As the financial crisis deepens, business leaders around the world are becoming increasingly vocal about the need to find practical solutions to keep their organisations afloat.

The latest figures here suggest that while there are a few green shoots on the horizon, unemployment is continuing to rise meaning the underlying issues that precipitated the greatest financial correction in modern history are likely to keep the lid on our recovery for some time to come. Simply put, we are not out of the woods yet and in all probability, we will remain under the hammer at least for the foreseeable future.

So what can we do, given we have probably taken out as much cost as we realistically can, to improve our efficiencies? What other things can be done to maintain stakeholders’ confidence and thus preserve a worthwhile future? Could we in fact use this time to change - to create a more agile, cohesive, and committed organisation in order to realise our true potential?

While I appreciate every company has unique challenges, the key to success is leadership. As many are discovering, it is easy to lead when things are good – but if you want to test the true character of those you rely on to drive growth, watch what they do when things get tough.

I believe we are entering a period where companies will come to realise they need to reprioritise the importance of leadership. I believe the smart ones will commit to developing greater leadership capability going forward rather than simply hoping they’ve got enough to get by as they have probably done in the past.

If you are serious about your organisation’s future, I would encourage you to give additional consideration as to how you can help your managers acquire the skills to become more confident and effective leaders in order to ‘build’ a more successful business.

 

As a starting point, I have prepared a white paper called ‘Performance’ – a performance improvement framework for ambitious New Zealand companies’. Part Two of this paper, which is available now, discusses what I consider ‘The Principle Responsibilities of Leadership™’. As the name suggests, it focuses on the core leadership competencies and activities I believe make the difference.

If you would like to receive your free (PDF) copy of ‘The Principle Responsibilities of Leadership™’, or find out how we can help your leaders step up to the plate, call us on +64 9 522 9409, email us at info@vantaset.com or send your request using the ‘Contact' link on our website.

 

The World Swimming Championships

This years World Swimming Championships in Rome have produced more world records than any other however it is the athletes suits rather than the swimmers that have grabbed the headlines.

A question I am being continually asked is, ‘are the suits worthy of such attention or has the standard of swimming simply improved?’ While I have no doubt standards are improving, the Arena ‘super’ suits, as they are now called, are allowing athletes to do things they have never done before. For example, prior to the world champs, there were athletes in a number of teams who dropped their times by nearly 3 seconds over a 100m event and nearly 6 seconds over a 200m. One of the reasons these athletes were able to lower their times by such a phenomenal margin is because the polyurethane suits act as a bouncy device meaning their entire effort can be directed toward forward propulsion whereas without them, a percentage of a swimmer’s energy has to go in to keeping them above water.

Unfortunately for the New Zealand swimmers, Speedo (their current suit providers and sponsors) were reluctant to release them from their contracts until finally pushed at the last minute meaning they had no time to prepare and adapt whereas most of the competitors from other nations were given the all clear at the start of the year and so have had plenty of time to adjust their techniques.

The issue surrounding the suits is that FINA, the sport’s governing body, failed to outlaw them when it became apparent they were ‘performance enhancing’. To suggest performance enhancing equipment in a sport like swimming should be allowed is completely unjust because it is not an equipment based sport like say cycling, rowing or skiing (I accept suits have become the norm however Speedo maintains their suits do nothing more than reduce drag and help maintain form i.e. iron out the imperfections, thus respecting the integrity of the sport whereas the Arena suits aid bouncy which is clearly against the rules – hence the reason FINA have finally agreed to ban them from the start of next year). To further the debate, how would we feel if for example, sprinters or long jumpers were allowed to put springs in their shoes?

The issue for the New Zealand swimmers is that SPARC appears unlikely to take into account the impact the suits may have had on their times and more importantly, on their placings. At the moment, swimmer funding is determined by placing so if an athlete places well, he or she will receive a certain amount of funding, however if they perform poorly, that funding may well be reduced or even removed. That said, I have no issue with the current system other than the fact that it is infinitely harder for an athlete to get on to the podium in a true global sport like swimming (or athletics) than it is in the very small sports New Zealand typically excels in.

What I would like to see here is for SPARC to take into consideration the fact that the widespread use of the super suits may have had a detrimental impact on our swimmers placings and therefore, as an act of goodwill, look at their performances over the season to determine their funding rather than using a single one off, and in fairness ‘farcical’ event to arrive at a final conclusion. From my perspective all I can say is this is the first time the athlete’s I have assisted have only produced one personal best in a major competition in over ten years and yet I was confident all would have done so had they stuck with their Speedo suits – which raises the question, why didn’t they? The answer – because they were afraid their placings, which govern their funding, may have been compromised had they not worn them given the times that were being achieved by those who were.

 

The All Blacks

There has been a lot of speculation about the impact Kerry Spackman, the neuroscientist who recently appeared on TV3 ahead of the launch of his best selling book ‘The Winners Bible’, is having on the All Blacks performance.

While I am not overly familiar with Spackman’s work, and therefore reluctant to comment on the wisdom of his approach, I am not surprised to see the AB’s failing to live up to their potential despite his continued involvement.

The cause of the AB’s poor performances, and in particular the heavy defeats against South Africa, are indeed psychological - as they have been for the past 15 or so years, however emphasising the psychological game as Kerry among others have been doing for a number of years was always going to present a challenge. To Henry’s credit, he appears to be taking on board the need to improve the mental capacity of his players, but in doing so he has exposed them to issues they were previously less aware of i.e. previously they only had to think about their ‘on field’ tactics, now they are having to think about the quality of their mind-set - and the challenge of doing so is showing.

Because the All Blacks lack what I would consider the basic principles of mental performance, they will struggle to utilise Spackman’s toolkit even though it is presumably effective. The reason for this is because the approach they are taking is designed to provide additional psychological skills in order to improve their performance whereas in truth, their ability to utilise their skills (potential) is governed by the quality of their mental state. What I mean by this is they won’t automatically gain leverage as a result of Spackman’s process because unless it changes their (psychological) ‘capacity’ to perform (which I am not convinced it will), the constraints or inhibitors will remain more or less the same. In saying this, I am fully supportive of the AB’s committing to a psychological process - providing it focuses on increasing their capacity, otherwise it will once again fail.

So what does this mean? I believe we will see increasing inconsistency throughout the season i.e. we will see increasing moments of brilliance (indicative of a young but talented team starting to gel) interrupted by moments of complete and utter disarray. In my opinion, the efficiency of the All Blacks’ advancement will be dependent upon Henry’s appreciation of the fact their ‘apparent’ skill deficiencies – the things that appear to be the cause of their problems – are not indicative of their physical capability but rather they are temporary disruptions caused by their inappropriate ‘fear based’ mind-sets.

 

 

©1995-Present day. All rights reserved – Steel Performance Solutions