Management
stumped? Think cricket
Companies would do well to remember the England
cricket team's drubbing Down Under when filling leadership roles and maintaining
performance, argues David Bolchover in a recent article
in the Daily Telegraph
The England selectors should have paid more heed to
history before they selected Andrew Flintoff, rather than the batsman Andrew
Strauss, as captain for this winter's ill-fated attempt to retain the Ashes in
Australia. The lessons they would have learned are equally applicable to
business.
Flintoff is a fast-bowling all-rounder –– he is in
the team both as a premier batsman and as a front-line fast bowler. The last
fast-bowling all-rounder to captain England against Australia was Ian Botham in
the home series of 1981. He was in charge for two Tests before poor performances
resulted in Mike Brearley taking over the reins and leading the team to a
dramatic series victory, with a re-energised Botham, England's best player,
wreaking the damage.
Because of the nature and duration of the game, the
on-field captain in cricket has greater tactical decision-making authority than
in any other sport. The constant mental demands are enormous –– choosing
which bowler to bowl at what time, what advice to give him, what motivational
tricks to use to make him perform to maximum potential, where to place the
fielders for different batsmen.
Asking the captain to charge in to bowl like a bull as
well inevitably distracts him from his vital duties at the helm of the team. In
his seminal book on leadership, The Art of Captaincy, Brearley argues that a
fast bowler (let alone a fast bowler also bearing a heavy responsibility as a
batsman) should be chosen as captain only as a "last resort": "It
takes an exceptional character to know when to bowl, to keep bowling with all
his energy screwed up into a ball of aggression, and to be sensitive to the
needs of the team, both tactically and psychologically."
Many excellent all-round performers are promoted to
management positions in business, whereupon they combine their newly-acquired
responsibilities with their previous workload. Something has to give and,
disappointingly for their charges, it is usually the time they spend on
organising, developing and cajoling others, ensuring that they know precisely
what they have to do.
To be fair to the England cricket selectors, they
simply made the same costly mistake that is made every single day in the
business world. They underestimated the contribution of leadership to the
overall performance of the team, and the time and effort that needs to be
devoted to it.
Another major selection error was the preference for
Ashley Giles over Monty Panesar for the first two Tests, when the losing pattern
of the series was irretrievably set. Panesar had made a great impression in
England over the summer, but the selectors reverted to Giles, who had suffered a
long-term injury since his role in England's 2005 Ashes triumph. The choice
smacked of cronyism, favouring the steady old hand who might not have done
anything wrong but who lacked the match-winning talent of his potential
successor.
The very term "people management" has
unfortunately developed a woolly, nicey-nicey image in business. But the best
managers are necessarily ruthless, acting decisively to move on former trusted
lieutenants, when and if the situation demands.
Another problem with Flintoff's captaincy was the fact
that he had grown up as a player alongside several of the others in the team.
His naturally gregarious character also contributed to his image and reputation
as "one of the lads". Perhaps one contributing factor in the initial
reinstatement of Giles was Flintoff's unwillingness to look his old mucker in
the eyes and tell him he would not be offered the opportunity to establish
himself in the team again. Leaders must possess a sufficient level of emotional
detachment, and it has to be questioned whether Flintoff did. But selection
alone cannot account for the humiliating rout which England have suffered. What
the series clearly demonstrated was the powerful effect of changing mental
attitude on performance.
Jim Collins, the management guru and author of Good to
Great, once said: "Spending time trying to motivate people is a complete
waste of time. Spending time trying to manage people is a complete waste of
time. What you want to do is find people who are self-motivated". He would
surely be forced to change this misguided view if he were shown two highlights
videos – one of the 2005 Ashes series and one of this series.
Give or take a few players, the same England team took
on the same Australia team they beat last time, and lost resoundingly.
Motivation is not constant in any individual or team; it ebbs and flows.
Companies can devote great energy to recruiting the "best performers".
But past performance is no predictor of future performance in a different
context or environment.
So what changed and what can business learn from this?
One gloating Australian cricket writer put it recently: "[England] might
have won plaudits, bonuses and gongs 15 months ago but they learned nothing
about the qualities and character required to maintain success. It is one thing
to establish a level of excellence and another altogether to hold it."
Australia's record over the last decade has been
phenomenally consistent, winning an average of more than two in every three Test
matches played. This longevity of success can, to a large extent, be explained
by intense competition for places. Australian cricket has boasted a rich pool of
talent from which the national team can be selected, and the uncomfortable
thought is always lurking in a player's mind that underperformance could easily
result in his replacement. Complacency is not an option.
England's young team regained the Ashes in 2005 after a
gap of 16 years. Their age and rare success, combined with a comparatively
shallow talent pool in English cricket in general, must have given the players
the very realistic vision of years of uninterrupted tenure within the team.
Despite the best of intentions, sustaining a high level of performance was
always going to be extremely difficult for this reason.
Stephen Harmison, England's best fast bowler for a
generation, has shown only glimpses of his ability for some time now. But is
anyone seriously considering leaving him out of the team? It is not enough for
companies to hire excellent workers. They need excellent workers who are
constantly looking over their shoulder.
Another strong motivator is the desire to prove others
wrong, to raise others' opinion of you to what you think it ought to be.
Australia's old guard was hurt by defeat in 2005 and was hungry to put the
record straight. We are a great team, we are great players, they bellowed from
the cricket field.
Recruiters for top companies might look for an
unblemished CV and glowing references, but one or two chips on the shoulder
should not necessarily count as a black mark.
It remains to be seen whether the England management
can use this reverse to the team's advantage, or whether the defeat was so
comprehensive that the outcome is not just an unpleasant bruising of the ego,
but an irreparable shattering of confidence.
Even a properly motivated team requires clear direction
and purpose so that energy will be channelled effectively, not dissipated.
Australia always seemed to be fiercely focused on ambitious short-term targets,
while England tended to drift aimlessly.
The most marked example occurred during the pivotal
second Test in Adelaide. At the start of play on the last day, the game appeared
to be coasting to a sterile draw. But Australia refused to accept this apparent
inevitability, bursting on to the field with the genuine belief that a few early
wickets could place intolerable pressure on a brittle opposition. Flintoff and
coach Duncan Fletcher, meanwhile, failed to provide concrete positive goals,
making the team vulnerable to an aggressive opposition.
As the former Australia captain Ian Chappell said:
"They started to think of survival rather than victory and once you start
to think that way you're in trouble." In a business world characterised by
ever-intensifying competition, there can be no more important lesson from sport
than that.
David Bolchover is the co-author of The
90-Minute Manager – Lessons from the Sharp End of Management
(I haven't read the book, so cannot
comment - watch this space!)
