HKS555

Case Number 1933.2

t
os
A Tale of Two Managers
Teaching Note

rP
Case abstract

This short case is intended as a vehicle instructors can use to introduce cases to a management or
leadership class, and to start a discussion about what organizational ‘effectiveness’ looks like. The case
reviews the experience of two different managers in top English soccer teams. Students must use the
information provided to advise the boards of these teams about whether the two managers deserve to be

yo
‘sacked’. Information in the first part of the case provides information about team performance (wins and
losses), manager popularity, and such factors that influence perspectives on effectiveness. The second part
of the case shows decisions about who was actually ‘sacked’ which may surprise some. The two parts
together allow for an interesting discussion about what organizational ‘effectiveness’ is really about.
op
Class description

The case fits in well with a new class, where students are being introduced to case discussion and
to questions about organizational effectiveness. It is well-suited to a course on management and
organizations, or leadership, where instructors aim to raise basic questions at the start. Such questions
could be: “What is an effective organization, anyway?” or “What makes a manager or leader effective?”
tC

The first fifteen minutes: These could be spent introducing the students to the course, and to the
case teaching approach. Students are then asked a basic question to frame the course, such as those above:
“What is an effective organization, anyway?” or “What makes a manager or leader effective?”

The next twenty minutes: The students all receive copies of the first part of the case, and are asked
No

to read the material and make a decision about whether they will advise the two team boards to ‘sack’ one
or more of the managers, and why. The instructor may explain what ‘sack’ means (to ‘fire’ or ‘release’
someone from employment). He or she may also tell students not to focus on the fact that this is a ‘sports’
case but to think of it rather as a case about management and effectiveness—which just happens to look at
a common management issue in the context of a sports team. The instructor may also clarify some terms
used in the cases that are directly related to professional soccer in Europe: (1) Teams play in leagues

________________________________________________________________________________________________
Do

This teaching note was written by Matt Andrews, Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of
Government. HKS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as
endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.

Copyright © 2010 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
revised, translated, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the written permission of the Case Program.
For orders and copyright permission information, please visit our website at www.ksgcase.harvard.edu or send a
written request to Case Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy
Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.

This Teaching Note is authorized for use only by Dr. P. Paulraj SJ, Bharathidasan University until Jul 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860.
 t
comprising multiple other teams, and the leagues are organized according to ability—with top leagues

os
having the best teams and lower leagues having weaker teams; (2) Teams in top leagues make much more
money than teams in lower leagues, given that the top league games are shown on television, etc.; (3)
Teams that do badly in a league will be relegated—dropped to a lower league—which typically costs a lot of
money; (4) Teams also play in cup tournaments, in their home country and sometimes across Europe. These

rP
tournaments create opportunities to win money and prestige for the team.

The next fifteen minutes: Let the students talk in groups of four about their views, and come to an
agreement in each group as to who they will advise to be ‘sacked’ and why. The instructor should have a
table drawn up on the board, directing the groups as to what is required of them. It could look like this, and
students should be asked to identify which of the four ‘sacking’ options they will advise for:

yo
Manager To be sacked?
Blum only
Barnes only
Both
Neither
op
The next twenty minutes: The instructor will canvas the room to get numbers in each ‘sacking’
option, by groups. More students typically advise that Barnes be sacked and that Blum be retained, given
that Barnes’ team was actually relegated from the top league and that Barnes himself made some errors in
judgment. The instructor should write reasons for the students’ answers in a different part of the board.
The answers could be loosely organized into four different areas, as follows (but without the headings…see
tC

next step).

‘What’ they did ‘Who’ they depend on ‘Who’ they depend upon ‘How’ they managed
(Goal orientation) externally internally (Process)
(External legitimacy) (Participation)

reasons reasons reasons reasons

No

The next ten minutes: Provide headings to the comments, in the four columns, tagging them back
to the reading by Scott (below). One could also relate to Hal Rainey’s text on managing public organizations
(he discussed organizational effectiveness in a similar way). The instructors should try and show that
different perspectives exist as to what organizational effectiveness is, and that these perspectives are
Do

sometimes about what the organization does (its performance), sometimes about who they depend upon
(are external stakeholders happy?), sometimes about who they depend upon internally (do staff, players
etc. feel part of the organization?) and sometimes about how things are done (is the process considered
effective, transparent, etc.?).

HKS Case Program 2 of 3 Case Number 1933.2

This Teaching Note is authorized for use only by Dr. P. Paulraj SJ, Bharathidasan University until Jul 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860.
 t
The instructor could draw from Scott or Rainey to reflect on different schools of thought about

os
effectiveness (that mirror the ‘what’, ‘who’ (external), ‘who’ (internal) and ‘how’ categories. Scott also
provides a great quote to summarize the central idea that effectiveness is a fairly relative concept: “There is
no such thing as a “good organization” in any absolute sense. Always it is relative; and an organization that
is good in one context or under one condition may be bad under another.” (William Ashby)

rP
The last ten minutes: The instructor should hand out part 2 of the case, which shows that Barnes
was retained and Blum was ‘sacked’. The instructor should summarize the case if the students do not have
time to read it in class. The real situation should be a surprise to many, and underlines the idea that
organizational and managerial effectiveness is a slippery concept. An instructor of a class on comparative
management could note that some organizations are more demanding than others (Blum’s team versus
Barnes team) and that effectiveness may even be judged differently across countries—is the performance

yo
hurdle different for a manager in a developing country as compared to that facing a manager in a
developed country? These could be useful questions for future discussion. The instructor could also ask
students to think about how managers can manage across all four questions at once—being concerned for
what, who (external), who (internal) and how. The instructor could also ask how an emphasis on
performance only can compromise or complicate a manager’s job, given the complexity of effectiveness.
op
Reading

Scott, R.W. 1987. Organizations. 2nd Edition. Prentice hall, New Jersey (Ch.1, 3-27)
tC
No
Do

HKS Case Program 3 of 3 Case Number 1933.2

This Teaching Note is authorized for use only by Dr. P. Paulraj SJ, Bharathidasan University until Jul 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or
617.783.7860.