Trouble in Redskins Park?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Come on Schneed. This is pure speculation until someone credible with an inside source says it. As you always say, provide a link. I havent seen anywhere that the problem was between McC and Gruden, just McC and Allen as far as I know

Then you don't understand organizational dynamics. Enjoy your career at the bottom rung of the ladder.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Then you don't understand organizational dynamics. Enjoy your career at the bottom rung of the ladder.

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

gotta learn to speak that "Schneedese"

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Allow me to translate for those of you that dont speak Schneed:

"Yes you caught me bullshitting, it was my speculation that I was trying to pass off as obvious fact. Now Im gonna insult your intelligence in an attempt to not look like a pretentious jack ass."

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

What is your job, Schneed, that you feel you are a subject matter expert? CEO? CFO? GM? I have a feeling that your no higher then like a shift supervisor.

I will preface my statement by saying that I am in a Executive level role and at least 50% of my job is navigating through interpersonal issues. I say that, not to condescend as you have been, but only to give some validity to my statements (unlike your own).

I do understand your point, and I will say that it is most likely that Someone from the coaching staff said something to Allen. That said, as an executive, I know that you can't make judgments on surface information, you need to know the whole story. Here are just a few possibilities, based on similar experiences I have had:

1. Who's the source here? Probably RJF. (I'm not assuming that by any means just exploring possibilities). The stories being told in the article are all surrounding players, and to me sound like they are from a players perspective. The perspective of players (front line employees in general) is especially helpful when exploring something directly related to their jobs, and often more valuable then an executive. When it comes to organizational politics etc, however, their view is very narrow. Everything they know is hearsay. They weren't in the meetings, they don't know confidential information, and they only have to think about a situation from one perspective: their own. I know of many situations where line level employees and especially ex-employees spout off at the mouth about situations that they know nothing about and actually say out right false things if not simply misinterpreted. So one possibility is this report is inaccurate.

2. Yes org charts are helpful, and delineated responsibilities clearly defined are too. But anyone that works in any organization can tell you that the lines are often blurred and when you have a trusting culture it can be incredibly valuable to have some overlap. So sticking to siloed responsibilities for the sake of it is just stupid. Communication is essential when responsibilities overlap, of course, so in this situation, yes Gruden would have to be on board. Who's to say he wasn't? I have seen situations in which higher level executives with egos that need to throw their weight around or are jealous of other's ability to work as a team have sought out unnecessary issues, including stepping out of roles even when it was accepted by everyone else involved. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Allen was picking unnecessary fights or was just putting Scot in his place, as it wer, for no other reason then because he could or maybe he was jealous. Is that effective leadership and management? No, you're right about that. No healthy organization runs this way . . . Are the redskins a healthy organization?

3. It could have been the players that complained to Allen, "how many people do I have to answer to and be lectured by here? I'm a grown man. I don't need 4 people telling me the same damn things."

These are all very real possibilities. I have seen these things play out in organizations. So, lets treat this article for what it is, hearsay. It doesn't really clarify much definitively. If you want to speculate, that's cool, we all do it, but don't insult others intelligence because they don't share your views, because honestly, it only makes you look like a moron.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by WillH

What is your job, Schneed, that you feel you are a subject matter expert? CEO? CFO? GM? I have a feeling that your no higher then like a shift supervisor.

I will preface my statement by saying that I am in a Executive level role and at least 50% of my job is navigating through interpersonal issues. I say that, not to condescend as you have been, but only to give some validity to my statements (unlike your own).

I do understand your point, and I will say that it is most likely that Someone from the coaching staff said something to Allen. That said, as an executive, I know that you can't make judgments on surface information, you need to know the whole story. Here are just a few possibilities, based on similar experiences I have had:

1. Who's the source here? Probably RJF. (I'm not assuming that by any means just exploring possibilities). The stories being told in the article are all surrounding players, and to me sound like they are from a players perspective. The perspective of players (front line employees in general) is especially helpful when exploring something directly related to their jobs, and often more valuable then an executive. When it comes to organizational politics etc, however, their view is very narrow. Everything they know is hearsay. They weren't in the meetings, they don't know confidential information, and they only have to think about a situation from one perspective: their own. I know of many situations where line level employees and especially ex-employees spout off at the mouth about situations that they know nothing about and actually say out right false things if not simply misinterpreted. So one possibility is this report is inaccurate.

2. Yes org charts are helpful, and delineated responsibilities clearly defined are too. But anyone that works in any organization can tell you that the lines are often blurred and when you have a trusting culture it can be incredibly valuable to have some overlap. So sticking to siloed responsibilities for the sake of it is just stupid. Communication is essential when responsibilities overlap, of course, so in this situation, yes Gruden would have to be on board. Who's to say he wasn't? I have seen situations in which higher level executives with egos that need to throw their weight around or are jealous of other's ability to work as a team have sought out unnecessary issues, including stepping out of roles even when it was accepted by everyone else involved. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Allen was picking unnecessary fights or was just putting Scot in his place, as it wer, for no other reason then because he could or maybe he was jealous. Is that effective leadership and management? No, you're right about that. No healthy organization runs this way . . . Are the redskins a healthy organization?

3. It could have been the players that complained to Allen, "how many people do I have to answer to and be lectured by here? I'm a grown man. I don't need 4 people telling me the same damn things."

These are all very real possibilities. I have seen these things play out in organizations. So, lets treat this article for what it is, hearsay. It doesn't really clarify much definitively. If you want to speculate, that's cool, we all do it, but don't insult others intelligence because they don't share your views, because honestly, it only makes you look like a moron.

Your feeling is wrong.

Honestly I couldn't get through your whole post. Too long. But I caught snippets.

If you think Gruden would have been OK with McC pulling a player aside then you don't know Jay very well. I'm not saying I've met him, to be clear I am saying I have a way better read on him than you do.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No seriously, I find it unfathomably laughable that you think there's any possibility that Allen would have a problem with McC talking to a player about on field behavior if Gruden was OK with it.

Have you ever put any thought into why organizations set up their org charts the way they do? Because it comes across like you don't.

Gruden was absolutely not OK with that. It's not a question.

Lets be clear, Im not definitively saying you're wrong. Im saying at this point its just speculation. Do you really have so much faith in Allen(the guy that lied to Scot about how much power he'd have when he signed on, falsely accused him of various things, smeared his name in league circles, and is according to some hated across the league)that the only reason he disliked Scots handling of players could be because Jay disliked it? You're absolutely certain that Jay wasnt okay with it and that Bruce couldnt have disliked it himself for some other reason? And this based on an article that mentions Jays name once in a throwaway sentence? Thats some serious tunnel vision