that the positive was that the players and the club could start pre-season with a coach they could work with.

Almost sounds like another Mark Neeld type, maybe the Mick Malthouse stable only produced the autocratic types...that style of management worked last century but then again who knows anything.

Or, Cairnsman, Mark Neeld wasn't capable of overcoming the incompetence in place throughout the MFC, from the top down. A lot more than just Mark Neeld went from Melbourne. The AFL even put in their own CEO and he engineered a massive clean out of dolts, hangers on and mates of mates. Jackson restructured the whole joint - on the AFL's dime.

Neeld and Watters were middle managers. Anyone who thinks managers in the middle ranks make or break multi $M organisations is being a little simplistic.

Let's not forget, it was the outgoing CEO who said Watters got the gig because he topped the list on "holistic".

It's hardly surprising Ralph is continuing his narrative. He had his sources. Don't think he'd switch now. Prolly been drinks all round.

[White Winmar]

Assessment centres are fairly effective, but expensive. They run candidates through their paces in real life type exercises. Due diligence is important. A thorough examination of past behaviours and records are also good. I often ask candidates who they don't want me to talk to at their last place of employment. There reaction to this as much as the response is usually very instructive. Past work performance, independent corroboration wherever possible and random sampling of previous workmates are all valuable, although many so called recruitment specialists are loathe to make an appropriate effort when vetting candidates. Unfortunately they are far more enthusiastic about issuing invoices. They are paid to fill a vacancy, not necessarily find the best candidate. For a 500 K job, they can pocket up to 100k depending on the brief. Recruitment "specialists" are the real estate agents of the human domain.

[cwrcyn]

There's quite a difference between being an assistant and being the the main man. Some people are really great at being the first mate, but can't cut it as skipper. That's why it's so hard to appoint assistant coaches into the top job with real confidence. Every appointment of that type is a risk, irrespective of who has recommended them. Under the intense pressure of being a senior coach, some can become overwhelmed, or resort to behaviours that they wouldn't otherwise display

[The OtherThommo]

I wonder what sort of objective tests they used to assess him? If they used self report type psychometric tests then he might have fooled them. If he has poor insight and lacks self awareness, which appears, in hindsight, to be the case, then it's a case of rubbish in, rubbish out. If they fell for the trap of hiring him largely on the interview, then the panel should hang their collective heads in game. Up to 85% of hiring decisions are still made on the strength of interviews, which have consistently been proven to be the least reliable measure of future performance.

They seemed to be pretty thorough, WW. For instance, the last 3 were put through various tests. One of those tests involved being shown 15-20 minutes of game vision and having to respond to what they saw as if they were the senior coach in the box. They were observed by around 4 of the selection panel over the 15-20 minutes, including the football director, Thompson, and Pelchen. The candidates were not given any notice of what they were required to do. Following the exercise they were then required to describe the strategic and opportunities side of what they saw (e.g. both sides apparent game plans, structural and personnel strengths and weaknesses, targets for improvement, how to extract more from what was on field, how they would want the game day organisation set up etc).

From what I heard, Richardson was p***ed off at it being sprung on him, Hinkley went OK but took some time to come to grips with the idea and Watters was the standout.

Maybe Watters was just better at thinking and speaking on his feet. Maybe he went better because he was in control and 1 out. Who knows? But, the process was described as the most thorough undertaken and it seems to have been so.

[Wayne42]

There's quite a difference between being an assistant and being the the main man. Some people are really great at being the first mate, but can't cut it as skipper. That's why it's so hard to appoint assistant coaches into the top job with real confidence. Every appointment of that type is a risk, irrespective of who has recommended them. Under the intense pressure of being a senior coach, some can become overwhelmed, or resort to behaviours that they wouldn't otherwise display

Sounds like Scott...

We've gotten off Scott free

[White Winmar]

I wonder what sort of objective tests they used to assess him? If they used self report type psychometric tests then he might have fooled them. If he has poor insight and lacks self awareness, which appears, in hindsight, to be the case, then it's a case of rubbish in, rubbish out. If they fell for the trap of hiring him largely on the interview, then the panel should hang their collective heads in game. Up to 85% of hiring decisions are still made on the strength of interviews, which have consistently been proven to be the least reliable measure of future performance.

They seemed to be pretty thorough, WW. For instance, the last 3 were put through various tests. One of those tests involved being shown 15-20 minutes of game vision and having to respond to what they saw as if they were the senior coach in the box. They were observed by around 4 of the selection panel over the 15-20 minutes, including the football director, Thompson, and Pelchen. The candidates were not given any notice of what they were required to do. Following the exercise they were then required to describe the strategic and opportunities side of what they saw (e.g. both sides apparent game plans, structural and personnel strengths and weaknesses, targets for improvement, how to extract more from what was on field, how they would want the game day organisation set up etc).

