Did Forest Sacking O'driscoll Mean The End For Mcinnes

[NATCHER]

Double post.

[Red-Robbo]

I'm guessing he got the classic "also suitable" at the interview.

Before I went self-employed "also suitable" used to be my middle name.

[Tall King Blox]

Just to add to the mix on this theory, what if the players were aware of the situation prior to the kick off..........mmmm

na, just playing devils advocate

[NATCHER]

Its straightforward enough. Last time around McInnes was more convincing and impressive than O'Driscoll was at interview and on the back of that Del was appointed.

Its gone tits up since but boards don't always get it right as well we know. Now they've gone back to the bloke who missed out last time. Common sense thing to do imo.

Nope. Still don't get it.

Their best guess was a 'fail' so they go for their second best.

To me it smacks of panic.

Just to clarify, SOD will have my full support as did McInnes.

[NATCHER]

Â

Its straightforward enough. Last time around McInnes was more convincing and impressive than O'Driscoll was at interview and on the back of that Del was appointed.

Â

Its gone tits up since but boards don't always get it right as well we know. Now they've gone back to the bloke who missed out last time. Common sense thing to do imo.

Nope. Still don't get it.

Their best guess was a 'fail' so they go for their second best.

To me it smacks of panic.

Just to clarify, SOD will have my full support as did McInnes.

[Robbored]

Nope. Still don't get it.

Their best guess was a 'fail' so they go for their second best.

To me it smacks of panic.

Just to clarify, SOD will have my full support as did McInnes.

I was involved many many times in interviewing candidates for various jobs during my NHS career. We even had to go training courses to learn how to asses CV's and interview people fairly and properly.

I can tell you now that on several occasions the most impressive candidate who was appointed turned out to be a failure at the job. Unfortunately sacking them wasn't and option unless they had committed some kind of major offence and we were stuck with them. How I wished at the time that we'd had the chance to appoint the second best candidate.Usually they got moved on to a different department.

Like you O'Driscoll will get my full support even when we get relegated.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hard to say. Entirely possible they would have stuck with McInnes had we got a draw, win or even a battling unlucky loss v Leicester. Saw the hammering, fans reaction and decided 'shit, he's gotta go and go now- O'Driscoll still available so maybe we can get him.' Otherwise why would they have let McInnes sign Kelly?

[Aizoon]

I was involved many many times in interviewing candidates for various jobs during my NHS career. We even had to go training courses to learn how to asses CV's and interview people fairly and properly.

I can tell you now that on several occasions the most impressive candidate who was appointed turned out to be a failure at the job. Unfortunately sacking them wasn't and option unless they had committed some kind of major offence and we were stuck with them. How I wished at the time that we'd had the chance to appoint the second best candidate.Usually they got moved on to a different department.

Like you O'Driscoll will get my full support even when we get relegated.

Apart from weeding out the obvious idiots, interviews do rather worse than chance in selecting from job applicants. You might seriously do better to get the interviewers' opinions and select the one they chose as second best. That eliminates the professional bullshitters.

[Robbored]

Apart from weeding out the obvious idiots, interviews do rather worse than chance in selecting from job applicants. You might seriously do better to get the interviewers' opinions and select the one they chose as second best. That eliminates the professional bullshitters.

I don't remember that being part of our training..................

[Nibor]

Apart from weeding out the obvious idiots, interviews do rather worse than chance in selecting from job applicants. You might seriously do better to get the interviewers' opinions and select the one they chose as second best. That eliminates the professional bullshitters.

You want interviews to work? Ignore HR and training. Ensure everyone you interview at least meets whatever the minimum level of ability you need is, spend time talking to them exploring how they think and make sure they can learn, and then go with your gut instinct to choose between them. Don't overthink it, use your natural reaction. It's far more important to get someone who will fit the team, collaborate and learn than it is to get someone who ticks the competency boxes and keeps the HR robots satisfied.

[Aizoon]

Oh, and I forgot. Totally disregard any input from HR.

[CotswoldRed]

it's O'Driscoll

not

O'driscoll

If it's the title you're referring to, it automatically lower cases the D.

[Aizoon]

If it's the title you're referring to, it automatically lower cases the D.

It does. It's to stop people SHOUTING.

[Robbored]

You want interviews to work? Ignore HR and training. Ensure everyone you interview at least meets whatever the minimum level of ability you need is, spend time talking to them exploring how they think and make sure they can learn, and then go with your gut instinct to choose between them. Don't overthink it, use your natural reaction. It's far more important to get someone who will fit the team, collaborate and learn than it is to get someone who ticks the competency boxes and keeps the HR robots satisfied.

