I know it's not 100% on topic, but what appalls me is the repetitive obfuscation of responsibility as a leader I see in Deans (as distinct from, but perhaps linked with, obfuscation of language in communication as so well highlighted here).
By which I mean, solely by way of example, this: "Deans pulls Wallabies back into line":
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...line-as-810cap-boks-await-20110812-1iqsj.html
Every time the Wallabies deliver another bungled game with manifest evidence of poor preparation and coaching deficiency on a panoramic scale, Deans grabs Growden and a piece appears immediately afterwards (as per today and the last few days) that basically lays fault with the players for doing something inadequate that (a) the coach is not happy with and (b) is the fault of the players not somehow complying with the coach's implicit plans or wishes. And, accordingly, Deans is having to now issue 'tough new instructions', 'demand more or better from his players', and 'spots in the team are now on the line', and so forth. Growden proves the perfect mouthpiece and acts as though he is listening to an oracle of ultimate rugby wisdom, he offers no critique or assessment, just a full recycling in probably Australia's most read rugby journal.
There _never_ appears a piece where Deans (or any of the oddly constructed and oddly titled support coaching group) takes any responsibility for the mediocrity and losses. There is _never_ a '...gee, I am the Head Coach, what we're doing is not working well, and I take a big share of the responsibility and I'm going to work harder on getting my own plans and the team right, don't blame the team, they respond to what we ask and set down...' IMO, in all my experience of leading teams and people, this is what a genuinely self-confident leader does, he or she absolves the group under them to relieve the pressure somewhat and to how show enervating fortitude and
an obligation for leadership to deliver, not just the soldiers in battle. This is called 'character' and genuine nobility under fire, where you lead by example, not subtle blame shifting and critique-avoidance so the focus is moved away from you.
In this, I am
not suggesting that players are not 'at fault' etc, and should not be critiqued as such. Far from it. But I am suggesting that we have a national coach that does not actually, when the chips are down, take responsibility for anything and for results, the core of his media management ploys are always to imply that his charges are in some ways deficient and have not quite yet learnt to play in the mode set forth by their master. And this is not sound leadership, and it will not build true trust, excellence of winners' culture and deeper morale with those in the charge of the national rugby coach.
