The Management Myth - Hit or Myth?

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

There is a thesis, backed by academic research, of The Management Myth. Which attempts to demolish the commonly-held idea that changing a manager can improve a team''s performance. More than that, the thesis claims to prove that such a change will not bring an improvement. Apart, sometimes, from a temporary boost (a kind of dead cat bounce) after which the team''s performances revert to some sort of mean.The obvious problem is that for the thesis to be entirely and always correct one or even both of the following must be true - that all managers are equally talented, with none better than another, and that finance is the only determinant in where a team finishes in the league.Since some people who tout the thesis admit that neither of those two ideas listed above is true (they accept some managers are better and they don''t regard finance as being the only determinant) then there seems to be an insoluble problem.To deal with the insolubles. Plainly some managers are better than others. A statement of the obvious. As to finance, as briefly as possible, it is generally accepted the best correlation is between spending on wages and league position. But even here there are various figures bandied about. The authors of The Numbers Game (which has some good points to make but is also a salutory and embarrassing warning against using statistics without understanding their footballing context) believe that over a period of seasons managerial influence (as opposed to financial) in the Premier League is 19 per cent.But in any particular season can be much higher. "Over the course of a single campaign [note: not for part of a season but for a whole season]...there is a lot more room for immediate managerial influence." (I am not a statistician and the authors'' precise phraseology is not familiar to me, but I think they are then putting the managerial figure as high as 41 per cent. What is certainly true is that the one figure I have never seen quoted for managerial influence is 0 per cent).So if not all managers are the same, and  there is scope beyond finance for the better ones to make a difference, how come the academic research is portrayed as being so dogmatic?Like (I suspect) most people I have only read summaries. For the sake of argument, let''s accept that in general there is an identifiable trend, of no improvement, or a dead cat bounce followed by a reversion to awfulness. So why might this not be an iron rule? How come it might apply to some clubs and not others? What factors have not (this is a guess but probably an accurate one) been taken into account by the academics?1) The Wolves Syndrome. Or How Not To Do It. Wolves, under McCarthy, were struggling but far from doomed in the Premier League in the 2011-12 season. He was sacked in February 2012. Terry Connor came up from the coaching staff, and Wolves got relegated. Two obvious mistakes - firstly the board had failed to line up a credible successor, and ended up with someone even more out of his depth than was Bryan Gunn for us. Secondly, leaving the switch until February meant hapless Connor had to make do with the squad he had inherited. If relegation hadn''t been inevitable under McCarthy it became so with Connor, who was was appointed on February 24, with Wolves in 16th place on 22 points. They finished rock bottom, with 25 points. Just three more points.An easy contrast would be with Palace this season. Not only does never-relegated Pulis know what he is doing, but he has a transfer window in which to work. Palace may still go down, but it is far from inevitable. So timing matters. This is why November and December have become the months for managers getting their P45s. Now The Numbers Game uses a much-quoted Dutch study, but what is not clear from it is whether the transfer window factor has been factored in. I doubt it has. Or with other studies.2) The Charlton Syndrome, or A Club in Decline. From the Premier League to the third tier (sound familiar?). Which can precisely be charted from the moment Curbishley departed, in the summer of 2006. Leaving out caretakers, the next three managers were Dowie, Pardew and Parkinson. All with something of a track records. Not one obviously absurd choice. Yet none could stop the slide. The explanation is that Curbishley had kept Charlton outperforming, and a fall was certain. As was the turnover of managers, as the Charlton board continually felt something had to be done. It would take an impressive act of sangfroid to acknowledge the historical inevitability of the process and do nothing. But all such a turnover does is to exacerbate the problem (as with Norwich City and the short-termism that followed the delayed sacking of Worthington). A spiral of decline ensues. But it is precisely clubs in decline that are likely to keeping sacking managers, and provide ammunition for the academics.A contrast with Charlton then would be with a not-in-decline Newcastle sacking Hughton (just because Ashley felt they could do better) and installing Pardew. And others managers might have been equally successful. Pardew was likely to fail at Charlton but likely to do well at Newcastle. A fine 5th place in his first full season, a Europa-League-induced slump to 16th last, but in 8th place currently. So the background state of a club matters.3) Not all managers are the same. This has to be restated since it is effectively denied by the ultra-proponents of the  Myth thesis. But, and this ties in with 2), it is not just that some are better than others. But the overall circumstances - as with Pardew - under which a manager arrives matter. A club in historical and/or financial decline with a panicky set of directors will pose more of a managerial challenge than a club on a reasonably even keel that has taken a hard-edged decision to make a change. A club £20m in external debt will be harder to manage than one without debt, or only owing money to the owner.4) The Management Pool. Where a club sits in the football pyramid determines the range of choice of new manager. Take a club like Norwich City. These clubs don''t get to pick from the first tier, of universal geniuses, where any switch has a good chance of working. Or the second tier, of those who have succeeded in the Premier League and are looking to move into the top six. They are limited to those with a spotty top-tier track record, those who have done well lower down, coaches wanting to move into management, and - now - foreigners for heaven''s sake! In other words gambles. Which might come off. Or fail horribly.I hope no-one ploughed through this expecting an answer to the Hughton Question![:P] Or even a dogmatic general conclusion. I don''t have one. Only the view that while the academic findings may be generally true, unless they take into account the various factors above (and there may be others I haven''t thought of) then any exceptions to the Myth rule are not necessarily just that - exceptions that prove the rule. They may be the norm for right-minded clubs that make the right change at the right time for the right reasons.

