Which are you?
I was talking to a rugby player yesterday. I don’t like sporting analogies much; just because you can run 100 meters faster than anybody else doesn’t make you a great manager. But he told me a fascinating story about coaching…
An odd approach
His best coach had a strange post match strategy. When the team won, he conducted a full post-mortem. He spent an hour in the changing room with the team, highlighting what went well and praising good performance. He emphasised what they could do to make sure their next game went as well as this one.
When they lost, he took them all to the pub and bought them a drink. Nothing more was said.
The “rational” approach
Is the one we usually take.
When things go well we go out and celebrate.
When things go badly we have endless investigations and audits to get to the heart of the issue. Hour upon hour of soul-searching and finger-pointing. Going on into the late hours of the evening.
Which is more effective approach?
What do you think? I’d love your comments below…
It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you place the blame ~ Anon
If you enjoyed this post click here and try the e-mail course
Read another opinion
Image by Rory
James,
I’d say that the coach is taking a positive and reinforcing approach to performance by focusing on the stuff that he wants to see more of and how they can improve on that.
Good approach, I’d say.
Adrian
Investigate the approach of Brian Clough and other managers of that ilk / era. Probably all the way up to Peter Reid at Sunderland and Bryan Robson at Boro. They’ve all been known / recorded as stopping the team coach somewhere on the way back from a loss and telling the players to have a beer, get it out of their system and move on.
If you’re a rugby man true to the egg, consult the Brian O’Driscoll book. In that he explains his feelings on management bonding sessions and barrier breakdown exercises – he believes that if someone will carry you home when pissed, make sure you are safe, not give you a hard time about it the next day and still like you that they are probably worthy of some trust on the basis that they will expect the same from you. And he did alright getting people (mostly men mind) to follow him.
My own view – my brain analyses everything probably slightly too much. Therefore, its impossible for me to be quite a clean cut as above. Still, I’ll try. Being British I do tend to down play my own part in success and over play my part in failure. The ageing process has taught me that my own ability to decisively influence either is over valued in that evaluation, in most cases. Therefore, I try to follow a process which could be considered a bit zen / japanese business culture / pragmatic and that is process over product. I check to see if in the round, I did a good job on something and if I was deficient then I’ll capture that for next time. The definition of success applied by others isn’t that important for me in that view, since the idea of personal heroism that influences so many personal narratives and stories we are told doesn’t seem to apply in truth or deep review.
I also find that a good way to manage stress, since it forces me to acknowledge that there are factors, risks, issues, whatever that are beyond my control and that my energy and focus should be concentrated on that which I can control – me. Being an ex-control freak also helps in that process.
PS : Loving your blog, as usual.
Thanks for the comment Matt, you impressed Adrian and got a plug on his Forbes column…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adrianswinscoe/2016/01/29/how-organisations-and-leaders-could-be-undermining-their-own-employee-engagement-efforts/#692230ee73d4
Hello James,
It occurs to me that this rugby coach has a profound grasp of the being of human-beings in our culture. And he is using that insight to good effect.
Few things hurt so much as failure – especially when the failure is public. Even when it is not. We are brought up to win, to come first, to be top dog… Further, almost all of us internalise ‘father and mother’ as critics of how we show up and operate. So we are self-critical. We are the first ones to lash ourselves when we fail to live up to expectations. Especially when we fail to live up to our expectations. Or those of the people who matter in our lives as lived.
When we are hurting we are not in position of openness. We are not open to listening. We are not opening to taking on criticism. Criticism disguised as feedback is simply not welcome. If delivered then it is merely rubbing salt into delicate wounds.
In times of failure, when the appearance of goodness is punctured, we NEED folks around us to rally around us. The minimum form of this rallying around us is to merely allow us to deal with our pain. Much better still is that the folks that matter put their ‘arm around us’ and let us know that we are OK. That their respect, even affection, for us remains intact. By doing this, these folks help us lift ourselves back up. And our natural instinct is to repay those who have backed us in times of failure / difficulty. Cialdini has identified Reciprocity has one of the keys of influence.
So when should one provide feedback? Immediately after we have done well. As Ken Blanchard says in the One Minute Manager ( I think it is that book) “Catch them doing right!”. What is occurring here? Reinforcement – as in Skinner and Behaviourism.
All the best,
maz
I was once told to praise in public and chastise in private
The first I agree with, the second is interesting. Does chastising people ever do any good?