Lessons in Executive Management: Why Chelsea’s Board failed Frank Lampard

As a Chelsea fan and CEO of a business that has taken on significant investment with expectations of success, I have followed Frank Lampard’s time as Chelsea Manager with much interest. Like many I was saddened by his removal from the job last week. What went wrong and why should we look at this latest sacking differently?

Just as a VC invests in funding an entrepreneur at Series A, there is knowledge that the individual is full of passion and potential while often lacking the skills and experience for the next stage of growth. Yet when the potential is not realised and the entrepreneur fails, the same old reason is trotted out – they knew they had to hit the numbers when they took on the investment and simply weren’t up to making the transition. I don’t accept this reasoning and the high-profile case of Frank Lampard’s removal this week demonstrates why this type of Investment Board thinking needs to be challenged.

The phrase pushed out by the Chelsea Board and readily accepted by the media was 'Lampard had seen enough Chelsea managers go to know the score' i.e. if you take on the job then get the results or you are out. This is a ridiculous approach when you think about it. Making the developing Manager the only individual responsible for failing to meet the Board’s expectations absolves the Board of any responsibility for setting up their Manager for success; furthermore it completely ignores any interference and oversight the Board had during the Manager’s tenure (or leading up to it).

Success as a Chelsea Manager is clear – a minimum top 4 finish in the Premiership, knock-out round in the Champions League and a trophy. These are heady expectations and really hard to achieve even for the best of Managers – just look at Mourinho’s second stint. If that is the case and that the Chelsea Board knew Frank Lampard was unproven at this level (so a bit of gamble) what did they do to mitigate his lack of experience and try to set him up for success? The answer is they did all the wrong things,

Here are the three key executive leadership areas the Chelsea Board failed in their management of a young and talented manager; lessons applicable for any VC Board too. 

1.    Align your goals and expectations with the strategy of the Manager. This seems blindingly obvious, but if you appoint for potential you won’t get immediate results; whereas, if you appoint for experience and immediate results you won’t get passion and a long-term foundation. When Frank became Manager the Club was under a transfer ban but that wasn't a major issue because his plan was to nurture and develop the incredible talent from the Chelsea Academy programme. He wanted to mix potential with experience in the team. This inherently won’t give immediate results because academy players need regular first team appearances to develop. So if the Board’s goals aren’t adjusted to support a manager of potential to nurture potential, then the whole set-up is doomed from the start.

2.    Build your new Manager’s confidence and don’t interfere. The Board knew the role was a step up for Frank and rather than support him and back his vision, they wanted to impose their ideas and plans and expected him to implement them even if they were at odds with his. This was clear when the moment the transfer ban was lifted, the Board handed over ￡200m of new signings (given the time it takes to plan and execute these big ticket signings, there is no way Frank could have initiated them). So rather than support Frank with his plan of nurturing his team of new players with some very capable experienced ones, suddenly he was expected to organise his team around the new rock star players the Board thrust in. The Board strategy was no longer ‘we believe in your plan’, instead it was ‘we have bought you success, go and win trophies!’

 3.    Recognise your Manager’s weaknesses and help with a mentor. Given the Board knew Frank was the unfinished article, where was the experienced mentor? This is often a Chair in the business world and the best Chairs are the ones who understand the challenges of being the day to day leader and act as a buffer between investors and the CEO. So when the results aren’t going as expected (and this should have been anticipated), who was stepping in to help Frank and the Board to see clearly where things were going wrong?Without a confident and experienced mentor, there was no way Frank was going to be able push back against the demands or interventions from the Board.  From the outset then, he lacked a crucial means of establishing and maintaining his strategy.

In a Moneyball world, football, like in business, has become so focused on numbers and analytics that the needs and contributions of the Manager have been overlooked. Like in sport, every investor says ‘when we invest, we back the management team’ and they want passion and potential. Yet once the deal is done, for many the focus shifts to models, analytics and reports leaving the CEO or Manager to sink or swim. This has to change.  I hope Frank is able to reflect on this past 18 months and come back stronger to lead a Club which is properly committed to set him up for success; because he, like so many entrepreneurs in the business community, has so much to give and should be given the framework to achieve it.