[Bill 1,788]

so, is that Hughton out ........... or in ?

[Bury Yellow 2]

Are you a civil servant by any chance Purple or perhaps a relative of Tolstoy :-)

[Jim Smith 2,314]

My own take on our current situation is we are not in decline as a club and any new manager would therefore have a good platform for success. Everything else about the club is set up for us to continue to be successful but on the pitch we are stagnating.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

The issue is therefore what the mean position of each club is - or should be.

That fans of a particular club are unlikely to be empirical about where the mean for their club lies can be observed.

The Answer to the Hughton in/out debate is therefore:

d) False

Ricardo et al have stated that the historical mean for Norwich is between 25th and 30th in the football pyramid.

Lucrative survival - the status quo - is therefore over performing.

[mre2 1]

I don''t think there is a right or wrong answer. If we were sitting bottom of the league and cut a drift by a number of points then it would be a fairly easy decision.

Hughton is not doing a great job at the moment, but its not completely dreadful. I believe a manager should be given a few seasons to try a build a team. There is too much emphasis to instant success, which makes it hard to build for longer term success.

I believe its going to be a hard long season, but if we survive we will see the benefits of sticking with the manager next season.

[ricardo 7,328]

5 of the bottom 7 have changed their manager. Some may escape and think they have been proved right. Inevitably 2 or 3 of them won''t and they will have been proved wrong.What none of them will know is what would have happened had they took the other option.Assuming of course that travel between multiple Universes is not discovered before May 2015.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="mre2"]I don''t think there is a right or wrong answer. If we were sitting bottom of the league and cut a drift by a number of points then it would be a fairly easy decision.

Hughton is not doing a great job at the moment, but its not completely dreadful. I believe a manager should be given a few seasons to try a build a team. There is too much emphasis to instant success, which makes it hard to build for longer term success.

I believe its going to be a hard long season, but if we survive we will see the benefits of sticking with the manager next season.[/quote]

Logically, chopping and changing just doesn''t seem like a good idea.  It''ll be interesting how Man U reacts to their situation.  From being  the most stable in terms of management to instant wobble.  Do they sweat it out, or instantly hit the panic button.

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]The issue is therefore what the mean position of each club is - or should be.

That fans of a particular club are unlikely to be empirical about where the mean for their club lies can be observed.