From what I heard, Richardson was p***ed off at it being sprung on him, Hinkley went OK but took some time to come to grips with the idea and Watters was the standout.

Maybe Watters was just better at thinking and speaking on his feet. Maybe he went better because he was in control and 1 out. Who knows? But, the process was described as the most thorough undertaken and it seems to have been so.

Thanks TOT. That actually makes me feel better about the whole thing. It just goes to show that no system is fool proof. I concede that some people are very good at the selection process, and we can't always get it right. You must be on the inside to know all that. You weren't on the panel, were you TOT?

[Eastern]

I've been keeping a running tally on the media reaction to the Watters sacking since Friday;

Those that have stated that the sacking was fair & just = PLENTY

Those that have stated that St Kilda are a rabble and got it all wrong = TWO; Rucci & Brereton !!

[plugger66]

I've been keeping a running tally on the media reaction to the Watters sacking since Friday;

Those that have stated that the sacking was fair & just = PLENTY

Those that have stated that St Kilda are a rabble and got it all wrong = TWO; Rucci & Brereton !!

Add Smith and Denham although denham just thinks how Smith thinks. Im sure on friday Denham didnt mind the sacking but after Smith said it was pathetic he jumped on the bandwagon.

[Cairnsman]

I wonder what sort of objective tests they used to assess him? If they used self report type psychometric tests then he might have fooled them. If he has poor insight and lacks self awareness, which appears, in hindsight, to be the case, then it's a case of rubbish in, rubbish out. If they fell for the trap of hiring him largely on the interview, then the panel should hang their collective heads in game. Up to 85% of hiring decisions are still made on the strength of interviews, which have consistently been proven to be the least reliable measure of future performance.

They seemed to be pretty thorough, WW. For instance, the last 3 were put through various tests. One of those tests involved being shown 15-20 minutes of game vision and having to respond to what they saw as if they were the senior coach in the box. They were observed by around 4 of the selection panel over the 15-20 minutes, including the football director, Thompson, and Pelchen. The candidates were not given any notice of what they were required to do. Following the exercise they were then required to describe the strategic and opportunities side of what they saw (e.g. both sides apparent game plans, structural and personnel strengths and weaknesses, targets for improvement, how to extract more from what was on field, how they would want the game day organisation set up etc).

From what I heard, Richardson was p***ed off at it being sprung on him, Hinkley went OK but took some time to come to grips with the idea and Watters was the standout.

Maybe Watters was just better at thinking and speaking on his feet. Maybe he went better because he was in control and 1 out. Who knows? But, the process was described as the most thorough undertaken and it seems to have been so.

Thanks TOT. That actually makes me feel better about the whole thing. It just goes to show that no system is fool proof. I concede that some people are very good at the selection process, and we can't always get it right. You must be on the inside to know all that. You weren't on the panel, were you TOT?

So really unless you are selecting an experienced and proven performer it can be hit and miss.

[saintsRrising]

How many people lie in interviews. I've interviewed hundreds of people for jobs over the years and believe me, people try it on. I got burnt a few times early on, so then I re- structured 90% of my questions around behaviour and ethics, and my success rate improved dramatically. Still, it's never foolproof. You can improve people's technical skills, but you can't change their personalities.

Exactly. Like you I have hired many people. Attitude became my most valued criteria.

While many people will naturally exaggerate their abilities, the ones you really need to weed out are those that are only saying what they believe will get them the job, when they have no intention of delivering on it. Such people are just bad news causing instability after instability.

Watters would seem to be such a case.

[Con Gorozidis]

Is Watters a Rudd like figure?

Charming and good at delivering a speech but a real prick to work with on a day to day level and all over the shop/disorganised on strategy?

[Eastern]

I've been keeping a running tally on the media reaction to the Watters sacking since Friday;

Those that have stated that the sacking was fair & just = PLENTY

Those that have stated that St Kilda are a rabble and got it all wrong = TWO; Rucci & Brereton !!

Add Smith and Denham although denham just thinks how Smith thinks. Im sure on friday Denham didnt mind the sacking but after Smith said it was pathetic he jumped on the bandwagon.

Like you said, Denham is Smith's puppet. Imagine having Patrick Smith's hand up your ought !!

[70s sainter]

Denim said the saints had absolutely no idea how to run an afl club. He said it was a discrace how the new pres gave the media nothing on why they sacked watters. Even crazy KB asked why would they- if it meant dissing watters in public.
I sent SEN a text asking denim why he didnt ask the hard questions - ah maybe because he didnt go to the press conference. In that case - SHUT THE F@#k UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!