If they’re well-run they should constantly be thinking about organizational changes. This is probably a very good thing. Obviously it depends on if the outside firm has a clue.
Some people are simply never going to get over trading Mookie Betts, and will ham-fistedly insert it into every conversation.
Not necessarily. We do this a lot on the tech side and have organizational consultants bring us in. I mean…there can be layoffs but it’s usually ‘wait, nobody can tell me what this fucking person actually does???’ or ‘why do we have three departments doing the same job.
To quote a baseball executive from the 1980's: "The Cubs traded a horse and wound up with two ponies."
Nor did I.** I read it as everything *except* talent acquisition and disposal. More of evaluating the internal org structure that leads to those outcomes.
I'm not concerned about the apparent lack of baseball experience -- though its hard to be sure -- as it does not appear they will be consulting much about actual baseball. I've never been in corporate-world, but I'm assuming this is more about communication within the organization, redundancies or lack thereof -- things that translate to sports in general.
RIF=consultant talk. For employees, consultants mean bad things coming. Cost reduction or tightening up before a sale.
I think it's even more than that. It's not that he doesn't have concerns. He seems to concede that he doesn't have enough knowledge about many parts of the organization to even have concerns (or not have them). And that it's damn near impossible to run the day to day AND gather that info at the same time (to 'wrap my arms around the operation.").
This, this, this.
They definitely can afford to lay off some inside sales reps and security folk (especially the latter if they can confince Aramark to do the same) They even have some Mets fans in sales now.
This is what I think it is, the Yankees did the same thing this past winter and nothing obvious has resulted.
They can't outsource much of security. No benefit to doing so. They generally promote from within, too, so if entry level is outsourced you lose your supply of upper level security folks. And with ticket sales what they are(n't), getting rid of sales staff makes no sense
It's not about "setting one up." This isn't an expansion team. It's about seeing the ful scope of this one and how to best use/change the one he has.
This may end up with personnel changes, but I agree that's unlikely to be the goal. I take him at his word. He is at the top of a giant organization, and he wants a neutral evaluation/explanation of what all the facets are doing and how they interact with each other toward the overall goal of sustainable winning, something that has been conspicuously absent for the last 10 years.
This seems very different than what Sportsology does. This seems entirely based on quantitative analysis and not organizational efficiency/roles etc.
Got it. In my company it meant fire all the older people who know what they are doing. And lose all the coffee machines let them buy their own.
I'm confused - why would they need organizational cover? Who are they getting cover from? Why wouldn't Breslow just dump the guys that he doesn't want? Dumping people from the previous regime is pretty standard practice for the new head of a baseball organization.
This is what I was about to type up, and you did it better than I would have.
I don't know anything, nor am I insinuating anything, but maybe the audience for the report is ownership.
Obviously true, in the macro sense.
Yep. If you see the Hamilton, Reyes and Valdez equivalent in the FO do you just roll with it? Just because you don't have the confines of a 26 or 40 man roster does that mean that you have unlimited roster space?
