Myles Judd

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

When you were an MD and a CEO, who were your seniors?

[tuffers#1]

When you were an MD and a CEO, who were your seniors?

CEO's do have bosses REDo

Think Rebekah Brooks & who her Boss was .

[DuvB]

When you were an MD and a CEO, who were your seniors?

Americans

[Dohnut]

Why is it wrong for the director of football (who presumably the head coach reports to) to find out how the squad were feeling about the head coach? Particularly if he also had doubts.

There is absolutely no reason why the DoF should not know what is going on. Far from it. But in any business, not just football, it cannot be allowed to happen in a way that undermines people and creates distrust.

Junior, reporting to Fletch who in turn reports to Senior is a very sensitive situation. It must be handled carefully. If not it makes Fletcher’s position untenable. This is not a football issue but a management hierarchy issue. Basic management. It’s a tricky situation when family becomes involved.

I have been both an MD and a CEO managing teams of up to 70. Do you not think my seniors checked out how I was doing with people I was managing during the first few months after I had joined. Of course they did. And rightly so. And did I check out newcomers I appointed with people who reported to this newcomer? Of course I did. This is standard management practice. Nothing underhand in it at all.

You think the DoF having a private chat With his son who reports to Fletch, about Fletch Behind his back is standard management practice? A chat that contributed to his being sacked. Not for me. We will have to differ on that one. Hell, even Ling Senior was at pains to say it wasn’t normal for him to talk about club matters with his son. It is not right. Ever he knows that.

I too have been on the Board of a corporate employing 4000+ people and my role took me to all areas of the business, IT Director/internal auditor and allowed me to talk freely to all staff. I would never encourage any conversation with people where it Could undermine the authority of the department manager whatsoever or cause them embarrassment.

Department Managers never needed to fear me engaging in tittle-tattle Gossip with their team behind their back that could cause them harm or embarrassment. My approach created trust between me and the middle management team and allowed me to do my job fully and freely and without resistance.

Of course I picked up on stuff. When I did I would discuss it directly with the manager concerned, face to face, making sure I protected the identity of my source. And I would never go over that managers head by discussing with their line Director.

If the players had issues with Fletch, the right thing to do is for a senior player, club captain if you like, to speak with Fletcher face to face and try to resolve differences. If that fails then by all means the club captain is free to escalate. But son talking with dad. No way is that right.

[PoliticOs]

But again, you don't know that this system was NOT used. You're assuming it wasn't.

And when you say 'I would never encourage any conversation with people where it Could undermine the authority of the department manager whatsoever or cause them embarrassment', is that honestly true? Must have been a really difficult culture for anyone other than management to feel heard. Not having a dig, was just surprised to hear that.

[Dohnut]

But again, you don't know that this system was NOT used. You're assuming it wasn't.

And when you say 'I would never encourage any conversation with people where it Could undermine the authority of the department manager whatsoever or cause them embarrassment', is that honestly true? Must have been a really difficult culture for anyone other than management to feel heard. Not having a dig, was just surprised to hear that.

A positive culture is a key ingredient. It’s a personal thing for me and if others see things differently, fine.

In our organisation we had a staff consultative committee attended by me and the CEO. Discussions were honest, open and sometimes people got very vocal. But it was in the open, everybody in the room was equally important. But always with respect, even in disagreement. Staff representatives were able to gather the views of their colleagues and were free to express them without fear. Which they did. For sure the Board were told some home truths. Staff had a voice all the way to the CEO.

In addition we had a staff feedback system, anonymous if wanted, suggestion scheme with rewards and, very importantly, line managers operated an open door policy where staff could speak with their line manager, or when that was not appropriate, their line Director or the HR team. But the objective was hoping the manager and his team could work things out themselves if possible. But not always possible. Accepted business processes, everyone knew what they were, everyone had an opportunity to voice their feelings. Mostly it worked.

None of this was about stifling people’s views, nothing could be further than the truth. Good organisations actively promote open cultures. Certainly Orient is a prime example of a well run, open, inclusive organisation.

In my opinion this starts to break down when destructive tittle-tattle goes on behind people’s backs. If a senior pro spoke with Fletcher and expressed dressing rooms concerns and that failed to make any difference then for sure that senior pro is fully entitled to escalate and Fletcher could not have any complaints. But son talking to daddy. That is just not on. A recipe to create distrust in the camp. How can any manager, manage with the knowledge that Ling Junior may run to daddy If he does something a few players don’t like. Destructive.

How do I know a correct process was not followed. Had a senior pro discussed the situation with Ling Senior then I’d be willing to believe a correct process was followed. But Ling Junior is not a senior pro, not club captain or team captain. He is a Junior pro who used his personal connection to the Director to grass up his boss. That can never be right.

[LittleMate]

All kinda irrelevant as Judd will not be our player this time next week and things won't change as a result of anything said on here.

[tuffers#1]

But again, you don't know that this system was NOT used. You're assuming it wasn't.

And when you say 'I would never encourage any conversation with people where it Could undermine the authority of the department manager whatsoever or cause them embarrassment', is that honestly true? Must have been a really difficult culture for anyone other than management to feel heard. Not having a dig, was just surprised to hear that.

