The story of the busy night of two series; The development company's stand against the Ministry of Sports!

The story of the closure of 2 capital complexes was one of the strangest examples of management inconsistency in the country's sports, which, more than anything else, created ambiguities about the management style of the company for the development and maintenance of sports facilities.

According to the Mehr reporter, Iran's sports and in fact its "management" spent a busy night on Sunday evening (19th Mehr); The controversy that started with the announcement of the closure of the two major sports complexes in the capital, namely, Inglaeb and Kashri, by the Development and Maintenance Company of Sports Venues, but this issue has been presented to the public with different narratives within a few hours, and finally today (Monday, October 20) the normal flow of activities continued in these two complexes.

But what remained of this story is that the closure of the sports complexes of Inglaeb and Shahid Kashori turned into a strange story of inconsistency between the sports facilities development and maintenance company and the Ministry of Sports. The story that started with the announcement of closure by the sports facilities development and maintenance company, but this decision was denied by the ministry and finally, it led to the normal activity of the Revolution complex. The back and forth of the announcements in the space of a few hours raised serious questions about the decision-making method and management performance of the development company; Questions that the CEO of this company must answer.

The evening of sports started with the announcement of the development company about the closure of the sports complex of Inglaeb and Kashri

From announcing the closure of the Revolution and Country Complex to the ministry's denial and returning to the first point

Everything started with the publication of an announcement by the company for the development and maintenance of sports facilities in the country; An announcement in which, citing the necessity of implementing Shariah, legal and customary norms and standards, as well as the order of the CEO and the approval of the board of directors, it was announced that the sports complexes of the Revolution and Shahid Kishori will be closed until further notice.

A clear decision, with clear consequences; Two important sports complexes of the capital were supposed to stop their activities, and naturally the members, athletes and visitors had to determine their duties with this decision, but not much time had passed since the publication of this announcement, when the Ministry of Sports intervened and announced that the activities of these two complexes will continue as usual. In fact, this ministry not only rejected the news of the closure, but also considered the notification of the development company as a result of inconsistency and announced its correction.

In such a situation, it was expected that the story would end with this explanation, but the development company published a notice and this time, instead of announcing a complete closure, it proposed a ban on the use of spaces that do not meet the desired criteria. In this way, what should have been managed with a clear and coordinated decision turned into a series of contradictory announcements; One entity said the closure, the upstream entity denied it, and then another announcement with a different wording was published.

Finally, today (Monday, October 20th), the Revolution group continued its activities as usual. Thus, after all the announcements and reactions, the practical result of the story was nothing but the continuation of the group's activities.

In response to the decision of the development company, the Ministry of Sports issued a notice and in a way rejected the decision of its lower body

When management itself becomes a problem

Finally, today (Monday, October 20th), the Revolution group continued its activities as usual. Thus, after all the announcements and reactions, the practical result of the incident was nothing but the continuation of the group's activities, but what remained of this exceptional and overnight incident in the country's sports, were the questions and ambiguities that have been created in relation to the sports facilities development and maintenance company and its management.

The main issue in this story is not just the decision to close or keep a sports complex open. Any manager may make a decision when faced with a problem and correct it if necessary. What makes this incident a critical issue is the way of making decisions, how to coordinate with the Ministry of Sports and how to inform the people.

How is it possible that a company that is under the Ministry of Sports and Youth, based on the order of the CEO and the approval of its board of directors, announces the closure of two complexes, but in the shortest possible time, its superior institution, the Ministry of Sports, rejects and somehow denies the same decision? This is a sign of lack of coordination with the higher authority before publishing the announcement, and if it is not, what was the reason for this discrepancy?

What is certain is that this issue created a mess in sports management decision-making, and now the question is, "Who is responsible for this mess?"

In any case, in relation to this incident and the irregularities related to them, two important sports complexes of the capital have been involved; Complexes whose activity decisions directly affect the daily schedule of members who pay exorbitant fees to enter them, especially for the Revolution sports complex, athletes and other visitors.

However, the management of a large sports complex such as the sports facilities development and maintenance company is not limited to issuing orders and publishing announcements. The manager should be able to check the dimensions of the decision before announcing it publicly, make the necessary arrangements and prevent the presentation of contradictory information. Otherwise, even a decision that may be managerially defensible loses credibility due to the way it is implemented and communicated.

Mohsen Motademkia, director of public relations of the Ministry of Sports, emphasized the announcement of this ministry separately

Who pays for the mismatch?

Meanwhile, the issue of public trust should not be ignored. The audience who is faced with the news of closure, denial of closure and then a new announcement in the space of a few hours, has the right to ask which news should be the basis of his decision and to have doubts in trusting the published ambassador of Arjan, especially when the published news shows that there is no agreement and coordination on a decision between two related management groups.

But the story of the country's sports night, more than any institution and official, raises an important question to the CEO of the sports facilities development and maintenance company that "if the decision to close was taken by his direct order and the approval of the board of directors of his company, why was this decision not completed in practice?" And "were the necessary arrangements made before issuing the order?"

Of course, in this story, you are not unaware of the possible angle that the decision of the sports facilities development and maintenance company has been opposed by the Ministry of Sports for any reason and has been changed, but from this point of view, the question is raised again, "Why was the process of amending the decision not managed in a transparent and integrated way?"

The answer to these questions is the minimum expected from the management that is responsible for managing and maintaining the country's important sports complexes.

According to Mehr's reporter, the story of the closure of the sports complexes of Inhelab and Kashri cannot be considered as a mistake in publishing the news, and like many other cases in sports, it was simply passed over. Publishing an announcement with such a consequence, denying it by the ministry and then changing the company's narrative, presents a picture of the lack of coordination in decision-making; An image that the relevant authorities should explain about.

In the meantime, criticizing the performance of the CEO of the development company is not because of a dispute over a specific decision, but because of the responsibility that the management bears. The manager is responsible for the decision he makes, the manner of its implementation and the consequences of his notification. If an important decision gets confused and finally changes its nature within a few hours from the official announcement to the implementation stage, management performance evaluation cannot ignore this issue either.

The result of all the information going back and forth was that the revolution complex remained open, but the questions arising from this incident still remain. Who made the final decision? Why was coordination with the Ministry of Sports not done before the publication of the announcement? And who was responsible for this mess?