Scolari sacking adds support to distributed leadership theory

Phil Scolari

Phil Scolari

Chelsea FC fires Luiz Felipe Scolari after seven months in charge as head coach. One explanation for his relative lack of success at Chelsea is that leadership of a group often involves one or more unnoticed but important assistants

Today [Feb 8th 2009] two coaches of Premier League football teams were dismissed. Early in the day Tony Adams departed from Portsmouth. No great surprise, and this was considered a commercial decision based on poor results of an inexperienced manager.

Mid afternoon, and to a greater degree of general shock, Luiz Felipe Scolari was fired by Chelsea. To be sure, Scolari had failed to meet the aspirations of Chelsea’s billionaire owner Roman Abramovitch. To be sure Chelsea had drifted out of contention for winning the Premiership. The general surprise was based on a perception of Scolari as a proven world-beating manager. England had failed to secure his services at the time of the World Cup, when he had been managing the Portuguese national team. His earlier track record included winning the world-cup with his own national team Brazil. On arrival at Chelsea he had won over the Press with intelligent and amusing press conferences. So his image sustained belief in his leadership credentials after results began to dip. The financially minded had noted that Chelsea had been attempting to rein in the apparently ‘money-is-no-object’ attitude of Abramovitch. Even if there was a case for replacing Scolari, the club would eventually have to reveal the monster costs of buying out three managers in a financial year. Of these, Mourinho and Scolari were global figures with matching contracts.

How to explain what happened?

As the news was announced, a BBC reporter was put on the spot. How to explain what happened? He confessed it had been a great shock. Then, he honestly suggested that maybe the critical incident was the departure from Chelsea for West Ham of Steve Clarke. It turns out that Clarke was an outstanding assistant at Chelsea, to Jose, and that Morinho had considered him good enough to be his successor at Chelsea, recommending him to the new manager [September 2008] Gianfranco Zola at West Ham.

According to another report

Zola played with Clarke during his seven-year spell at Chelsea but has no experience of him as a coach. So he turned to Mourinho, who promoted Clarke from youth-team coach to his assistant after becoming Chelsea’s manager in June 2004. They won two Premier League titles, one FA Cup and two League Cups.
Mourinho, now at Internazionale, believes Zola would receive the same support and high-level coaching from Clarke as he enjoyed at Chelsea. Zola has told West Ham’s chief executive, Scott Duxbury, to continue the pursuit of Clarke despite the feud it has created with his former employers.
News of Mourinho’s intervention will no doubt infuriate Chelsea officials, who are making it as difficult as possible for Clarke to leave. The former full-back’s resignation was rejected on Friday before Chelsea, having agreed over the weekend to allow the 45-year-old to move, informed West Ham it will cost them £5m.
That demand has bewildered the hierarchy at Upton Park because Clarke has just two years to run on his £600,000-a-year contract and has been marginalised at Chelsea since Mourinho departed. They also see it as disrespectful to a man who has given the club almost 20 years’ service and wants a new challenge. West Ham are happy to pay compensation but are not willing to go higher than £1m and are prepared to take Chelsea to court.

The BBC reporter today pointed out that the move by coincided with a decline in performance at Chelsea, and a strengthening at West Ham over the next few months.

Distributed leadership

The point, it seems to me, is that we are still too easily swept away with the notion of leadership vested in the great leader, the special one. (I don’t just mean Jose Mourinho). So the contributions of a great number 2 get ignored. Until, that is, the facts just don’t add up anymore, and we have to find a different explanation.

And until someone comes up with a more convincing one, I’m sticking to the ideas of distributed leadership

To go more deeply

Mourino’s departure from Chelsea [Dec 2007]
Breaking news: English football isolated from Jose Mourinho

What Jose did next: How a leader can make a difference
Tactical imagination of Jose Mourinho

Fan who anticipated Scolari’s departure
One blog anticipating Scolari’s dismissal

Times account of the final blow
Luiz Felipe Scolari sacked as Chelsea manager after meeting with Roman Abramovich

Overview of Distributed Leadership
Distributed leadership

6 Responses to Scolari sacking adds support to distributed leadership theory

  1. Tudor says:

    Breaking news

    Discussion of Steve Clarke’s loss and importance as ‘a conduit between dressing room and club management’ adds to the distributed leadership perspective.

    An interim manager seems to most likely option for the club (Even Chelsea’s resources unable to whistle up a top-level candidate immediately. This suggests a more implusive than reflective action. You could say there has been a ‘last straw’ or ‘tipping point’ event (maybe the most recent home draw with unprententious Hull City amid croud discontent).

  2. Anthony says:

    I am with you on this view point. Many of the great managers (leaders) rely heavily on a valued right hand man. Alex Ferguson has had a series of them at Old Trafford and part of his longevity could probably be put down to his ability to replace them whenever they moved on.

    Going further back, Brian Clough had his best times when Peter Taylor was by his side and then struggled more without him. Another contemporary example is Arsene Wenger with the often ignored Pat Rice.

    The role of football manager is so encompassing that they need to have the hands on support of a No. 2 to act as the conduit between themselves and the players. How often do we see quotes from disgruntled players about the manager never speaking to them or explaining what is happening with contract talks, the fact they are not in the first team etc. This never happened under Mourinho at Chelsea, doesn’t happen at Man Utd or Arsenal. The lack of leadership support creates the vacuum for this discontent to flourish.

  3. […] Scolari sacking adds support to distributed leadership theory […]

  4. […] for signs of leadership distributed across membership of a social group or team. See the post on distributed leadership at Chelsea Football Club. That seems also to be the case […]

  5. Well, they do need a right hand man. And usually, those places are expensive because we can see a high rate of right hand man becoming very good themselves…

  6. Tudor says:

    Dear Live Premiership commentator.

    I’m aware that the original post is now history, and Chelsea FC has hired and fired (sort of) Avram Grant since it was written.

    You may have a point about the the leader’s deputy (“apprentice leader?”) benefiting from the experience. Do they tend to take-over or do they have to move. The latter, I suspect is more common.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: