Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ChezGiven

An IT giant’s management style scores in German football

Recommended Posts

IT IS now quite unlikely that TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, an upstart football club from a small town near Heidelberg, will achieve the ultimate goal of winning Germany’s football championship this year. Having led the country’s premier division, the Bundesliga, for many weeks this winter, it has now slipped to sixth place. And much to the dismay of its growing community of fans, it does not look like Hoffenheim will be able to stage a comeback.

 

Even so, the club is a football sensation by any measure—and one for which it is hard to find a parallel, at least in recent sporting history. In three years it has advanced relentlessly from a lowly regional league to the glamour of the Bundesliga. What is Hoffenheim’s secret?

Management goals

 

The easy answer is cash. The club is sponsored by Dietmar Hopp, one of the founders of SAP, the world’s third-biggest software firm, whose headquarters is in nearby Walldorf. Before the economic crash Mr Hopp, who played for Hoffenheim in his youth, was worth €6.2 billion ($8.2 billion). He has poured at least €180m into the club. Much of the money has been spent on a new stadium and training facilities but it has also allowed Hoffenheim to buy more than a dozen promising young players.

 

Yet cash is not the only ingredient in Hoffenheim’s success. A hands-off management style, the extensive use of technology and smart recruitment techniques have also been important elements in the club’s winning recipe. All these set it apart from other German clubs, which in many respects are set in old-fashioned ways.

 

Mr Hopp is quite unlike Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch who has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on Chelsea, an English football club. SAP made it into the top league of the information-technology (IT) industry, which is dominated by American firms, not least because of Mr Hopp’s management skills. As the firm’s chief executive from its incorporation in 1972 until 1998, he created an organisation more reminiscent of a software commune than a hierarchical IT giant in the mould of Oracle or IBM. Mr Hopp hired good people and let them take charge, largely limiting his role to giving advice and intervening only when things went terribly wrong.

 

In applying this approach to Hoffenheim, Mr Hopp hired a group of noted football experts, above all Ralf Rangnick, one of Germany’s best coaches, and given them more autonomy than they would normally enjoy. “I’m not just someone who runs the training sessions and doesn’t stay long, like at most other German clubs,” says Mr Rangnick. “For each season, for instance, I have a budget. And I can do whatever I want with it.”

 

Just as important, Hoffenheim—like SAP—is about IT. Much more than his German colleagues, Mr Rangnick makes use of technology to show his players how they are doing and how they can improve. Video plays a big role, of course. But Mr Rangnick has gone further and enrolled SAP’s help to build a social network of sorts for his players, where they can, for instance, check their fitness results, get information on the diet they should follow and analyse videos of teams they will play against next. “I’m trying to minimise that factor, ‘chance’, as much as possible,” explains Mr Rangnick.

 

Finally, although Mr Hopp is deeply rooted in his region and does not like to travel, he has always been open to the world—which goes a long way toward explaining why SAP became an international success very early in its history. It is also a reason why SAP is one of the most globally integrated among big IT firms. Most of its 50,000 plus employees now work outside of Germany, for instance in Bangalore and Silicon Valley. What is more, the firm is trying to make use of cultural differences when deciding where to develop which part of a program: much of the core engineering and planning is still German; interface design often comes from California; and a lot of the programming is done in India.

 

Similarly, most of Hoffenheim’s players do not hold a German passport. “Without them, we couldn’t hold our own in the Bundesliga,” says Mr Rangnick. But he does not do this just by waving big cheques at foreign star players, as other wealthy clubs have done. He aims to have at least two players from any one region, because otherwise they might get homesick. On the other hand, he also does not want to have more than five from the same region, because then they might form cliques. “In a global team”, says Mr Rangnick, “you have to watch out for these things.”

 

What is the lesson from all this? One should be cautious in drawing general conclusions from such unique cases. Yet it is safe to say that Hoffenheim’s success is about more than just the depth of Mr Hopp’s pockets. The right mixture of hands-off management, clever use of technology and balanced globalisation can be a recipe for success, in sport as in any other business. All this, it has to be said, is no protection against bad luck, as Hoffenheim’s story also shows. The team’s recent slippage in the Bundesliga is due to a spate of injuries, which have put some of its best players out of action.

 

From economist.com

 

Maybe its only certain business management models that translate well into football?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, you read it and it all seems so simple and yet........Fatty and the Mockney wankers have followed his own business approach, bring in the cheapest, shittest staff and tie their hands as you know they are gonna fuck off to McDonalds in 4 weeks time anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
****A hands-off management style****

 

Like you lot had. :D

 

Exactly. If you look at the success stories this season, Villa and Everton, the clubs are run by the manager not the chairman.

 

Chelsea and Livepool's problems can be directly traced to board level interference, as can ours and yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
****A hands-off management style****

 

Like you lot had. :D

 

Exactly. If you look at the success stories this season, Villa and Everton, the clubs are run by the manager not the chairman.

 

Chelsea and Livepool's problems can be directly traced to board level interference, as can ours and yours.

 

The point of Chez Given's article was that business and football can mix, we are an example of failure when a football club is run like a business.

