If you think CEOs and ADs have no constraints on their decision making, you have a very flawed view of how the world actually works. As one college example, it’s almost a meme that Auburn boosters have such an outsized impact that the AD takes their “suggestions” into account more than they ideally would. You might say that’s because the AD is spineless, but here’s his options:
1) Go along with booster suggestions more than he would want to in order to maintain peace and unified organization. This is inevitably going to lead to some bad hires or decisions in general that could have been avoided. But success overall is still a possibility, however slim.
2). Tell the boosters to **** off, hire who you want - and watch as the knives come out, multiple mutinies form, and the organization begins to implode. You can try to hold it together, but success in this case is unlikely.
Which do you think is the better option? Because the “AD just does what he wants and boosters always go along with it, and everyone lives in peace and harmony” option you seem to think is reality is not on the table. Ever. The only kinda sane argument against JW hiring Red is he should have picked his battle here and fought for his ideal option - but that’s getting more nuanced than I see from the anti- JW clownshow crowd and is frankly a hard case to make since we know how much internal pressure within the university existed. Plus he’s burned through all his political capital gently nudging JB to the door, so winning any battle on this front was an impossibility.
It’s wild that you feel qualified to tell us how the real world works, when it’s patently obvious you have no idea how the real world actually works.
