By Jeff Bell.
It has been tortuous over the past few years watching my favourite team languish at the bottom of the ladder.
They have been going through the motions, not winning enough games to be taken seriously by the rest of the competition, let alone by their declining supporters.
The Covid years put extra pressure on their demanding travel schedule, they had more than their share of long-term injuries and were reluctant to freshen their list. Their popular coach was moved on and now they are fronting up to the pre-season with many new personnel.
When will they again by premiership contenders?
There are many moving parts to a sporting team, just as there are in the team of our business. With social media, AI, high interest rates, worrying inflation and imminent elections, we find ourselves working with a volatile mix. We need to make sense of this for the people we lead, so that it doesn’t blow up in our faces.
And key to it all is the team that will carry us through to more wins than losses.
So that we can be at the top of the table.
In a competitive environment, it is not enough for leadership to just go through the motions. We need to set an environment in which all our people feel trusted and valued. We must clearly articulate the story of the business, our values, with indicative behaviours and our purpose. We must offer opportunities for mastery and a path to autonomy appropriate to each person. And then there is the structure of the business—how we are organised so that we can deliver the best possible outcomes for our customers.
Having set up such an environment, is it reasonable to expect a uniformly high level of achievement for the team that we see before us?
The inevitable reality is that our group of people will be just as volatile a mix as the external business environment. There are many ways for a leader to understand a team—the success of our business will depend on successful leadership of the team.
Equally importantly, every team needs play makers.
In this, I find the model outlined by Owen Eastwood in his book Belonging, to be very insightful:
One or more alpha personalities will emerge in every group. Besides an outgoing persona—either positive or negative—they will usually raise standards through intensity and competition, but their personal desire for status will undermine the team dynamic.
Male alphas, Eastwood feels, are prone to highlight their own achievements and seek formal leadership positions to highlight their status. Female alphas may be more inclined to go lighter on title, but stronger on influence.
These are the lions. At their best, they can dictate the course of the game.
How do we lead them for performance and reduce their negative influences?
Then there are the betas who are not seeking peak status, but a close association with the alphas affords them easy influence or even power. They may be the second-in-command, the implementer, the backup and the stand-in leader when the alpha is absent or has departed. They are typically less under the pump than those above or below in the hierarchy.
These are the wolves. Once the game is going their way, they can lend a hand, show their talent and receive acclaim.
How do we lead them to take on more challenges and create some of the play?
Then there is the majority of the team who have no overt desire to lead or even influence the team. They are happy to be recognised, to contribute and to go along for the ride. They seek the safety and the security of the pack.
These are the sheep. They are not so keen to make a difference, much less dictate the course of the game, but they may do enough to retain their place.
How do we encourage them to an overall higher output and especially to step up when those above are faltering?
When we watch our favourite team, can we identify the lions, the wolves, the sheep?
How many of each is ideal?
Do we have enough play makers?