The Answer to the Hughton in/out debate is therefore:

d) False

Ricardo et al have stated that the historical mean for Norwich is between 25th and 30th in the football pyramid.

Lucrative survival - the status quo - is therefore over performing.[/quote]We are 34th in the all time top league table but one or two old timers ahead of us including 1p5wich 31st, Huddersfield 30th, Portsmouth 29th, Coventry 28th and even Sheff Wed at 14th but they mostly rely on many early years in the top division.I would say 25th would be a fairer assumption over the last 50 years.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

One word " Chelsea" now can you all be quiet please .

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Noted. It must also be football-cum-business logic that clubs that have an inherently large following., plus a large capacity stadium to service it, ought to have a long term mean advantage (say Leeds), though mismanagement and heavy indebtedness can negate such advantages.

A capable manager that pragmatically keeps a club in the top tier and buys well is the holy grail for the vast majority.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,154]

Purple - as you are normally so thorough in what you write I am rather surprised that you do appear to have missed out a crucial element in the research into appointing a new manager.

The conclusion of the research was actually that ON AVERAGE!!!!!!!!!!! - there is no advantage in appointing a new manager. Or in other words, aggregated over all the changes of manager that the research looked into overall there was no gain (or loss) to teams in appointing a new manager.

However an average is just that - an average! Concealed within that are any number of individual instances where a team has done better - or worse - after they have appointed a new manager. Indeed in fairly recent memory at Norwich we have two good examples of where appointing a new manager has led to a clear improvement in fortunes, namely the appointments of Nigel Worthington and Paul Lambert.

The key to improvement (and it was ever thus) lies in making the right appointment. If the board is able to inject new funds into the club - over and above what went in before - for transfer fees and wages then that too will increase the chances of success.

Needless to say neither of these last two points should come as much of a surprise to anybody.

[Nuff Said 5,079]

[quote user="Barclay seats 48 49 the 3rd"]One word " Chelsea" now can you all be quiet please .[/quote]

Give me strength. One club changed their manager and performed better, therefore ALL management changes will work???

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

Comparison between Reading , who were virtually relegated , and Manchester City who felt they were underperforming , in the same study would be pointless. Both changed their manager last season. Both have achieved their "mean" position to an extent . But finances have played a hugely significant part in the matter.

 

It would seem to me that the one aspect that is overlooked here, is the good old fashioned business principle of effecting change. And in certain cases, in certain given scenarios, it is almost inevitable that a business such as a football club faced with a potential catastrophic loss of income will attempt to change those aspects that are under their control , and the manager and coaching staff are the most controllable factor. Anyone in the board room advocating such a change will find the argument they need in recent events. I would suggest that the change at Sunderland kept them up (dead cat bounce), and also Southampton have benefited. I feel there is a strong argument that had we lost to Palace, our board may have considered this. Until McNally writes his book we wont know.

 

Comparison to Wolves a few years back had certain features that make it unusual, not least the belief that they did have Curbishly lined up. By the time he had “changed his mind” they were left with the hapless Connor. I can’t believe that even Connor really wanted the job under those circumstances. It was more hitting the self destruct button than anything else.

 

Finally what about management changes made where a club loses its manager for more “positive” reasons i.e. moves on to higher things? It’s been OK for Everton and Swansea, less so for Man Utd. So where do these clubs fit into the study?

 

As we sit three points above the drop, as we see on this message board you can pick the stats you want to support your view. Should we effect change? Or stick with someone who , if everything ends tomorrow , has kept us up. Throw in the potential signings in the Window and it gets even more complicated.

 

As someone once said....you decide.

 

[JF 694]

Give me strength. One club changed their manager and performed better, therefore ALL management changes will work???

I think he means Chelsea are always sacking managers as soon as things go tits up.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

The first bit of my post went AWOL!

