New Head of Operations set to be appointed

[1989Tiger]

Adding a Head of Rugby Operations to the mix says to me we are definitely going to see the appointment of a Director of Rugby, otherwise you have too many people at ‘Head of’ level without an overall leader. Whether that’s an internal or an external appointment is a different matter.

Not necessarily. Murphy is the Head Coach so is in charge of the playing side of things. What he says goes. He decides what players he wants and tells the Head of Rugby Operations who then tries to sign them, leaving Murphy to concentrate on coaching. To me, if we get a Head of Rugby Operations, we won’t need a Director of Rugby, whose job would be similar to that of the Head of Rugby Operations.

[fleabane]

“To me, if we get a Head of Rugby Operations, we won’t need a Director of Rugby, whose job would be similar to that of the Head of Rugby Operations.”

In other words, we are left with Murphy running the rugby side?

Oh dear.

[RagingBull]

You can have both Director of rugby and Rugby operations manager.
Tigers used to have both, and Gloucester currently have both.

[Grimlish]

To me, if we get a Head of Rugby Operations, we won’t need a Director of Rugby, whose job would be similar to that of the Head of Rugby Operations.

Surely the Head of Rugby Operations is there to help keep the Director of Rugby role as a strategic role, not being dragged into the day to day side of scouting, development operations and presumably too the sounding out of potential target players.

The key is whether the new role is answerable to either the Head Coach or a Director of Rugby. Geordan has said it’s not the titles that count but the roles and accountabilities. That’s true, and if they are going for minimal change they may hold back on turning GM’s role into DoR for a season or two as they did with Cockerill. But if the Head of Rugby Operations is made answerable to the Head Coach but foresees a (new) DoR coming in over them, and there’s conflict between the two ‘Heads of’, how does that get resolved? It’s a recipe for chaos imho.

I don’t think the Board will make that mistake - I think they want proper clarity and accountability. In which case there will be a DoR. At least, I hope so. Again, whether that’s an internal or an external appointment is a different matter.

[strawclearer]

To me, if we get a Head of Rugby Operations, we won’t need a Director of Rugby, whose job would be similar to that of the Head of Rugby Operations.

Surely the Head of Rugby Operations is there to help keep the Director of Rugby role as a strategic role, not being dragged into the day to day side of scouting, development operations and presumably too the sounding out of potential target players.

The key is whether the new role is answerable to either the Head Coach or a Director of Rugby. Geordan has said it’s not the titles that count but the roles and accountabilities. That’s true, and if they are going for minimal change they may hold back on turning GM’s role into DoR for a season or two as they did with Cockerill. But if the Head of Rugby Operations is made answerable to the Head Coach but foresees a (new) DoR coming in over them, and there’s conflict between the two ‘Heads of’, how does that get resolved? It’s a recipe for chaos imho.

I don’t think the Board will make that mistake - I think they want proper clarity and accountability. In which case there will be a DoR. At least, I hope so. Again, whether that’s an internal or an external appointment is a different matter.

[My embolden]
This is exactly SC's view - or certainly was a couple of weeks ago. The purpose of this new position was 'simply' to take the contractual 'drudgery' away from Ged Glynn, thus allowing him to focus on scouting. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Traveller]

It is extraordinary how much time is being devoted to getting an organisational structure into place that might work. I don't mean in terms of people discussing it on this forum, that is what it is there for, but in terms of the club itself.

'Structure' as they say is the 'function of purpose'. Whenever I have been involved with a business that isn't thriving, a contributory factor is often because they've tried to build an organisational structure around the incumbents. This generally means compensating for weaknesses, emotional attachments to the organisation etc. Businesses that thrive have clarity around purpose, and put structures in place to support that purpose, even if this means saying goodbye to people.

Interesting how many 'hard' even 'ruthless' decisions have been made in the past few years on the playing front, in the name of clarity of purpose i.e. Moody's departure, Slaters departure, various coaches'. However when it comes to the boys 'behind the scenes' no matter what happens, job descriptions are re-written and tweaked, people are added, structures are changed; but the same people stay in a job.

[RagingBull]

To me, if we get a Head of Rugby Operations, we won’t need a Director of Rugby, whose job would be similar to that of the Head of Rugby Operations.

Surely the Head of Rugby Operations is there to help keep the Director of Rugby role as a strategic role, not being dragged into the day to day side of scouting, development operations and presumably too the sounding out of potential target players.

The key is whether the new role is answerable to either the Head Coach or a Director of Rugby. Geordan has said it’s not the titles that count but the roles and accountabilities. That’s true, and if they are going for minimal change they may hold back on turning GM’s role into DoR for a season or two as they did with Cockerill. But if the Head of Rugby Operations is made answerable to the Head Coach but foresees a (new) DoR coming in over them, and there’s conflict between the two ‘Heads of’, how does that get resolved? It’s a recipe for chaos imho.

I don’t think the Board will make that mistake - I think they want proper clarity and accountability. In which case there will be a DoR. At least, I hope so. Again, whether that’s an internal or an external appointment is a different matter.

[My embolden]
This is exactly SC's view - or certainly was a couple of weeks ago. The purpose of this new position was 'simply' to take the contractual 'drudgery' away from Ged Glynn, thus allowing him to focus on scouting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually that might be how Cohen words it in his spin sort of way, but it is really a demoting Ged Glynn back down to his original position.
It's not a "New Position" it's a position that has been at the club since 2005.