May work in the private sector.

In the NHS all non medical interviews are held to very strict guidelines and there was always an HR rep on the panel essentially to ensure fair play. For example - the questions were decided by the panel before the interview and every candidate would be asked exactly the same questions and in the same order. Every question response was scored and kept individually. They were marked A for excellent. B for satisfactory and C for fail. One fail and that was it.

The only way that a panelist could engage with a candidate was to respond to one their answers.

The successful candidate was the one with best score. In the event of equal scores then and only then could 'gut feeling' or instinct be brought in to the decision.

[Nibor]

May work in the private sector.

In the NHS all non medical interviews are held to very strict guidelines and there was always an HR rep on the panel essentially to ensure fair play. For example - the questions were decided by the panel before the interview and every candidate would be asked exactly the same questions and in the same order. Every question response was scored and kept individually. They were marked A for excellent. B for satisfactory and C for fail. One fail and that was it.

The only way that a panelist could engage with a candidate was to respond to one their answers.

The successful candidate was the one with best score. In the event of equal scores then and only then could 'gut feeling' or instinct be brought in to the decision.

It works in the public sector too, you just need to work out how to control HR properly.

Hiring practises like they ones described are why there are so many no hopers hiding in the NHS dragging down the hard working front liners.

It can be worked around. You just have to remember that ultimately HR don't have a clue what the right answers are, and don't care about the process as long as the evidence is there to reduce the risk of a tribunal.

[Robbored]

It works in the public sector too, you just need to work out how to control HR properly.

Hiring practises like they ones described are why there are so many no hopers hiding in the NHS dragging down the hard working front liners.

It can be worked around. You just have to remember that ultimately HR don't have a clue what the right answers are, and don't care about the process as long as the evidence is there to reduce the risk of a tribunal.

I can't disagree with you on that.

HR had to ensure that the process was correctly followed. They kept all the score sheets and as you say it was all to cover their arses regarding a tribunal. The whole interview system was developed precisely for that reason, not to ascertain the best candidate. Unsuccessful candidates had the right to know why they were turned down and many did want to know and on many occasions kicked up a fuss.

[Kid in the Riot]

It might just be speculation but O'Driscoll was sacked on Boxing day by Forest and McInnes sacked by City just over two weeks later. Was Del's sacking co-incidence?

Could it be that as soon as O'Driscoll became available that he was approached by City to replace McInnes? It would have taken at least a couple of weeks, especially with the New Year break to sort out a deal and as soon as it was sorted McInnes's days were numbered.

If appointing O'Driscoll was always the idea then fair play to the club for having a cunning plan, which was made easier to conceal and execute by City getting stuffed 0-4 to Forest.

Who would have thought that 'nice' Bristol City could be so cut throat? I'm certainly impressed.

Sorry to drag this old post up, but I have good reason to believe that this is exactly what happened. Not that I'm surprised, and I agree - fair play to City for being 'cut throat'...

[downendcity]

It looks like Forest sacking SOD was also the end for McLeish - although he didn't realise it at the time!

[BigTone]

It might just be speculation but O'Driscoll was sacked on Boxing day by Forest and McInnes sacked by City just over two weeks later. Was Del's sacking co-incidence?

Could it be that as soon as O'Driscoll became available that he was approached by City to replace McInnes? It would have taken at least a couple of weeks, especially with the New Year break to sort out a deal and as soon as it was sorted McInnes's days were numbered.

If appointing O'Driscoll was always the idea then fair play to the club for having a cunning plan, which was made easier to conceal and execute by City getting stuffed 0-4 to Forest.

Who would have thought that 'nice' Bristol City could be so cut throat? I'm certainly impressed.

I definately agree. All this about the deal being done in 24 hours just isn't possible.

[havanatopia]

I think he as he was known to us we didn't have to go through the formal type interview again, which would speed up the process. I expect also as he nearly was appointed before the club was obviously watch his career with interest.

I believe the club gave Del every chance to succeed, more than many would have got. They had no intention of sacking him. BUT when Sod became unexpectedly available, and it was a shock sacking, with our previous links, the fact that Del was not improving, along with the increasing discontent of the fans...they really couldn't let their man slip through the net again. They had to act now before he was snapped up by a rival. And also the stage of the season we are in.

So I don't think he was in place before the sacking, but events forced our hand to move quickly, and move quickly we did.

The appointment has been positively received by also everybody. The board gets back in favour and has an experienced manager to manage their business, win/win isnt it?

sums it all up nicely sir