 

I started by saying As with most scientific studies, there are enough stats flying around to give credibility to either opinion. The study in question does, as Purple says, have too many variables to be overly conclusive, in my opinion.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

To me this is a dichotomy of optimism and pessimism. The optimists think things will get better and the pessimists think they won''t unless the manager is changed. Most people are aligned somewhere along that spectrum. Talking about it simply identifies your position, but in all probability will have nothing to do with the decision finally taken. That''s why I''ve lost interest in these discussions. I''d much rather talk about football.

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Apart, sometimes, from a temporary boost (a kind of dead cat bounce) after which the team''s performances revert to some sort of mean.[/quote]So, as I understand it then, if we changed our Manager now, we might perform better for a half a dozen matches, win 3 or 4 of them & then go back to normality of winning an odd game here & there, drawing a few and losing a few.Well to me that sounds like or best chance of survival because a "dead cat bounce" is better than no bounce at all and under the current incumbent the prospect of our performances improving sufficiently to win a few games in the next month is an unlikely prospect.

[Nuff Said 5,079]

Give me strength. One club changed their manager and performed better, therefore ALL management changes will work???

I think he means Chelsea are always sacking managers as soon as things go tits up.

My bad if I misunderstood. But ... Is that an ''in'' argument or an ''out'' one?

[JF 694]

Ain''t got a clue but am guessing in!

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

 

As we sit three points above the drop, as we see on this message

board you can pick the stats you want to support your view. Should we

effect change? Or stick with someone who , if everything ends tomorrow , has

kept us up. Throw in the potential signings in the Window and it gets even more

complicated.

 

As someone once said....you decide.

 

[/quote]

 

 

You''ve already picked your stat there. I might just as well say with us being just 3 points off top half should we even be discussing sacking the manager?

 

 

[whoareyou? 0]

Now that Solksjaer has gone elsewhere, i think we would be far better off investing money in new quality players than changing the manager.I suspect a change of manager would take most if not all of the January transfer budget.I still think we are only a few decent players from being a top half side but the problem is can we persuade the players to come now and can we afford them.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]The issue is therefore what the mean position of each club is - or should be.

That fans of a particular club are unlikely to be empirical about where the mean for their club lies can be observed.

The Answer to the Hughton in/out debate is therefore:

d) False

Ricardo et al have stated that the historical mean for Norwich is between 25th and 30th in the football pyramid.

Lucrative survival - the status quo - is therefore over performing.[/quote]One of the problems is that it is not at all clear from short summaries of the research what is meant by a club''s mean. As far as I can tell, in terms of this Management Myth argument, it is certainly not some kind of historical position assessed over many years. That would fail to take into account the way football has changed from an economic model to a financial model, and the recent mega-TV deals for Premier League clubs.If anything it is the position in any one season that the club''s spending on wages would indicate. And it is a fair assumption that our spending on wages this season is higher than for any of the Championship clubs, so that we would be in the top 20. And it is a fair assumption that our spending is higher than Crystal Palace''s, and quite possibly above that of the other two promoted clubs. And, based on the only season for which comparitive figures are available (2011-12) about level with Swansea.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Are you a civil servant by any chance Purple or perhaps a relative of Tolstoy :-)[/quote]I just needed something to do to take my mind off the thought of you running naked round your garden. A high-walled one I sincerely hope?[:D]

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bury Yellow"]Are you a civil servant by any chance Purple or perhaps a relative of Tolstoy :-)[/quote]

I just needed something to do to take my mind off the thought of you running naked round your garden. A high-walled one I sincerely hope?[:D]
[/quote]

 

 

Ah Tolstoy. Didn''t he write Lady Don''t Fall Backwards?

[Mello Yello 2,273]

Well, we were most fortunate sacking a former club legend keeper who had a brief tenure as a pseudo manager. Then appointing a bloke who was managing a side that gave us a spanking......Who then took us on a unbelievable journey to the promised pitches in the Premiership.....

