ADVERTISEMENT

Pitt announces Athletic Department restructuring

Every restructuring/reorganization I've been through in over 40 years of working have been, at best, annoying with neutral results and, at worst, a major mistake with terrible results. I hope this one is at least of the neutral variety.
 
Every restructuring/reorganization I've been through in over 40 years of working have been, at best, annoying with neutral results and, at worst, a major mistake with terrible results. I hope this one is at least of the neutral variety.
Pitt hasn't had any structure in this department so perhaps they won't fit your scheme.
 
Reasonable reorg with the major divisions being inward-facing (teams and facilities) and customer-facing (marketing and sales). This is a common corporate model and a good sign that AD Barnes intends to run the department in a professional manner. Looks like some newer folks are getting their opportunities to shine.

Pitt can't be a big league operation by running itself like a 5-and-10 or catering to the whims of a small cabal of deep-pocketed boosters.
 
Especially happy for Marcus Bowman - very bright, well-spoken, and a truly genuine guy
 
Every restructuring/reorganization I've been through in over 40 years of working have been, at best, annoying with neutral results and, at worst, a major mistake with terrible results. I hope this one is at least of the neutral variety.

Most restructurings are done to:

a) give the higher-ups something to do
b) make upper mgmt feel like they are doing something important
c) to make the customer base (ie shareholders, fans, etc) believe they are doing something

Most of the time, its change for the sake of change. In Pitt's case, Iike the greater emphasis on fundraising.
 
Most restructurings are done to:

a) give the higher-ups something to do
b) make upper mgmt feel like they are doing something important
c) to make the customer base (ie shareholders, fans, etc) believe they are doing something

Most of the time, its change for the sake of change. In Pitt's case, Iike the greater emphasis on fundraising.
Not if its a real plan, with an objective, and measurable targets and milestones.
Without measurement related to timeframes its a failing manager rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
 
Development should report directly to Barnes.

Development departments are difficult to manage at that level; the university's Institutional Advancement is ungodly large, and it has so many different departments, it would be impossible for everything to truly report to one person (aside: it's also insanely hard to break into; I've tried multiple times). The AD's department looks much smaller, but it would still be wiser to leave the day-to-day operations to the directors and save Barnes for the stuff that needs his cache (capital gifts, strategic plans, etc.) Besides that, he shouldn't worry himself with development beyond making sure they are meeting their targets.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT