There is a temptation, as a Newcastle United fan, to watch the pantomime at Manchester United with a certain satisfaction.

Those of us who remember Manchester United looking down on everyone else can hardly be expected to overlook the irony.

But watching the uncertainty surrounding Michael Carrick at Old Trafford, my overriding reaction is that I would hate to see our own club conducting its business like this at St James’ Park.

Carrick has continued reporting for work while his future has been debated in public and senior executives prepare to decide his fate elsewhere.

Reports of possible replacements have filled the space in between. Whatever the eventual decision, that is a miserable position in which to leave someone expected to lead a dressing room.

A fine footballer and, from everything I have seen of him, a thoroughly decent man deserves better. So does anyone asked to carry responsibility on behalf of a football club.

That does not mean Carrick should be immune from criticism. Being a distinguished former player does not guarantee that someone will become a successful manager. Being decent does not win matches. Results matter, and there comes a point when those running a club have to decide whether the person they appointed can deliver what is required.

But the manner in which they reach and communicate that decision tells us something about their own capability.

It is easy to look decisive when somebody else is being dismissed. The harder questions concern the judgement that put him there, the support he received and the part played by those now sitting in judgement.

Who chose the manager?
What did they believe he could achieve?
Were the players recruited suited to the football he was expected to produce?
Were the expectations realistic?
And if the appointment has failed, what have the people who made it learned?

Those questions should survive the departure of any manager. Too often, the departure itself seems to make them disappear.

The manager leaves, a new man arrives, and everyone above him gets to talk about a fresh start.

I have spent my working life in businesses, and one thing becomes clear over time: changing the person in charge of the operation will achieve very little if the people directing it cannot recognise their own contribution to its problems.

Football has a particular talent for obscuring that responsibility. The manager stands in front of the cameras. He explains the defeat, defends the players and answers questions about decisions he may have had only a limited part in making.

Those who set the budgets, shape the structure and approve the appointments are much less exposed.

That imbalance makes it all the more important that they behave properly.

If a manager retains your confidence, give him the backing necessary to do his job. If he has lost it, deal with the matter directly and respectfully. There will always be speculation in football. A well-run club should understand the damage caused when speculation becomes the dominant account of its leadership.

How much authority can a manager exercise when everyone around him is wondering whether he will still be there next week?

That is the lesson I want Newcastle United to take from all this.

We are entitled to ambition. We are entitled to question performances, recruitment and decisions. Supporting Newcastle does not oblige any of us to suspend our judgement, and a club with serious aspirations cannot avoid difficult choices.

But I want those choices made by people who understand what they are responsible for, who can explain the direction of the club and who have enough conviction to hold their course through a difficult spell.

Patience needs a purpose. It should rest on evidence that the work is sound, that the people involved can improve things and that the club is moving towards something coherent. Equally, a change of manager needs more justification than the desire to relieve the pressure for a few weeks.

Before making that change, the people running Newcastle should be able to explain what has failed, why a replacement would have a better chance and what they themselves will do differently.

Otherwise, we are simply buying another turn on the same roundabout.

As someone who has supported Newcastle United all his life, I know how readily hope can attach itself to the next appointment. We have all imagined the press conference, the first signing, the first stirring performance. We have all wanted to believe that this time the right man has arrived.

But a manager needs a club capable of helping him succeed. He needs sound recruitment, clear responsibilities and people around him whose judgement adds something when results become difficult. Above all, he needs to know that support inside the building is real.

Supporters need something similar. We do not need to know every private conversation. We do need confidence that somebody is thinking beyond the next headline.

Respect matters here, too. People can fall short in a job and still deserve to leave with their dignity intact. A club reveals its standards in how it treats someone whose usefulness to it may be coming to an end. That should matter to supporters who care about the institution as well as the team.

Watching Michael Carrick caught in this public uncertainty, I find myself thinking less about Manchester United’s next manager than about the people responsible for creating the circumstances in which he must work. Their decisions deserve scrutiny every bit as much as his team selections.

Let others enjoy the Old Trafford spectacle if they wish. For Newcastle United, there is something more useful to take from it.

We should expect ambition from those entrusted with our great club. We should also expect judgement, accountability and the basic decency to treat people properly.

The next time Newcastle United face a difficult run, those expectations will matter far more than anything said when the going was good.