I am always fascinated by watching soccer, especially world class soccer as it is being played at the moment in South Africa.
I grew up in a soccer nation with heroes such as Cruyff, Neeskens, van Hanegem, Gullit, Bergkamp, Van Basten, etc. So its no surprise that I am drawn to the game of soccer, as opposed to American football (btw, what percentage of play do players in American football actually touch the ball with their feet?).
Since this is a business oriented blog, I thought I share some thoughts about why modern business calls for a soccer approach to teaming, rather than American football. In the context of “Teaming 2.0″ – companies partnering to achieve a common strategic business goal – this comparison seems more than relevant to me.
The essence of soccer to me is the balance between understanding the system(s) of play of soccer vs. the freedom to operate within that system to pursue the ultimate goal: winning enough to secure long term success. But how to achieve that goal? It takes an optimal combination of systems (framework of best practices), individual skill and experience, the right level of freedom to create within the framework, and subscription by all team members to the common purpose for the team.
Systems of play
Every game consists of rules that make it work in a certain way. A better set of rules makes for a more appealing game: for the players, for the audience. Within those rules there are some obvious options: American football has ‘offense’ and ‘defense’ team sections, basketball has ‘zone’ and ‘man to man’ play, baseball has fixed positions in the field. These work for those games because the opponent plays roughly the same formations. There are relatively few options for ‘on the spot’ creativity.
Soccer is an example of a game that allows unlimited variations and adaptations while on the field, in response to the other team’s execution. The beauty of the game is that not only are there many different formations that can be tried, the team has the freedom to create opportunities within those formations. There are 11 individuals on the field who understand the practices, bring their experience, have a common purpose and collaborate to find the best execution possible to achieve their goal.
Talent, skill & experience
At the national team level, each one of the players has shown the talent and skill necessary to ‘play ball’. Most players have gathered international experience in various clubs, especially European and African players. Some even have prior experience playing in a national team, depending on timing of their career and development. The challenge for the coach is to take these star players and mold them into a team that comes together for an occasion. He must achieve that they each downplay their ego (unfortunately seems to come with being a soccer ‘god’) and enhance their interest in playing for the national honor (their paid job at their own club naturally comes first in their mind).
Teaming 2.0 can only succeed on those same terms. Collaboration among employees of multiple companies must be stimulated to the point that the team members subscribe to the fact that the long term interests of the company are served best by focusing on achieving the collaboration goals. Obviously, this individual mentality should be supported by a corporate (read: senior management) culture that enables it.
Common purpose
Coaches of national soccer teams have a unique challenge. The players come together to pursue an intangible goal: reinvigorate a feeling of national achievement and pride. How do you motivate around a diverse group of individuals to come together and make this their top priority? Not each team is able to achieve this, as we have seen with examples like France this summer.This is especially difficult when the coach has to deal with stake holders of each of the players all demanding their own interests are taken into account.
A similar situation exists when companies come together to collaborate for a common strategic purpose. Each company’s Alliance Manager in charge must formulate a goal and purpose that puts the partnership front and center, while managing the stake holders of his own organization and of the partnership. This can only be done successfully within a supportive environment and with a governance structure that enables the partnership to operate relatively autonomously.
Freedom to operate
But overall, the players are chosen for their understanding of the framework of practices that they can leverage and their individual ability to maximize the opportunities that can be created within that framework. This is a delicate balance that can in reality only be found ‘in context’ by the team that has been brought together. The actual craftsmanship is displayed during the game, when creative ability to defend and develop opportunity are tested.
Similarly, teaming 2.0, or partnering, requires organizations to change the way they have been doing business. Frameworks of practices must be put in place that enable employees to make decisions about how to ‘play the game’ at the partnership level. This demands a level of trust in the employee’s motivation to work towards a goal that is indirect and sometimes intangible: How to be successful as a partnership team, even though in the short term it may generate discussion within your own company because it breaks with the ‘business as usual’.
These are some observations I decided to share with you. I would love to hear your take on the changes in mentality that you believe are required for companies to successfully navigate the global world of business. Please share your comments here or send me emails to discuss privately.
Joost
