The long-established view of management communication starts from the assumption that the meaning of a particular event, change or policy, etc. is determined by the relevant manager(s) and transmitted to staff through a variety of methods. This formal, structured view sits at the heart of most approaches to organizational communication, with its primary focus being on “getting the message across” to those involved. When done well, this can provide an important informational backcloth to what follows. But, of itself, it communicates nothing. In practice, it serves as an ‘invitation’ for people to communicate with each other about what they’ve heard or read, what they believe it means for them and how they might respond.
Communication is a relational process, and it is this joint sense-making that ultimately determines how people act and what happens overall. Every conversation is a co-creation forum. That is to say, organization is continuously (re-)emerging from the widespread interplay of people’s small-group and one-to-one interactions. Two other things that we can say about this are that most of these conversations take place informally, without the relevant manager being present; and that this practice is occurring throughout the organizational hierarchy, whatever form that might take.
Introducing VAR - A clear and obvious error
The recent controversy concerning the performance of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), in the Premier League match between Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool, is the latest in a catalogue of incidents involving the increasing dominance of the technology in the professional game. Most tellingly, although the eventual decision made by the VAR favoured his own team, the 'Spurs manager, Ange Postecoglou, was scathing in his condemnation of its use. His concerns appear to be shared by other managers; with England boss, Gareth Southgate, reputedly having said that the game was better pre-VAR.
As a one-time engineer, I appreciate the value of technology. But only when it is applied in an appropriate context. The fact that a particular technology exists doesn’t mean that it automatically adds value - less still that it leads to ‘correct’ decision-making in the context of association football. The game is a complex, fast-moving process. VAR is not simply flawed in its practice but in its basic concept. Things that happen in football are not reducible to pseudo-scientific decision-making. Apparently, many onfield decisions are so clearly and obviously mistaken that it often takes several minutes for those operating the technology to reach their decisions. As part of this, they use slow-motion replays and views from multiple angles that bear no relationship to the complex social reality of the in-the-moment interactions that took place on the pitch.
The only thing that is clear and obvious to me is that it is not simply the way in which the technology is being applied that is flawed. Its very use is fundamentally ill-conceived.
Continue reading "Introducing VAR - A clear and obvious error" »
Posted on 12 October 2023 in Complexity, Current Affairs, News Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tags: complexity, football, VAR
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us |