A positive culture is a key ingredient. It’s a personal thing for me and if others see things differently, fine.

In our organisation we had a staff consultative committee attended by me and the CEO. Discussions were honest, open and sometimes people got very vocal. But it was in the open, everybody in the room was equally important. But always with respect, even in disagreement. Staff representatives were able to gather the views of their colleagues and were free to express them without fear. Which they did. For sure the Board were told some home truths. Staff had a voice all the way to the CEO.

In addition we had a staff feedback system, anonymous if wanted, suggestion scheme with rewards and, very importantly, line managers operated an open door policy where staff could speak with their line manager, or when that was not appropriate, their line Director or the HR team. But the objective was hoping the manager and his team could work things out themselves if possible. But not always possible. Accepted business processes, everyone knew what they were, everyone had an opportunity to voice their feelings. Mostly it worked.

None of this was about stifling people’s views, nothing could be further than the truth. Good organisations actively promote open cultures. Certainly Orient is a prime example of a well run, open, inclusive organisation.

In my opinion this starts to break down when destructive tittle-tattle goes on behind people’s backs. If a senior pro spoke with Fletcher and expressed dressing rooms concerns and that failed to make any difference then for sure that senior pro is fully entitled to escalate and Fletcher could not have any complaints. But son talking to daddy. That is just not on. A recipe to create distrust in the camp. How can any manager, manage with the knowledge that Ling Junior may run to daddy If he does something a few players don’t like. Destructive.

How do I know a correct process was not followed. Had a senior pro discussed the situation with Ling Senior then I’d be willing to believe a correct process was followed. But Ling Junior is not a senior pro, not club captain or team captain. He is a Junior pro who used his personal connection to the Director to grass up his boss. That can never be right.

So what do you make of Kent saying he felt there was a very down feeling
around the place when he walked in to the club while fletch was in charge doh ?

Was he swayed by ling jnr & snr ?

[PoliticOs]

But again, you don't know that this system was NOT used. You're assuming it wasn't.

And when you say 'I would never encourage any conversation with people where it Could undermine the authority of the department manager whatsoever or cause them embarrassment', is that honestly true? Must have been a really difficult culture for anyone other than management to feel heard. Not having a dig, was just surprised to hear that.

A positive culture is a key ingredient. It’s a personal thing for me and if others see things differently, fine.

In our organisation we had a staff consultative committee attended by me and the CEO. Discussions were honest, open and sometimes people got very vocal. But it was in the open, everybody in the room was equally important. But always with respect, even in disagreement. Staff representatives were able to gather the views of their colleagues and were free to express them without fear. Which they did. For sure the Board were told some home truths. Staff had a voice all the way to the CEO.

In addition we had a staff feedback system, anonymous if wanted, suggestion scheme with rewards and, very importantly, line managers operated an open door policy where staff could speak with their line manager, or when that was not appropriate, their line Director or the HR team. But the objective was hoping the manager and his team could work things out themselves if possible. But not always possible. Accepted business processes, everyone knew what they were, everyone had an opportunity to voice their feelings. Mostly it worked.

None of this was about stifling people’s views, nothing could be further than the truth. Good organisations actively promote open cultures. Certainly Orient is a prime example of a well run, open, inclusive organisation.

In my opinion this starts to break down when destructive tittle-tattle goes on behind people’s backs. If a senior pro spoke with Fletcher and expressed dressing rooms concerns and that failed to make any difference then for sure that senior pro is fully entitled to escalate and Fletcher could not have any complaints. But son talking to daddy. That is just not on. A recipe to create distrust in the camp. How can any manager, manage with the knowledge that Ling Junior may run to daddy If he does something a few players don’t like. Destructive.

How do I know a correct process was not followed. Had a senior pro discussed the situation with Ling Senior then I’d be willing to believe a correct process was followed. But Ling Junior is not a senior pro, not club captain or team captain. He is a Junior pro who used his personal connection to the Director to grass up his boss. That can never be right.

Thanks for the reply. But again, you do not know. You are assuming process hasn't been followed. You are making up or guessing that Ling and Ling Jnr were the only conversations rather than an ADDITIONAL conversation. What if Ling spoke with Kyprianou? Sotiriou? Sargeant? You don't know the landscape and you are guessing to force evidence you do not have to your point.

I also do not know! So I'm not saying things HAVE been done correctly, and the whole affair feels very sorry. Maybe it wasn't and I would hope and expect Ling to Ling wasn't the only conversation, as that would be wrong.
However, when you say 'run to Daddy', 'grass up', 'tittle tattle', 'son talking to daddy' you are showing your bias by belittling. If a woman at work had spoken with her staff member at your place about her own superior, you wouldn't say 'talking to your boyfriend were you?!', obviously. You don't know, so you're assuming negative.

[Sid Bishop]

All kinda irrelevant as Judd will not be our player this time next week and things won't change as a result of anything said on here.

Well as to Judd not being an Os player next week, well time will tell on that one, but agree that ''things won't change as a result of anything said on here.''

[BIGRON]

No Judd in the squad today