I think Terry should focus on critiquing the shortcomings of the team and not that of the coach when you criticize the coach in public like that it looks as though your plan is to undermine someone to highlight someone else ...looks like an alternative agenda.... the players not understanding their roles didn't need to accompanied by they have no spirit or confidence in Russel..... he's just being a prick now.
I don't know enough to speak to Fenwick's intent or mind state so I'm not trying to defend him from your criticism. That said however, Fenwick has always been a very outspoken person, direct in his comments, fair or foul. Everything he's said in this article to me is fair criticism. It is a brutal assessment of where we stood yesterday on the field, and where we now stand in general. The last time I criticized him a little bit for sounding like a broken record in his criticism of Latas. The criticism seemed gratuitous.
This time however he's apparently commenting in response to a request by Flex, and as such he's providing as thorough and as honest a report as possible. I suppose his comments will not earn him many friends locally... and might drive an even wider wedge between him and members of the local coaching fraternity. To be sure it will not earn him any favors within the TTFF.m If his agenda (as you see it) is to campaign for the job then he's gone about it all wrong. If his agenda (again, as you see it) is to undermine/maim Latas... then perhaps he's succeeding, but in reality most of Latas' injuries are self-inflicted.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well said. I fully agree. It raises the question about 'intent'. How complex is it to decipher one's intent from honest comments based on the perspective one is taking from observation.
One might agree that most fans want what is best for his/her team. Comments either out of frustration , anger, disappointment, may still be with some intent to see improvement and or better results coming from a fan.
Question is Fenwick a fan of TnT football or an aspiring coach who believes that given an opportunity to coach a national team could rectify the faults which are allegedly evident from his perspective as a footballer and coach?
Will his comments instill confidence in players who are from his club and are participants on the national team under the direction of the present coach or could his comments serve to undermine the present coach and his players sense of loyalty?
Is there a professional ethical protocol for how professional should provide feedback to another? We have not heard from Mr. Corneal for a while on his views of our team to date; we have heard from Mr Fenwick. People who have the best interest at heart for TnT, ought to have a guideline for when providing critiques in a public forum to another professional in my humble opinion. There are just too many high stakes 'fall outs' not including personal and professional collateral damages that could occur.
What could constructive criticism look like?:
1. Plan before you do it. Make sure you know what you want to say, and why. Have a clear path through the discussion. Leave room for questions and dialogue. Keep the conversation open and flexible, but make sure you plan to get your key points across.
2. Build the person up. Before you get to the criticism itself, focus on positives. Highlight some of the good work the person has done recently, goals that were met or surpassed. Emphasize positive, solid qualities that the person brings to the table. This isn’t about over-inflating egos or setting a person up for a fall; it’s about making sure the person understands they are valued and important, even if the next thing you’ll be doing is pointing out some problems.
3. Provide clear criticism. Now it’s time to bring your concerns to the table. Do it as concisely as possible. And as clearly as possible. Don’t waffle around. Get to the point. Your approach will differ depending on the person you’re speaking to; some would rather you spit it out, others require a slightly more delicate approach. Still, it’s best to make sure your criticisms are as clear as you can possibly make them. Otherwise it makes it difficult to set a clear path towards improvement.
4. Build the person up again. Focus on solutions. Focus on re-emphasizing the positive, while keeping an eye on what needs to be done to improve. Open it up for discussion…“What do you think of my assessment?” Or “What do you think of your recent performance?” The goal at the end of a session like this is to leave the employee understanding the problems, and having a path towards resolving them, without feeling like crap.
5. Follow up. This exercise should never be undertaken without follow up. It may be another meeting scheduled with the employee. It may be an impromptu session, where you review the progress made. If the person knows there’s follow up, they’re going to feel more confident that the criticism isn’t hanging over they’re heads forever. It’s not a permanent dark cloud. Follow up can erase constructive criticism, if the person has improved and met goals. Always follow up. Even if it’s a quick compliment on a job well-done and not a formal second review. Follow up.
Giving constructive criticism is part of being a boss. You need to evaluate employees and measure their success.
When providing constructive criticism you want to make sure you get the message across and set goals, without demoralizing or devaluing the person. By Y. Yekovitz