Last week Eddie Jones was sacked as England Rugby head coach, 3 years after leading them to the World Cup Final, beating the All Blacks emphatically along the way.
Jones is an incredible coach as he also took the Wallabies to the World Cup Final in 2003, (again beating the All Blacks in the semi) but was also sacked 2 years later, and I find this pattern really interesting.
What do you think could explain the pattern of Eddie Jones leading teams to the World Cup Final, only to be sacked a few years later?
This is an interesting question Ben and you obviously have more of an insight on Eddie as a person and a coach than I do but here are my thoughts based on over 15 years of management and leadership.
In my view Eddie Jones is like Michael Cheika. They are intense and motivated individuals but as coaches, leaders, and managers they are what are as known as "Change Agents". They are fantastic at what they do in terms of motivating people and introducing change, but their intense style wears off pretty quickly. The message that they convey, whilst consistent, becomes over used and same, same and the people around them begin to switch off and any subtle changes are missed. These sorts of leaders have a limited lifespan, they are often not good at developing new inclusions in the team and often tend to favour people who have been successful for them in the past. None of which are positive traits in a team environment.
If in the event that Rennie is moved on in favour of Eddie before this World Cup it needs to be done with a two-year plan for Eddie to be the head honcho and a new coach appointed after that with Eddie to advise, mentor and develop the new coach for the 2027 RWC. This will allow the players to hear a different voice conveying similar messages and break any overly chummy player coach relationships.
I was party to an interview that was done earlier this week with one of Eddie's former Japanese players. He was glowing in his praise for the impact Eddie had had but did note that for all his work ethic and strategic nous, he was a very schizophrenic personality and probably had a shelf life because of it, as most top coaches do to be fair, as their relationships can stress under pressure. The player, who featured in the Miracle of Brighton, said Eddie had reached his end with Japan (something he had realized by signing with the Stormers before the England gig had come up), and he felt that seven years had probably been too long for Eddie with England. Was an interesting insight from a player who had great respect for Eddie but knew his strengths and his weaknesses.
BA, Of all people you would know. Jones like Slater are intense perfectionists who drive people to new heights. Their drive is the issue. It does not turn off and they lack the downtime for the players to recover emotionally. They will get great results short term. Who is to say this is not the best way to get results and which coach stays for a decade anyway.
Sustained performance is really really hard for anyone. Continually trying to grow and reinvent yourself to keep outpacing the competition is hard. For rugby in particular as the rules get tweaked and dominant tactics change it's tough to keep up on top. It's ultimately a results business too with massive recency bias. As the saying goes, you're only as good as your last game.
I agree with David's comment below regarding Eddie being a change agent.
Only thing I'd add is that I think the abrasive, hit them with a stick approach is possibly not working with the new generations of players coming through.
Leadership is generally changing to a more inclusive style, rather than "I'm the boss, do what I say" - younger people now like to be heard and have an opinion, where in generations past people would more likely just defer to the boss without openly complaining.
Also, I think Eddie's probably had enough crap from the RFU (7 years), and has turned off his filter a little bit i.e. "I don't care what people think" and this would no doubt ruffle feathers at the management level.
Having said that, I like watching Eddie operate and really like how he seems to try to find new ways of doing things from other codes and other successful coaches.
I’ve heard similar things to the comments above but I’m torn, and I wonder what you think Benny.
There’s 140k rugby players in the England system so being in the top 50 or so players is a big deal and if you’re trying to win the World Cup, anything less than dedication to the craft probably shouldn’t cut it.
The idea that people can be at the top of an industry that is based on competition, without ruthless work ethic, doesn’t work in my opinion.
Even if people agreed that work life balance should be a standard, that only opens up an opportunity for the ruthless to take advantage! Caveat is some work life balance improves performance beyond no work life balance unless the person is obsessed... which Eddie might be.
But there is always a time frame on these type of leaders, but It must have been pretty bad if they got rid of him this close to kick off.
These are just thoughts... I’ve never been the best in my field at something!
This is an interesting question Ben and you obviously have more of an insight on Eddie as a person and a coach than I do but here are my thoughts based on over 15 years of management and leadership.
In my view Eddie Jones is like Michael Cheika. They are intense and motivated individuals but as coaches, leaders, and managers they are what are as known as "Change Agents". They are fantastic at what they do in terms of motivating people and introducing change, but their intense style wears off pretty quickly. The message that they convey, whilst consistent, becomes over used and same, same and the people around them begin to switch off and any subtle changes are missed. These sorts of leaders have a limited lifespan, they are often not good at developing new inclusions in the team and often tend to favour people who have been successful for them in the past. None of which are positive traits in a team environment.
If in the event that Rennie is moved on in favour of Eddie before this World Cup it needs to be done with a two-year plan for Eddie to be the head honcho and a new coach appointed after that with Eddie to advise, mentor and develop the new coach for the 2027 RWC. This will allow the players to hear a different voice conveying similar messages and break any overly chummy player coach relationships.
I was party to an interview that was done earlier this week with one of Eddie's former Japanese players. He was glowing in his praise for the impact Eddie had had but did note that for all his work ethic and strategic nous, he was a very schizophrenic personality and probably had a shelf life because of it, as most top coaches do to be fair, as their relationships can stress under pressure. The player, who featured in the Miracle of Brighton, said Eddie had reached his end with Japan (something he had realized by signing with the Stormers before the England gig had come up), and he felt that seven years had probably been too long for Eddie with England. Was an interesting insight from a player who had great respect for Eddie but knew his strengths and his weaknesses.
BA, Of all people you would know. Jones like Slater are intense perfectionists who drive people to new heights. Their drive is the issue. It does not turn off and they lack the downtime for the players to recover emotionally. They will get great results short term. Who is to say this is not the best way to get results and which coach stays for a decade anyway.
Sustained performance is really really hard for anyone. Continually trying to grow and reinvent yourself to keep outpacing the competition is hard. For rugby in particular as the rules get tweaked and dominant tactics change it's tough to keep up on top. It's ultimately a results business too with massive recency bias. As the saying goes, you're only as good as your last game.
I agree with David's comment below regarding Eddie being a change agent.
Only thing I'd add is that I think the abrasive, hit them with a stick approach is possibly not working with the new generations of players coming through.
Leadership is generally changing to a more inclusive style, rather than "I'm the boss, do what I say" - younger people now like to be heard and have an opinion, where in generations past people would more likely just defer to the boss without openly complaining.
Also, I think Eddie's probably had enough crap from the RFU (7 years), and has turned off his filter a little bit i.e. "I don't care what people think" and this would no doubt ruffle feathers at the management level.
Having said that, I like watching Eddie operate and really like how he seems to try to find new ways of doing things from other codes and other successful coaches.
I’ve heard similar things to the comments above but I’m torn, and I wonder what you think Benny.
There’s 140k rugby players in the England system so being in the top 50 or so players is a big deal and if you’re trying to win the World Cup, anything less than dedication to the craft probably shouldn’t cut it.
The idea that people can be at the top of an industry that is based on competition, without ruthless work ethic, doesn’t work in my opinion.
Even if people agreed that work life balance should be a standard, that only opens up an opportunity for the ruthless to take advantage! Caveat is some work life balance improves performance beyond no work life balance unless the person is obsessed... which Eddie might be.
But there is always a time frame on these type of leaders, but It must have been pretty bad if they got rid of him this close to kick off.
These are just thoughts... I’ve never been the best in my field at something!
Thank you legend. I think bring Eddie back into the Aussie fold!