 

Clearly there is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
****A hands-off management style****

 

Like you lot had. :D

 

Exactly. If you look at the success stories this season, Villa and Everton, the clubs are run by the manager not the chairman.

 

Chelsea and Livepool's problems can be directly traced to board level interference, as can ours and yours.

 

The point of Chez Given's article was that business and football can mix, we are an example of failure when a football club is run like a business.

 

Clearly there is a difference.

 

I totally agree, I was just picking out, what I believe the reason to be behind the clubs success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, the article highlights that business and football do mix, except in football (which is part of its magic) luck plays a stronger role in fortune than in business.

Not in Italy, sensible bastards. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, the article highlights that business and football do mix, except in football (which is part of its magic) luck plays a stronger role in fortune than in business.

 

Being 'hands off' isn't exactly a business innovation, it applies to various areas of life. Whereas Ashley's model is more of an exclusively business technique.

 

If you know what I mean, I'm too knackered to phrase that correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, the article highlights that business and football do mix, except in football (which is part of its magic) luck plays a stronger role in fortune than in business.

 

Being 'hands off' isn't exactly a business innovation, it applies to various areas of life. Whereas Ashley's model is more of an exclusively business technique.

 

If you know what I mean, I'm too knackered to phrase that correctly.

 

Get a decent manager and infrastructure, give him (or her :panic) a decent amount of money, ???????, profit.

 

The problem with Newcastle hasn't just been in "hands off management", it's been in "far too hands off management" cunningly mixed with "imbecilic management structure" topped off with "no fucking cash".

 

Recipe for success. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, the article highlights that business and football do mix, except in football (which is part of its magic) luck plays a stronger role in fortune than in business.

 

Being 'hands off' isn't exactly a business innovation, it applies to various areas of life. Whereas Ashley's model is more of an exclusively business technique.

 

If you know what I mean, I'm too knackered to phrase that correctly.

 

Get a decent manager and infrastructure, give him (or her :panic) a decent amount of money, ???????, profit.

 

The problem with Newcastle hasn't just been in "hands off management", it's been in "far too hands off management" cunningly mixed with "imbecilic management structure" topped off with "no fucking cash".

 

Recipe for success. :D

 

I think it's clear that the best answer is somewhere in between. The Liverpool boot room managers for example. We had one roll of the dice after another after Keegan and then Robson. What was built up gpt dismantled.

 

I don't agree with a director of football, but you'd think areas such as scouting would benefit from having someone above the manager in order to keep some sort of structure when managers move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
****A hands-off management style****

 

Like you lot had. :D

 

Exactly. If you look at the success stories this season, Villa and Everton, the clubs are run by the manager not the chairman.

 

Chelsea and Livepool's problems can be directly traced to board level interference, as can ours and yours.

 

The point of Chez Given's article was that business and football can mix, we are an example of failure when a football club is run like a business.

 

Clearly there is a difference.

 

I totally agree, I was just picking out, what I believe the reason to be behind the clubs success.

 

I think broadly speaking I agree with you Danny, but it seems there is many a slip twix cup and lip. Football clubs have so many variables and perhaps as Chexnois intimated earlier you also need a huge chunk of luck. Unearthing one or two Bassongs a season for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, the article highlights that business and football do mix, except in football (which is part of its magic) luck plays a stronger role in fortune than in business.

 

Being 'hands off' isn't exactly a business innovation, it applies to various areas of life. Whereas Ashley's model is more of an exclusively business technique.

 

If you know what I mean, I'm too knackered to phrase that correctly.

 

Get a decent manager and infrastructure, give him (or her :panic) a decent amount of money, ???????, profit.

 

The problem with Newcastle hasn't just been in "hands off management", it's been in "far too hands off management" cunningly mixed with "imbecilic management structure" topped off with "no fucking cash".

 

Recipe for success. :D

 

I think it's clear that the best answer is somewhere in between. The Liverpool boot room managers for example. We had one roll of the dice after another after Keegan and then Robson. What was built up gpt dismantled.

 

I don't agree with a director of football, but you'd think areas such as scouting would benefit from having someone above the manager in order to keep some sort of structure when managers move on.

 

Aye a separate structure to work for the manager but be part of the club rather than the managers team as such..... but then that is basically what Wise and Co were originally sold as. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
****A hands-off management style****

 

Like you lot had. :D

 

Exactly. If you look at the success stories this season, Villa and Everton, the clubs are run by the manager not the chairman.

 

Chelsea and Livepool's problems can be directly traced to board level interference, as can ours and yours.

 

The point of Chez Given's article was that business and football can mix, we are an example of failure when a football club is run like a business.

 

Clearly there is a difference.

 

I totally agree, I was just picking out, what I believe the reason to be behind the clubs success.

 

I think broadly speaking I agree with you Danny, but it seems there is many a slip twix cup and lip. Football clubs have so many variables and perhaps as Chexnois intimated earlier you also need a huge chunk of luck. Unearthing one or two Bassongs a season for instance.

 

No need luck..... need Keegan. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest slice of luck imo comes in finding, appointing and retaining a top class manager. Something we've not been lucky at by and large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×