[Grimlish]

It is extraordinary how much time is being devoted to getting an organisational structure into place that might work.

Isn’t that just a product of the stage in the cycle we find ourselves needing new Coaching blood? There’s a World Cup coming soon on which some likely candidates for a top job at a top club will rightly be focussed. We should expect such a calibre of appointment.

On your other points - we all have weaknesses and are less of a liability to our colleagues if we understand them and act on that knowledge. And there’s no single best structure, no uniform mould for people (rugby coaches are human too) to fit into.

Sometimes that means changing structures or roles is the right thing to do and sometimes it means changing personnel.

You’re right that it’s clearly not a judgement call that the Board have always got right in recent times (eg the whole Mauger/Cockerill thing), but simply sacking someone (even if that is the right decision eg MoC) doesn’t solve the need to get the fit of people and structure right.

[strawclearer]

It is extraordinary how much time is being devoted to getting an organisational structure into place that might work. I don't mean in terms of people discussing it on this forum, that is what it is there for, but in terms of the club itself.

'Structure' as they say is the 'function of purpose'. Whenever I have been involved with a business that isn't thriving, a contributory factor is often because they've tried to build an organisational structure around the incumbents. This generally means compensating for weaknesses, emotional attachments to the organisation etc. Businesses that thrive have clarity around purpose, and put structures in place to support that purpose, even if this means saying goodbye to people.

Interesting how many 'hard' even 'ruthless' decisions have been made in the past few years on the playing front, in the name of clarity of purpose i.e. Moody's departure, Slaters departure, various coaches'. However when it comes to the boys 'behind the scenes' no matter what happens, job descriptions are re-written and tweaked, people are added, structures are changed; but the same people stay in a job.

It's fair to say that 'structure is the function of purpose' but, in reality, everything should be! I think it's more important to recognise that 'structure' need not simply be something that 'supports' the performance of the organisation but can more constructively be something that 'enables' the capital and creativity which ultimately leads to growth. Let's think of 'structure' as a 'competency'.

[BFG]

I think a structure of discipline is required and the sooner the better in my opinion.
There are too many voices for me, both playing and non playing staff, most of which need telling to shut it!

[RagingBull]

The academy works well now because we have a clear structure, with pretty much the right people in the right places.
Wilks was a great poach from Sale.

Top guy - Head of Rugby Operations

U16's-U18's
Top guy - Academy Manager - David Wilks
Head Coach - Matt Smith
Forwards Coach + Head of AASE - Tom Harrison

U13's-U16's
Top guy - Junior Academy Manager - Greg Mannion
U15-U16's - 4 DPG centres and 4 Head coaches who report to Mannion
U13-U15's - 8 DPP Centres and 8 Head Coaches who report to Mannion

So the best players from the DPP go to the DPG from their either go to the Academy or AASE (Or both) which leads to the Development Squad and then First team squad. (In theory)

Mannion and Wilks work together and under the Head of Rugby Operations.
It's clear and has an obvious hierarchy with a lot of it being cleared up recently.

Whereas the Senior team is a bit less obvious.
Currently I think it's
The Rugby Committee which has Tom, Kay, Underwood, Cohen, Glynn, Murphy (But within that committee certain people have more say than others.
But also you have Director of rugby/Head Coach under that (Despite being in the Committe)
The head of rugby operations is under that but also in said committee that can trump things. (although Cohen was still helping out somewhat with the HoRO as well).
Then you have the Senior coaches under that.
Finally the Team Manager who helps with things like housing etc for the Players.

To me the Rugby committee is just 1 too many check and balance. The DOR needs to given free rein for their vision it just feels like the club is hampering that with it.
Just need a
DOR
Under that have the Head of Rugby operations reporting to him on the non playing side and the Head Coach reporting to him on the playing side.
done.

[1989Tiger]

“To me, if we get a Head of Rugby Operations, we won’t need a Director of Rugby, whose job would be similar to that of the Head of Rugby Operations.”

In other words, we are left with Murphy running the rugby side?

Oh dear.

Yes. A DOR to sort out signings recommended by Murphy and sort out contracts for current players.

What would a Head of Rugby Operations do? Isn’t that just too many people with a DOR as well?

[Traveller]

It is extraordinary how much time is being devoted to getting an organisational structure into place that might work.

Isn’t that just a product of the stage in the cycle we find ourselves needing new Coaching blood? There’s a World Cup coming soon on which some likely candidates for a top job at a top club will rightly be focussed. We should expect such a calibre of appointment.

On your other points - we all have weaknesses and are less of a liability to our colleagues if we understand them and act on that knowledge. And there’s no single best structure, no uniform mould for people (rugby coaches are human too) to fit into.

Sometimes that means changing structures or roles is the right thing to do and sometimes it means changing personnel.

You’re right that it’s clearly not a judgement call that the Board have always got right in recent times (eg the whole Mauger/Cockerill thing), but simply sacking someone (even if that is the right decision eg MoC) doesn’t solve the need to get the fit of people and structure right.

Pretty much agree with all of this. Just worried that yesterday a very inexperienced and unproven Head Coach was saying he has confidence in his third rate coaching team. That would suggest that there isn't new blood coming in WC or not. I hope that isn't the case.