unclejohn
03-23-2014, 04:27 PM
A few years back, I served on the board of a local non-profit agency. I was the head of the committee that supervised employees. We had a very talented and hard working office manager who ran the place. But he was not perfect. He had a temper, and since he was pretty smart, he did not like to take direction. His bosses, the higher-ups on the board, thought he was sometimes insubordinate. They often felt uncomfortable around the office. My committee held an annual performance review for him. He agreed that he was a talented and valuable guy, and we wanted him to stick around. But issues needed to be addressed. All that got written up, but before we could present it to the office manager, he had a disagreement with one of his higher-ups and resigned. I talked to him to see if the matter could be resolved, but it could not. The employees and clients of this non-profit were all unhappy because they liked the guy. They wanted him back. And then he changed his mind and wanted his job back. At that point, my committee released his performance evaluation, which took him to task and did not make him look good, and that just made the whole situation blow up. Goodbye office manager.
The point is, by the time it got to that point, there was already tension there. Maybe it could have been worked out, but probably not. The end was near. Perhaps there was blame on both sides, or perhaps it came mostly from one side, but the best solution was to part ways and move on. I saw the former office manager some time later. I expected the meeting to be uncomfortable, but it was not. He was really friendly, and he said it was time to go, that his ego had just gotten the best of him. The organization survived.
I think something similar happened here. I am not suggesting that no one is to blame, rather that apportioning blame is just kind of pointless. Maybe things could have been worked out and Buzz could have stayed, but it seems there was definitely lots of tension, and it was time to go. Maybe that is a character flaw on his part, but consider that basketball coaches at this level tend to be control freaks and have big egos. Not all of them, but many. Those characteristics are often part of what got them to that position in the first place. So good luck to Buzz. Good luck to Marquette. Good time to move on.
The point is, by the time it got to that point, there was already tension there. Maybe it could have been worked out, but probably not. The end was near. Perhaps there was blame on both sides, or perhaps it came mostly from one side, but the best solution was to part ways and move on. I saw the former office manager some time later. I expected the meeting to be uncomfortable, but it was not. He was really friendly, and he said it was time to go, that his ego had just gotten the best of him. The organization survived.
I think something similar happened here. I am not suggesting that no one is to blame, rather that apportioning blame is just kind of pointless. Maybe things could have been worked out and Buzz could have stayed, but it seems there was definitely lots of tension, and it was time to go. Maybe that is a character flaw on his part, but consider that basketball coaches at this level tend to be control freaks and have big egos. Not all of them, but many. Those characteristics are often part of what got them to that position in the first place. So good luck to Buzz. Good luck to Marquette. Good time to move on.