Michael Owen’s statement above shows the point of view of a player after manageri-al succession. With a new manager coming, the atmosphere in a team is tense. The player’s skills are reassessed and their position in the team is insecure. It becomes necessary to demonstrate some strength and impress the new manager. A strained situation for everyone involved, not just the players. Owen’s remark then naturally does not take into account the manager’s point of view and how he might perceive a team and react to the disruptive effects of succession. In sports, managers perform several functions which are often deemed critical to the performance of organizations. Therefore, when teams perform poorly, there is a common notion that managerial succession and replacing the manager will lead to improved performance. In spite of numerous studies and ongoing attention to this interesting phenomenon, the effect of managerial successions on team performances remains a debated issue. Related to this issue is the investigation of the impact of a manager’s attributes, such as ability or experience. Do managerial skills affect team performance, and if so, how can these attributes be assessed? The results of such studies might solidify an evaluation of a manager’s work when carefully distinguishing between the manager’s contribution to team success or failure and the team’s own performance. As such, investigations like those studied in this paper might help to break the today often criticized habit of hiring and firing a manager solely based on won-loss balances. Obviously, there is still a need to investigate this phenomenon in greater detail in a theoretical and empirical way.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. State of Research
3. Theoretical background
3.1 Common Sense and Vicious Circle
3.2 Ritual Scapegoating
4. Econometric analysis based on J.L. Fizel & P. D’itri
4.1 Analytical procedures and data
4.2 Analysis and Interpretation
4.3 Results
5. Additional econometric studies
5.1 Analysis of J. Pfeffer and A. Davis-Blake
5.2 Analysis of D. Jacobs and L. Singell
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Focus
This paper examines the complex relationship between managerial succession and team performance in professional sports. The central research question investigates whether managerial changes genuinely improve organizational outcomes or if such successions are primarily symbolic actions, and furthermore, how specific manager attributes such as ability and experience influence performance.
- Theoretical evaluation of the common sense, vicious circle, and ritual scapegoating theories.
- Econometric analysis of managerial efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA).
- Investigation of the impact of manager attributes and human capital on team performance.
- Critique of methodologies used to isolate managerial effects from team success.
- Assessment of the link between player talent, managerial quality, and winning percentages.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Ritual Scapegoating
In addition to the common sense and vicious circle theory there is a third conflicting theory based on a study by Gamson and Scotch (1964). In their ritual scapegoating no-way causality theory the authors criticize Grusky´s findings. They point out the ritual scapegoating as a third theory which assumes that “the effect of the field manager on team performance is relatively unimportant” (cf. Gamson & Scotch, 1964, p.70). In their study they distinguish between long run and short run effects regarding to the team performance. In contrast to Grusky, according to Gamson and Scotch the policies of the general manager and other front office personnel together with systematic promotion of talent are the most important long-run determinants of team performance. So “the field manager, who is concerned with day-to-day tactical decisions, has minimal responsibility for such management functions” (cf. Gamson & Scotch, 1964, p. 70). In comparison to the long run, in the short run the amount of obtainable talent (the players themselves) is the most important determinant of team performance. So in this case the manager is exchangeable. Gamson and Scotch underline this interchangeability of managers by describing ritual scapegoating as “a convenient, anxiety-reducing act which the participants in the ceremony regard as a way of improving performance, even though real improvement can come only through long-range organizational decisions” (cf. Gamson & Scotch, 1964, p. 70f.). Therefore the act of firing a manager is a classic example of ritual scapegoating. As in Grusky´s study, the authors found a high correlation of effectiveness and rate of succession because of scapegoating. That is because the longer a team performs poorly the more likely is the dismissal of a manager as an act of ritual scapegoating in order to appease the fans, the players and the front office.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the debate surrounding managerial succession in sports and outlines the paper's goal to investigate the impact of manager attributes on team performance.
2. State of Research: Reviews existing literature regarding the relationship between manager changes and organizational effectiveness, beginning with early studies like Grusky (1963).
3. Theoretical background: Explains the three core theoretical frameworks—common sense, vicious circle, and ritual scapegoating—used to interpret managerial turnover.
3.1 Common Sense and Vicious Circle: Details Grusky's hypothesis regarding the negative correlation between succession rates and organizational performance.
3.2 Ritual Scapegoating: Discusses the theory that managerial dismissal is often a symbolic, anxiety-reducing act rather than a performance-improving strategy.
4. Econometric analysis based on J.L. Fizel & P. D’itri: Evaluates managerial efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in the context of college basketball.
4.1 Analytical procedures and data: Outlines the data collection and the DEA methodology used to define and measure managerial performance.
4.2 Analysis and Interpretation: Presents the findings regarding rank correlations between managerial efficiency and winning percentages.
4.3 Results: Summarizes the conclusion that team performance is the primary driver of succession, regardless of managerial efficiency.
5. Additional econometric studies: Extends the investigation by analyzing alternative econometric approaches to manager attributes.
5.1 Analysis of J. Pfeffer and A. Davis-Blake: Examines how administrator experience and prior performance mediate succession effects in the NBA.
5.2 Analysis of D. Jacobs and L. Singell: Explores the isolation of managerial contribution from player performance using baseball data.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes findings, noting the lack of consistent evidence for any single theory and emphasizing the complexity of evaluating manager influence.
Keywords
Managerial succession, Team performance, Sports economics, Ritual scapegoating, Manager attributes, Data Envelopment Analysis, Organizational effectiveness, Coaching tenure, Winning percentage, Player talent, Vicious circle theory, Managerial efficiency, Human capital, Professional sports, Tactical skills
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper explores the impact of managerial succession on team performance in professional sports, analyzing whether changing a manager leads to improved results or serves other organizational purposes.
Which central theoretical themes are discussed?
The work focuses on three primary theories: the "common sense" theory (manager change leads to improvement), the "vicious circle" theory (manager change causes disruption), and "ritual scapegoating" (manager dismissal is a symbolic act).
What is the primary objective of the study?
The primary goal is to examine if managerial skills, such as ability and experience, have a measurable impact on team success and to determine if current hiring/firing habits based on win-loss records are truly rational.
What scientific methodology does the author utilize?
The paper employs a comprehensive literature review combined with the analysis of specific econometric studies, notably utilizing Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and multiple regression models.
What topics are covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body reviews the academic history of succession studies, details specific econometric models by Fizel and D'Itri, Pfeffer and Davis-Blake, and Jacobs and Singell, and evaluates their data and conclusions.
Which keywords define the core of this work?
Key terms include managerial succession, team performance, ritual scapegoating, managerial efficiency, and organizational effectiveness.
How does the "Hopi rain dance" analogy apply to sports management?
It describes the "slump-ending" effect, suggesting that performance often improves due to regression to the mean rather than the effectiveness of a new manager, making the firing of a coach a deceptive, symbolic gesture.
What is the "halo effect" mentioned in the study?
The "halo effect" refers to the belief that managers climb the professional ladder based on their past reputation or perceived luck rather than their actual competence or contribution to team success.
What conclusion do Fizel and D'Itri reach regarding basketball managers?
They conclude that while recruiting skills and efficiency are important, managers are typically fired if they simply do not win, regardless of their actual managerial efficiency.
- Quote paper
- Martin Mertens (Author), 2011, Managerial succession and team performance: The role of manager attributes, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/199371