 

I mean, who would have imagined that, eh?.....Should have stuck with Gunny.....We''d be in a Champions League spot now!

 

Hindsight......is a wunnerful ting.....

 

You take a risk, we took it with the appointment of Lambo......Hard act to follow, his current replacement, how does he emulate his predecessor''s success whilst managing here?

[Hairy Canary 667]

If replacing a manager gives a dead cat bounce (even for a disaster such as Di Canio) then the obvious solution is to replace the manager six games and be on a continual bounce.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Purple - as you are normally so thorough in what you write I am rather surprised that you do appear to have missed out a crucial element in the research into appointing a new manager.

The conclusion of the research was actually that ON AVERAGE!!!!!!!!!!! - there is no advantage in appointing a new manager. Or in other words, aggregated over all the changes of manager that the research looked into overall there was no gain (or loss) to teams in appointing a new manager.

However an average is just that - an average! Concealed within that are any number of individual instances where a team has done better - or worse - after they have appointed a new manager. Indeed in fairly recent memory at Norwich we have two good examples of where appointing a new manager has led to a clear improvement in fortunes, namely the appointments of Nigel Worthington and Paul Lambert.

The key to improvement (and it was ever thus) lies in making the right appointment. If the board is able to inject new funds into the club - over and above what went in before - for transfer fees and wages then that too will increase the chances of success.

Needless to say neither of these last two points should come as much of a surprise to anybody.[/quote]TL, if you have actually read the research (unlike me!) and it is the case that this is a typical kind of average, with many examples as it were above the line, many level, and below, then that is obviously highly relevant. But all the summaries I have seen (including that in The Numbers Game) paint the picture differently - of this being pretty much an iron law (that changing the manager makes no difference) with perhaps a very few exceptions that sinmply go to prove the law.

[CiderkiddCanary 0]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]The issue is therefore what the mean position of each club is - or should be.

That fans of a particular club are unlikely to be empirical about where the mean for their club lies can be observed.

The Answer to the Hughton in/out debate is therefore:

d) False

Ricardo et al have stated that the historical mean for Norwich is between 25th and 30th in the football pyramid.

Lucrative survival - the status quo - is therefore over performing.[/quote]Whilst I accept this forms a strong part of the argument, it does seem a rather pessimistic view (i.e. that Norwich are essentially always certain to revert to somewhere between 20th and 40th place in the English footballing pyramid). My club, Yeovil Town, are currently way way way above our average. 10 years ago, when we''d just entered the Football League for the first time, not many would have believed that we''d be competing in the second tier of English football. Our average for our entire history is almost certainly below the 4th tier of English football. So whilst I accept this point I don''t believe that it is a constraint to football clubs improving. Just because Norwich''s average for the last 100 years+ is somewhere around 25th, why can''t their average for the next 25/50/100 years be higher?As an aside, I also agree with one of Purple''s points made in the OP. The context of a manager coming into a club is incredibly important in my personal opinion, with a clear example being Norwich City. Lambert was what the club needed at the time of his appointment, somebody to instill passion and belief into a squad and club that had experienced a lengthening period of decline. After Lambert had left, I believe the Norwich board made the correct decision in appointing somebody like Hughton, who strikes me as being more of a "club-builder" than Lambert appeared to be in his time at Norwich. By club-builder I am referring to the idea of somebody who can stay at a club for a lengthy period of time (think of Curbishley at Charlton, Allardyce at Bolton, SAF at Man Utd, even abroad with Lucescu at Shakhtar Donetsk or Roux at AJ Auxerre) and provide stability to the club. In Norwich''s case, barring a shock qualification to the Champions League or shock PL title, for the next few years this is likely to encompass mid-table stability whilst the club initially focuses on improving the number of quality players within the squad, be it through purchases or youth players from the academy, before later considering infrastructure improvements to the club such as stadium expansion when finances are at a very strong level.In terms of the Hughton in/out debate, what I''m trying to stay is that I think it''s best for Norwich to stick with Hughton provided that he appears to be learning from his mistakes, continues to bring good quality players to the club and that the club continually improves, or at the very least does not get worse. If Norwich were to finish 16th, 14th, 11th, 17th and 10th over the next 5 years in the PL, would that be a good or bad thing? Certainly barring the couple of relegation battles that appears to be a relatively favourable set of finishes considering the recent history of Norwich falling into the third tier of English football. Whilst stability may be really boring for some from the perspective of the club, what with the riches offered by simply being in the PL, a set of league positions similar to those for the foreseeable future would be attractive due to the stability. I am not of course saying that Norwich should not be ambitious and constantly try to improve upon their position, quite the opposite, but if Norwich were to finish somewhere around 15th or 16th this season I do not think the board would view it as a disaster. Certainly it would be unfavourable compared to the 12th and 11th placed finishes of previous seasons, but securing constant PL football has to be the aim for the club in the short to medium term. I guess in a way what I''m trying to say is that so long as Norwich aren''t in true relegation trouble (i.e. 6 points adrift with 6 games to go) then I think Hughton deserves to stay. He can provide much needed stability for the club after what has been a really topsy-turvy last decade or so. If he gets lots of things wrong or Norwich come into serious relegation trouble in a few months time, then sure I would consider a change to be a reasonable option if enacted. However as long as this doesn''t happen, I feel everybody is ultimately better off for the stability of keeping Hughton and allowing him to learn from his mistakes and become a better manager.[D]

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="Making Plans"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]Apart, sometimes, from a temporary boost (a kind of dead cat bounce) after which the team''s performances revert to some sort of mean.[/quote]So, as I understand it then, if we changed our Manager now, we might perform better for a half a dozen matches, win 3 or 4 of them & then go back to normality of winning an odd game here & there, drawing a few and losing a few.Well to me that sounds like or best chance of survival because a "dead cat bounce" is better than no bounce at all and under the current incumbent the prospect of our performances improving sufficiently to win a few games in the next month is an unlikely prospect. [/quote]We could have after 10 games but didn''t and got the bounce antway.No, you completely misunderstand the results of the survey. The "Dead Cat Bounce" would have occurred irrespective of a managerial change.Take for instance Sunderland, they sacked Di Canio after taking 1 point from 5 games. That kind of form inevitably does not continue for ever and in the 15 matches since than they have picked up only 13 points which is much closer to a mean score for a relegation team. In the last 9 matches they have won once ( a rather fortunate affair playing against 10 men for 70 mins) and lost 4 times.Fulham sacked their manager on Dec 1st after 5 straight defeats. Again that form isn''t going to continue forever and there duly was an improvement win 3 wins but still 4 losses in 7 games. This is nothing more than a reversion to the mean.WBA sacked Clarke on the 14th Dec after 4 straight losses. Since then they have returned to more normal form with 3 draws and a narrow win against 10 man Newcastle. This is similar to their form before the 4 straight losses which was 3 wins, 3 draws and 1 defeat.Palace sacked Holloway on 23rd October after 7 losses in 8 games. That kind of form inevitably will change, nobody goes through a season like that. Since then they have won 4 and lost 6, a slight bounce indeed but only 1 win and 3 losses in the last 5 suggests nothing other than a return to what you would expect for a team in relegation trouble.Norwich did not sack their manager after winning only 2 of the first 10 games.  Since then 3 wins and 3 draws bring us back to a much closer to our long term mean of just over a point per game.Villa had a similar run recently of only 1 point from 5 games ( again, this doesn''t last forever) but returned to something like true long term point a game average with their victory at Sunderland.A bad run of 4 or 5 defeats on the turn does happen but there is no evidence to show that changing your manager is responsible for a reversion to the mean. It happens  irrespective of a managerial change. If you make the window of inspection small enough you can convince yourself of a bounce but it is nothing more than "reversion to the mean".