We acknowledge at this point that Bruce is the de facto GM and has final say on personnel. I don't think anyone is disputing this so I'm not sure why that's important to talk about.
And titles definitely are important. They shouldn't be meaningless or vague. They should accurately represent what one does within the organization and clearly define their roles.
Furthermore, it's amazing just how many times "final say", and what it actually means based on basic organizational principles, has been clearly defined here yet there are still posts and posters who keep directly implying that it somehow means it's a "one-man show" or something like it. Even by the team itself, which just blows my mind.
When Gibbs, Scot and Shanny were said to have "final say", all repeatedly asserted that every decision was a "Redskin decision". They all pointed towards those within the building who were involved. "Final say" DOES NOT CHANGE THAT.
For the love of God, if I read one more time about the pros of a collaborative approach versus the cons of "final say", I'm going to pull my hair out! FINAL SAY DOES NOT NEGATE A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH!!!!!
Every single person here should want the best personnel guy to have final say on personnel. Just like the best coach should have the Head Coach title and have final say on scheme, game-planning, depth chart, coaching, etc... It's that friggin simple.
They don't ignore everyone else. They don't just make decisions on their own. They don't do everything themselves and refuse to delegate.
If you're claiming that Bruce has final say but that it's ok because he will delegate to the experts, then why aren't you concerned he just won't give that authority to someone officially? How does that make sense? If you're trusting someone to do that, all the while he refuses to do it officially and openly... well, I'll just say you're way more trusting than you should be
Are we ok, for instance, with Bruce being the "de facto Head Coach", not giving anyone that title, but just saying something like, "oh, no worries, he'll delegate properly and those decisions will be made by the right people"?
So, yeah, the title given to the head personnel guy should include final say in personnel. As @Skinsinparadise just mentioned and as we've repeatedly mentioned a million times, it allows for clear accountability, clarity in decision-making and roles within the organization, experts of their specific fields handling those respective responsibilities, a process that makes it much more difficult for anyone to undermine said responsibilities and unwarrantedly interfere, and the greatest motivator one could have - direct ownership of your decisions.
So that's just it, isn't it? That's our concern with this setup. Avoiding giving the best personnel guy a title that represents his expertise and final say in that suggests a lack of all of the above. Are there people at the top who want to undermine others whenever without any obstacles in organizational structure? Are there people at the top who do not want clear accountability so they can shift blame as they please? Are there people at the top who don't want the expert/s making those decisions so as to avoid confrontations if they disagree? Are there people at the top who don't want anyone to have real ownership of their decisions because, in the end, they want the credit?
Those are all legitimate questions and concerns to have with this setup. Period. This is why it's unorthodox and rare. This is why most successful organizations don't employ such a setup. This is why we are bothered by it. To claim any of us who are bothered are just negative nancies or can't see anything Bruce has done that is good is nothing more than a deflection of the issue.
Does this mean it's guaranteed to
fail? Nope. Just that it's more likely to. It's also more likely to result in mediocrity instead of excellence, which is something they should be striving for. It also creates an inherent obstacle for those within the organization who are actually good at what they do to overcome, versus just being supported in the best way and elevated by their environment.
So, yeah, skepticism and concern while acknowledging the apparent issues here are not only legitimate, but healthy. They do not suggest negativism. In fact, it's the opposite. I am, for instance, very pleased with some very important role players within the organization like Jay, Kirk and Schaffer. I don't know much about Doug's ability as a personnel guy or what he's done here, but I certainly don't want to see him fail. I don't want to see Bruce fail, either. I want them to be propped up. I want them placed in an environment entirely conducive to their success. I want them to be surrounded by the best and in the best way. I want them to be able to operate within their relative areas of expertise, have ownership of that without fear of ever being undermined or confused about where they stand, and not be put in a position to where they're making decisions they shouldn't be.
I am worried, concerned, and bothered FOR them and not against them!