Siegfried wrote:
I'm a bit with mikkey on this.
First of all, I applaud the Club for the general approach of having a plan, using specialist consultants to put it together, and for putting their balls on the line and making aspects of it public eg 2 flags in the next 5 years.
However, when I first read it, it struck me as something that has been put together by going through all the leadership models and sticking everything in. There is so much in there, it is way too broad. When I showed it to a colleague (we both work in the general area of leadership), his comment was, "too many concepts and concepts within concepts - way too complicated. Simplicity is the go and they ain't got it".
As many on here have rightly said, there will be much more material on this in-house that we (rightly) don't know about, so it is difficult to make truly informed comment. However, my gut feeling on the surface of it all has me concerned at whether there is so much the Club has tried to cover, that it may ultimately dilute the effort and energy put in and affect outcomes. The result is that you become half effective in a lot of areas, rather than fully effective in a smaller number of key areas (upon which process sorts out the rest).
I have no doubt that the Club is serious about getting things right, it's just a question of whether they go about it the right way. Time will tell.
I reckon that's a pretty fair summary.
The point is, though, by naming the aim to win 2 flags in the next 5 years, there'll be plenty of people outside the club reminding them what they're aiming for. So, in some respects, that message should be strong enough and, assuming
everyone involved at the club is on board with the "trademark", then the rest should follow.
Well, that's the plan. Let's see how it works.
