Arsène Wenger's Management Acrobatics

The discomfort associated with Arsenal's 2-1, 120-minute win over Reading in the FA Cup semifinal has prompted questions about the four changes manager Arsène Wenger made to the starting lineup.

Goalkeeper Wojciech Szczesny and center forward Danny Welbeck returned to the positions they had occupied in the previous round's win at Manchester United, while fullbacks Mathieu Debuchy and Kieran Gibbs came into the starting lineup for the first time since January 11 and March 4, respectively.

None performed at a level to suggest that he will be a regular starter for Arsenal's remaining matches. The one possible exception is Debuchy, who hinted at the defensive stability the manager might prefer in high-stakes games.

Despite these players' struggles and the team's travails overall, their selection represented a success. Here's why:

1. Arsenal won the match and maintained its impeccable, eight-week run of results
2. Several potentially important players logged time in a high-pressure match
3. The manager built a body of evidence for future personnel decisions

These are meaningful objectives to achieve in the context of a season, even if myopic fans and pundits prefer to focus on the tight final score against a lower-ranked Reading side.

The perspective of time

Wenger expresses an intriguing sense of time. His public statements send a message to his players to limit their focus to the next game. It's almost a reflex for him. "I believe now let's focus on our next game," he said during his FA Cup semifinal press conference. (Available on Arsenal Player)

In statements that are less automatic, Wenger lets on that he's not focused only on the next match. He's looking at the scope of a full season.

"Let's finish the season well," he remarked over the weekend. "We have six games, a big game next weekend, and I believe we have the spirit, which is encouraged by the results."

Here, Wenger is balancing the need to restrict his players' attention to the immediate task with an acknowledgement that the immediate task is important but not definitive. The full measure of this team will be its cumulative results over a season.

To meet expectations over that assessment period, Wenger has to prepare the entire 25-man squad to compete from August to May in a 38-match league season and three cup competitions. And throughout he has to put each member of the squad in position to adjust to events.

Providing a taste of the action

The two types of events that most directly concern players are injuries and dips in form. To help them prepare for those possibilities affecting themselves and teammates, the manager must keep more than his top 11 players sharp.

One obvious reason is that any player could quickly become essential.

For example, starting center half Per Mertesacker's ankle injury on Saturday renders the readiness of Gabriel vital. Integrating the Brazilian relatively quickly after his January arrival, with starts against Middlesbrough, Everton, and Newcastle, looks wise now. He was not paralyzed by the high-pressure environment of an FA Cup semifinal, and he'll be ready if needed against Chelsea. That wouldn't have been the case had the manager stuck with the strong defensive partnership of Mertesacker and Laurent Koscielny throughout 2015.

Wenger also has to weigh the risks and the adaptability of specific players. That was the scenario with Debuchy, as, unbeknownst to supporters, recent starting right back Hector Bellerin had been suffering from injuries of his own.

"It was a bit risky," Wenger admitted. "Bellerin has played recently with some ankle problems, and Debuchy was back, so I thought it was a good moment to do it."

"[H]e is a French international and must be capable of playing in a semifinal against Reading."

Just as important as these assessments is the head man's management of players' egos. He has to insure the commitment of a group of young, highly paid professionals whose careers have depended on single-mindedness and self-regard. They may not grasp their important role in the season's arc from the substitute's bench.

To maintain solidarity in an era of professional and personal distraction, Wenger affords them action. "You wait, you wait, at some stage you have to play a game," he explained.

Building a case for personnel decisions

Seizing these opportunities to show one's qualities and contributions is the charge of the professional athlete. It's one that midfielder Francis Coquelin answered emphatically in January.

Wenger has admitted that he didn't foresee Coquelin's success; it would be hard to find anyone who did. He developed a faith from Coquelin's work in training and his play on loan. But that faith had to be supported by evidence of consistent match performances.

Building this body of evidence is another reason for reintroducing the four players to the starting lineup against Reading. Their performances lend support to the manager's case when he decides about their involvement.

"Ideally, you want everybody to be happy," Wenger revealed in discussing his changes against Reading. "It is part of the job, and the most important thing is to get results, for the fans and everybody involved with the club."

With that as the priority, Wenger now has more points of information should players or their representatives approach him with appeals for more prominent roles. He could, I think, rebuff arguments from Saturday's four additions that they should take those positions from the starters of eight consecutive Premier League matches.

Yet I doubt Wenger will make such a definitive statement. He knows he'll probably need each of the players -- perhaps in a starting role against Chelsea (Debuchy), in a different starting position later (Welbeck), in important substitute appearances (Gibbs and Welbeck), or in the FA Cup final (Szczesny).

As a result, he'll continue the acrobatic act of preparing and motivating these elite athletes. That might involve decisions and communications, such as those surrounding the Reading match, that seem puzzling to supporters focused on single performances. They're more understandable, though, if we consider the relevant time horizon, the abrupt changes in fortunes of professional athletes, and the complex requirements of managing a group of them.

