The BBC political editor Nick Robinson yesterday wrote a piece extolling the management credentials of the former Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson. He cites Ferguson's three core values of loyalty, control and discipline.
If I had to pick one person who best epitomises the odious, unsavoury aspects of modern day British sport, I would need look no further than this man. When I was growing up, we all thought that we would never see a worse loser than the American tennis player John McEnroe. How wrong we were. Ferguson is the man who petulantly refused interviews to the BBC for a number of years because one of their journalists had said things with which he didn't agree. It is therefore quite easy to see how he managed Manchester United.
The "My way or the highway" school of management is not a new phenomenon and will always have its place. Up to a point. By his own admission, his intransigence over the departure of Japp Stam cost him dearly. In the following seasons, the title was ceded to Chelsea because of his inability to compromise. It is revealed by Nick Robinson that Ferguson gravitated to Gordon Brown rather than Tony Blair. I bet he did. You've only got to recall how Brown imposed his Stalinist doctrine on his party to see why. Even though Brown managed to upset just about everybody within sniffing distance, Ferguson still admired his management style. Why? Control.
Of the three attributes referred to by Nick Robinson, it is the business of control which best sums up the Ferguson approach. Control freak would be more apt. Certainly he won a lot of trophies domestically but that success didn't translate to the European stage. What I most take issue with is the manner with which achieved his success. His was the mantra of success at all costs. The number of referees who were successfully bullied by him is just mind boggling. Are there no strong characters left anymore? He ought to have banished to the stands far more frequently than he was. His style was to rule by fear.
This is the bit where I take issue with Nick Robinson's assessment. You can't just judge good managers on results if the people responsible are petrified. The best managers I have worked for in Industry have never been the bullying type because they've never felt the insecurity to be that way. I just can't think of a more sore loser than Ferguson. When he was winning, all was well with his world but even when his team had been well and truly thumped, he still felt the need to identify a scapegoat. Great managers don't do that. Great managers look inside themselves and question how they might have done things differently. Great managers also achieve results on limited resources by maximising utility of the skill base at their disposal.
This is not a book which I would choose to pick up let alone read because I think some of us worked this man out a long time ago. Sure, he won a few trophies and spent a lot of money along the way but I have one question; how many of his former players speak highly of him publicly? Not that many for a purportedly great manager. The only thing that was great about him as far as I can see is that he made a sharp exit when he knew his luck was running out. His successor has inherited a disenfranchised ageing squad who are just coming to terms with the reality that the controlling Ferguson has eventually gone.
In short, Ferguson displayed most of the attributes which you would more normally associate with the great dictators. I'm sorry to say that this for me does not constitute a great manager. I have certainly encountered a great many who seem to think that it does, but they have much to learn about the art of management. Great managers inspire their colleagues. I don't believe Ferguson ever regarded his players as colleagues. In his world, they knew their place and he knew his. That is a million miles away from great management. Success is not the only measure of a manager. It is one measure. In Ferguson's case, it is not even a good measure because he spent such vast sums of money to get it.
I only hope that this is the last we see of him because he represnets the worst aspects of the Professional era. Thanks to him, win at all costs has superceded winning with style and good grace. Winning for him was the be all and end all. It didn't matter the lengths to which he had to go to get there - just as long as he won. I certainly won't miss him or his petulance but I fear his his style has become the prototype for a new generation of managers. That is the biggest shame of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment