Should football managers be sacked when results (Essay Sample)

Should football managers be sacked when results (on the field) are poor? What does your answer tell you about how we should view leadership in other organisations? Name: Institution Abstract In recent years, whether the dismissal of a football manager or head coach during the mid-season impacts on the ensuing team performance plus results has increasingly become a rather controversial scientific discussion. In this paper, a clear-cut answer to the question is provided using epistemological models based on statistical framework regarding the team performance plus through analyzing the first two durations of the consequence of a coach dismissal. The paper shows that dismissing a football manager due to poor results has basically no consequence on the performance of a team. Beyond the immediate bearing of on field outcomes, this paper may venture into analogous research exploring the upshot of managerial changes in such aspects as economic plus disruption of organization’s setup. Extensively, the paper is based on English premiership and other major football leagues across Europe including Norwegian plus Spanish top-tiers. Football managers should not be dismissed basically due to poor on-field results. Introduction Sacking of football mangers in recent two decades has become all too common. Indeed, coaches are now expected to come and go in a short duration. This especially the case when various stakeholders (supporters, the board, the media) are not pleased with results. With recent technological advancement, football managers are hounded from all corners with the different stakeholders requesting their dismissal. However, the question has been whether dismissing one manger, particularly mid-season, leads to improved performance and or better results. The general phrase today is that no football manager is safe. A series of poor could see the once celebrated manager shown the door. In English Premiership, F. Everiss managed football team West Bromwich Albion for over 46 seasons uninterrupted, and could possibly be the all-time world record in professional football (Ermentrout, 2011). In other leagues such as Spanish football League and Norwegian Premier League, football managers have had relatively short spells. Loyalty has become a rare thing in sports in large part due to increased turnover plus increased finances. The main reason surrounding firing of head coaches in sports is disappointed expectations largely in comparison to the wage bill of a team. The widespread notion among various stakeholders (supporters, the board/club and the media) is that changing a football manager positively affects the team’s subsequent performance. Resultantly, this has led most people interest in sport think that massive investments in a club automatically lead to better results plus greatness. Thus, stakeholders are constantly demanding a “world-class” football manager and players. In essence, the message across sport management is dismiss and spend more is the outcomes are not pleasing to many. This has set a poor precedent across management portfolio despite different studies illustrating that, in most cases, dismissal of a manager has no bearing in team performance plus results. Main Comprehensive studies have been carried out for English football where ever every game is examined with an aim of assessing the effect of managerial change on on-field performance and results. For instance Arnulf et al (2012) studied the different cases where football managers had been dismissed due to poor results. In the findings, the study suggested that football clubs changing their head coaches within season performed rather poorly. On the other hand, those clubs that never experienced managerial changes even after a series of poor results ultimately improved. However, the position that appointment of a new head coach has no effect or adverse outcomes on team’s performance plus results is by no means collective. Other researchers have demonstrated that appointing a new head coach can lead to a desirable effect on team results. However, such works fail to reveal that this happens only in a short-term. This is due to the fact that teams are known to raise their game in a bid to impress an incoming head coach to keep themselves in the side. Worth noting is that playing any kind of sport is an employment opportunity, and players tend to impress their new boss by raising performances for a few games following changeover in leadership. This boost has come to be referred to as honeymoon, and may last for several games following the appointment. Nonetheless, the results are likely to nosedive once more. Indeed, on average, football clubs’ managerial changes are not a solution to poor results on the field and managers should never be dismissed. The view that results are likely to deteriorate is backed up by Tena and Forrest (2007) who argued that, in most cases, retaining a head coach following a series of poor results is likely to bear the same results. Understandably, sports including football are result driven businesses where current (implying short-term) performance is considered to be vital. Questions are likely to arise after a string of poor performances given the fact that the manager is supposed to lead a team. It is thus understandable that club executives are more than willing to take risks on appointing a new coach to sustain a club’s short-term fate. This is especially the case when a football club is under the threat of being relegated or supporters urge for overhaul. The feeling is that if the club executives sit back and watch a head coach fall, their fall is just about. Only in special circumstances a club’s performance can improve after managerial change. Given the costs that emerge due to head coach changes plus the negative effects brought about by the process, clubs should cease sacking managers following a series of poor results. Tena and Forrest (2007) examined triggers for plus effects of within-season sacking of managers in the Spanish top flight football during seasons/years 2002 through 2005. They discovered that the major deciding factor leading to dismissal of head coaches revolved around the fear of being demoted from the division. Various stakeholders, particularly the supporters, greatly contributed to the sacking of head coaches. The fans hounded the players by creating what is commonly referred to as a gloomy atmosphere during football games, and due to the fear of dwindling fan base and a threatened position in the market, managers were at the wrong end. In essence, in all scenarios, football coaches were solely responsible for poor run of results and apparently needed to be sacked for the team to improve. As mentioned earlier, the implication is that the football clubs hoped to bring out quick fix solution by changing a manager. What is more, Tena and Forrest (2007) work solidified the fact that dismissing managers does not improve team performance or results by showing improvements tended to be attained only in home matches. By doing this, the work wanted to demonstrate that supporters play a critical role in dismissal of managers from their position. In addition, they also influence team’s performance plus results by creating a lively atmosphere during home matches. As a result, improvements in home matches are likely to improve but for the short-term. All in all, the research vindicates the decision often taken by club executives who dismiss head coaches to appease the fans and have immediate on-the-field effects. The hypothesis provided by the work also is consistent with the significance attributed to crowd support during home games. In part, home advantage is as a result of the social/crowd support that supporters provide their team. In most cases, appeasing the fans through change of head coaches leads to a greater offensive play by the home team and hence the likelihood of getting better results during the honeymoon period. Altogether, dismissal of head coaches is simply scapegoating and failure to analyze the issue at hand. Arnulf et al (2012) has shown similar findings solidifying the fact that firing a head coach a series of poor results is not a solution. In the work, the authors cite the increasing but ill-informed tendency to dismiss football managers when club results do not satisfy stakeholder’s expectation. According to previous findings, improvements that are likely to result after changer of head coaches are a statistical artifact. Time and again, people believe that acting swiftly by firing a manager after a run of unpleasant results will lead to good performance and or results. Nevertheless, Arnulf et al (2012) work based on extensive information from the Norwegian top flight football. The work sought to find out what would have happened if a head coach had not been dismissed following a series of poor on-field results. In its findings, illusions characterize the world of football and contributes to poor management or leadership altogether. Most people including vital stakeholders such as club executives believe that firing and appointing a new head coach will not only appease the supporters of a club but also improve the results. In this case, the performance might improve just as well plus even quicker. The short-term nature plus need for immediate improvement or results characterize football. On the whole, the report summed up the findings by explaining that team results would have been the same if a club did not fire and appoint a new head coach following a series of poor outcomes. Thus, football head coaches should not be dismissed on the basis of poor results due to costs that are likely to arise, team disruption and the fact that the team is likely to perform poorly after the honeymoon period. The above information about changing a manager and failure to improve a team and or results is backed up by information from the BBC (2013). In...