Cracks in the Arsenal Brand

Arsenal's early season struggles have brought out the well worn and often angry portrayals of manager Arsène Wenger's tactical cluelessness, his transfer ineptitude, his awkward man-management, and his geriatric stubbornness.

The suspect evidence supporting these characterizations and the logical fallacy of the Arsenal=Arsène equation only seem to intensify the appeal of these arguments. It's gotten to the point that unthinking perceptions are reshaping the Arsenal brand; as a result, the club is facing a deeper issue than the manager's performance or the team's lackluster form.

What makes a football brand

In a largely problematic account of Arsenal's 2013-14 season ("Arsène and Arsenal: The Quest to Rediscover Past Glories"), Alex Fynn presents a strong foundation in brand theory. Brands aren't just logos or taglines, explains Fynn, but are collections and expressions of the rational and emotional attributes associated with an organization.

These attributes give brands distinctive personalities, such as Volvo's "Crisp and Safe" and Apple's "Cool and Innovative," which shape the main characters in those organizations' stories. The dramatic or comedic pull of these stories, along with the personalities and values they express, attract like-minded individuals.

Even more than other sports, football engenders strong brands, Fynn points out, because the dramatic impact is so great. One late moment of brilliance or bad fortune can overturn a result that seemed a foregone conclusion for 89 minutes. That's unmatched dramatic potential.

The geographic, historical, and cultural identifications of football clubs also make them sturdy vessels for brands, and clubs and their supporters can easily identify themselves in opposition to the "other" created by rivalries.

Elements of the Arsenal brand

Although Arsenal's brand benefits from clear differentiation with Tottenham, Chelsea, and Manchester United, the club has reaped its biggest reputational reward by honing its own personality. I would define this as "Refined, Successful, and Sensible." (See "The Brand's the Thing" and "Whiffing on Risk" for additional thoughts.)

At the foundation of these personality traits lie the club's historical values:

• A distinctive balance between English football tradition and innovation
• Adherence to standards of conduct that denote "class"
• Consistent success at the highest level of the sport

Arsenal promises those who have identified with it that it will live out these values and behave in accordance with its underlying personality. Breaking that promise could make supporters and sponsors question their loyalty, with major cultural and financial consequences.

Fissures

Just three months ago, Arsenal appeared to be reaffirming its core personality and values, with world-class acquisitions joining the club soon after an FA Cup triumph. The speed and irrationality of the shift in perceptions should trouble CEO Ivan Gazidis and other club executives, because they suggest that a different, much less positive, brand story is replacing the advantageous one.

Here's how it's happening: First, the promise of potential success appears to be an empty one. It's extremely unlikely that the club will win the Premier League or the Champions League this season. That's the standard of success the club has established for itself, and it will once again fall short.

Instead, as Andrew Mangan pointed out on the November 7 Arsecast, we are witnessing a routine of top-four league finishes and exits after the round of 16 of the Champions League.

This pattern of performance lessens the excitement because it's so predictable. Add that to the team's inability to win matches against the top domestic competition, and you'll struggle to find compelling drama.

Second, the club's image as an innovator is getting weaker. With the same manager for 18 years, no matter how sincerely he might profess new ideas or his focus on the future, Arsenal is always going to appear hidebound. (One reason I think so many supporters were excited about the appointment of Shad Forsythe as head of athletic performance enhancement is that it hinted at the club's innovative best.)

The third brand problem is that the personality trait "Sensible" is being undermined by a perception that identical weaknesses cause the same results year in, year out. Facts and reasonable analysis to the contrary, "defensive frailty" is Arsenal's downfall. It doesn't matter that the major problem in 2013-14 might well have been a lack of speed and in 2012-13 a lack of creativity. The story is already written.

The persistence and immediacy of this narrative are strong evidence that Arsenal's brand has shifted.

Impact

If this analysis is right, a succession of good results won't move the brand back onto favorable ground. Only a major achievement, a Premier League title or a Champions League trophy, will be sufficient for that.

Major sponsors seem comfortable with this scenario. The lucrative deals with Emirates Airlines for shirt and stadium sponsorship and Puma for playing gear indicate that those companies continue to see considerable advantage in aligning with Arsenal. How secondary and regional sponsors weigh the Arsenal brand will be crucial to higher commercial revenue.

Meanwhile, supporters have communicated mixed messages about their loyalty to the brand. The increase in season ticket prices, coming as it did as the brand was shifting, sparked vocal criticism. What appeared an attempt to capitalize on the FA Cup success and hope for the future has instead made longtime match goers question their commitment to an organization whose brand promises are shaky.

Despite the reaction, the waiting list for Arsenal season tickets remains long. What proportion of season ticket holders in years to come will be new? How many ticket holders will leave their seats empty? And how will those developments affect the stadium atmosphere, which is part of what any sports organization sells to sponsors, broadcasters, and fans?

These are potentially much more troubling questions for the club than are any about the manager's transfer, team setup, or personnel decisions. They aren't as dramatic or obvious, but structural questions rarely are.

Management the Arsenal Way

The recent, revealing interview with Andries Jonker, head of the Arsenal academy, provides considerable food for thought as the club and its shareholders prepare for Thursday's Annual General Meeting.

Because Jonker does not seem shy about sharing his opinions with the Dutch publication Voetball International (translated on Arseblog in "Jonker: Arsenal scouting must be restructured"), his observations offer an unvarnished view of management practice at the club. In particular, Jonker's descriptions of manager Arsène Wenger's approach to management don't necessarily line up with widespread notions about how the club is run.

The conventional wisdom has long held that Wenger is a micro-manager, someone who must control every aspect of the club's business from transfer negotiations to players' diets to the design of facilities. This is the theory Alex Fynn and Kevin Whitcher advanced forcefully in their 2009 book "Arsènal: The Making of a Modern Superclub." It also flows from the popular tendency to equate football clubs with their managers. (See "Arsenal, Arsène Wenger, and the Cult of Personality" for my critique of this line of thinking.)

Perhaps Wenger has mellowed in recent years; it's also possible the original portrayal was too stark. Whatever the case, Jonker's interview suggests that Wenger's style is not autocratic and in many ways conforms to models of successful leadership.

The manager's level of involvement

Jonker describes his interactions with Wenger in ways that will seem familiar to anyone who has ever worked for someone else. "Almost every day, Wenger and I go through a number of things," said Jonker. "He is approachable, but I do have to show him what we are doing. We must not go behind his back."

This seems like a reasonable, open-door approach to management.

"What I do see," Jonker continued. "is that everybody at the club has the feeling that they need to have the green light from Wenger before they do anything."

Now, if "everybody at the club," including Chief Executive Officer Ivan Gazidis and the stewards at Emirates Stadium, seeks Wenger's approval, then that's not a functional arrangement. I'm more inclined to think, however, that Jonker is referring Wenger's involvement with the football staff, which is a different and more understandable proposition.

It's not unusual for managers to expect those reporting to them to produce recommendations for their response and approval. This is a standard approach in many organizations and a sensible one in the case of Arsenal.

After all, Wenger is accountable to Gazidis, the club's board, its supporters, and the media, so he should know about and support the actions of his staff. How could he appear before any of those constituents and endorse the sporting direction if he had not understood and supported the original course of action?

Foundations in management theory

This pattern of manager-staff communication falls within what management theorists call "transactional leadership." This facet of leadership focuses on exchanges between leaders and followers; managers who want their staff to provide specific things give those staff members other things that they want in return. (The original idea comes from Karl Kuhnert and Philip Lewis, "Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive developmental analysis," in Academy of Management Review 10 (1995).)

Wenger seems to be practicing "active" management in the sense that he monitors his staff's behavior, anticipates problems, and creates opportunities to intervene before the problems get worse. (For the details of "active" vs. "passive" management, see Jane Howell and Bruce Avolio, "Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, local of control, and support of innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance," in Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (1993).)

These behaviors and actions, which amount to exchanges between leaders and staff members, complement other defining characteristics of what's called transformational leadership. These higher-level traits and activities take the form of:

1. Charisma that appeals to followers on an emotional level
2. Inspirational motivation that articulates a clear and attractive vision
3. Intellectual stimulation that challenges assumptions, takes risks, and solicits followers' ideas
4. Individualized consideration that results in mentorship and attention to followers' needs

These are the four dimensions of transformational leadership described by Timothy Judge and Ronald Piccolo in "Transformational leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity," in the Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (2004) and examined for their correlations with positive performance outcomes.

Wenger as "transformational leader"

Without sinking too deep into the academic theory and language, we can use the four dimensions of transformational leadership to understand how any manager's behaviors and actions create conditions for top performance. In the case of Wenger, we can break down his contributions as follows:

Charisma. Before and after the FA Cup victory in May, current players talked about how much they wanted to win this trophy for Wenger. Many former players came out with impassioned support as well. This is just a recent, prominent episode suggesting that Wenger has built an emotional appeal among many of those who work for him.

Inspirational motivation. The vision of attractive, offense-minded football appeals to many both inside and outside the club. Wenger also displays the optimism that this approach will succeed in the long run, another aspect of inspirational motivation.

Intellectual stimulation. It's fair to say that Wenger challenges assumptions and takes risks, as I recently pointed out in "Arsène Wenger's Risk Tolerance." He allows players considerable autonomy on the pitch. Questions persist, however, about his willingness to entertain other ideas. So we should refrain from making a definitive statement about how well Wenger fulfills this dimension.

Individualized consideration. If you listen to experienced players such as Mikel Arteta and Tomas Rosicky, Wenger emerges as a mentor and model they may follow when their playing careers end. And one of the criticisms levied at the manager is that he responds too much to what players need, granting their wishes to leave Arsenal for more playing time elsewhere, for example. That's definitely an indication of individualized consideration.

This admittedly superficial review does suggest that Wenger fulfills many expectations of the transformational leader. It's hard to conclude that he is not, given that he has guided the sporting side of the club during an 18-year period characterized by significant, and in many ways positive, change.

One last test of Wenger's leadership ability remains: What will happen when he departs the scene?