I think everyone here is comfortable with a change in plans, and everyone likes the new plan. The dispute is that there is a faction here that maintains that this has been the plan all along, though management dared not speak its name, and another faction, of which I am a member, that thinks the new plan was started 2.5 years later than it should have been.SKYO wrote:Well why can't a plan change like in the real business world? Companies in turmoil always adapt and change direction with the mantra to succeed being the main goal, even if it is a long term plan.
Pretty much all of my dissatisfaction with Benning's work has been based on the decision to try a "re-tool-on-the-fly" first. It is what he said he was doing, and what it looked like he was trying to do. (Perhaps in one of Aqilini's, Linden's, or Benning's future there is a tell-all book in which they describe what was really in their hearts and minds for those first two and half years.) I recognize that may not have been his decision, and I'm perfectly prepared to be impressed with how he manages an actual rebuild, now that everyone is clear that that is the mission. The delay in getting started on that will almost certainly mean that any future success will come too late to meet my criterion for genius management, but with a lot of luck, he could still meet the board consensus minimum requirement of conference finals by 2020.
