Winners have more control over their own destiny, and more latitude to do their best! Are you one? Read on and see.
“Winners embrace hard work. They love the discipline of it, the trade-off they’re making to win. Losers, on the other hand, see it as punishment. And that’s the difference.”
—Lou Holtz
“Winners, I am convinced, imagine their dreams first. They want it with all their heart and expect it to come true. There is, I believe, no other way to live.”
—Joe Montana
CASE STUDY: ALL BLACKS RUGBY TEAM
The Dual Management Model Leads to More Self-Determination
The following case study examined the motivational climate created by the coaching group that contributed to the All Blacks’ 85% winning percentage from 2004–2011 and culminated in winning the Rugby World Cup in 2011. How was this motivational climate created, then modified over time?
Excerpted from The Sport Psychologist, “A Case Study of Excellence in Elite Sport: Motivational Climate in a World Champion Team”.
This case study focused on the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team during the period from 2004 to 2011, when Graham Henry (head coach) and Wayne Smith (assistant coach) coached and managed the team. More specifically, this case study examined the motivational climate created by this coaching group that culminated in winning the Rugby World Cup in 2011. In-depth interviews were completed with Henry and Smith in March 2012. A collaborative thematic content analysis revealed eight themes, regarding motivational issues and the motivational climate for the 2004–2011 All Blacks team: (i) critical turning point, (ii) flexible and evolving, (iii) dual-management model, (iv) “Better People Make Better All Blacks,” (v) responsibility, (vi) leadership, (vii) expectation of excellence, and (viii) team cohesion. These findings are discussed in light of autonomy-supportive coaching, emotionally intelligent coaching, and transformational leadership. Finally, practical recommendations are offered for coaches of elite sports teams.
The dual-management model evolved over time as the coaches and the leadership group adapted to changing circumstances (see Howitt & Henry, 2012; McCaw & McGee, 2012; Paul, 2012). For example, as Henry observed, the model was streamlined and operated relatively informally by 2009–2010: “The on-field leaders [met] on Sunday… to organize the week, what we’re gonna do in each of those [training] slots. And, then we’d meet at Tuesday lunchtime… and just make sure we were on the same page… [We would also talk about] the intensity of the training, how physical it was going to be, what were the major things that we had to cover in those training runs.” Another key aspect of the dual-management model involved the players taking a stronger role in preparing the game plan for each game, which was achieved, in part, by “also getting them to present some of the stuff [to the team].”
Rugby is an interactive, continuous contact/collision team sport. The continuous nature of rugby is characterized by players switching between attack and defense many times during a game, as well as having to concentrate on the roles required by their position and the team game plan. These structural aspects place demands on players’ psychological skills, team cohesion, and team motivation (Hodge, Lonsdale & McKenzie, 2005). In addition, rugby has no time-outs and a short, 15-minute half-time period. Coaching from the sidelines is prohibited.
Consequently, players are required to be self-reliant and make tactical decisions on the move during the game without direct support from coaches. The importance of self-reliance and decision-making thus becomes paramount (Hodge, et al., 2005).
Both coaches talked at length about the dual-management model that grew out of the critical turning point in 2004 and overlapped with the “Better People Make Better All Blacks” motto and the leadership group. As Henry related: “It was the philosophy to give the players ownership… and to dual-manage the All Blacks with a group of players and a group of oldies [coaches].” However, as Henry also stated: “Some of them found it difficult… We had 11 leaders [initially]… we had formal meetings, and we kept minutes… Now everything’s about the rugby. And all of that [other] stuff is done quite informally. There was an on-field leadership group and an off-field leadership group, [but] they all led on the field” (also see Long, 2005).
The dual-management model evolved over time as the coaches and the leadership group adapted to changing circumstances (see Howitt & Henry, 2012; McCaw & McGee, 2012; Paul, 2012). For example, as Henry observed, the model was streamlined and operated relatively informally by 2009–2010: “The on-field leaders [met] on Sunday… to organize the week, what we’re gonna do in each of those [training] slots. And, then we’d meet at Tuesday lunchtime… and just make sure we were on the same page… [We would also talk about] the intensity of the training, how physical it was going to be, what were the major things that we had to cover in those training runs.” Another key aspect of the dual-management model involved the players taking a stronger role in preparing the game plan for each game, which was achieved, in part, by “also getting them to present some of the stuff [to the team].”
Henry said, “If we’re playing Australia on Saturday, [one of the leaders] might be up in front of the group–this is all part of the self-reliance, ownership stuff–he might be presenting some of the attack game plan.” Furthermore, as Smith explained; “We went away from making any unilateral decisions as [the] coaching and management team, and [instead we] involved the leadership group in everything… [in] all areas of our campaigns.”
He was also of the opinion that selecting on behavior (as well as rugby ability) helped identify smart players who were good decision-makers on the field: “It is a general statement, but guys who behave themselves and have high standards are generally pretty intelligent. You know, you’ve gotta be sharp, you’ve gotta have good self-awareness, and good game understanding, otherwise you just can’t cut it at this level.” Similarly, Henry regarded this emphasis as being crucial for self-reliance and personal development: “We had a continuum of… self-reliance, and where players… would sit on that continuum. And we very much thought that the more self-reliant players we had, the better we’d play… They grew as people… and that helped them grow as winning athletes.”
My TWO Cents
Self-directed winners free you up to do what you really love. They are comfortable with using their initiative and adapting to what works best. Winners are confident to make mistakes, learn, and adjust their processes to succeed. These characteristics are not found using key words and applicant-tracking software (ATS).
Typically, self-determination is thought of as the freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting another or others. I like the phrase “self-governing”, meaning that you and I can choose to be happy, healthy, and productive without bending under the withering expectations of others to do it their way. It’s not the same as “independent”. Being independent in our complex world today is suboptimal, a lot like being stuck in a silo. So you need to connect with those you can help and those who can help you.
Winners rarely whine. They self-correct after looking at a failure from a new perspective, then move into practice based on what they learned. They look forward to what their newly adapted brains will produce. This process is repeatable. Winners will free you up to focus on and pursue your passion.
And no, winners are not perfect, or even close. They remain confident when coming out of a failure or mistake. Then they learn, do, and succeed. You will too!
#crazysmart #selfdetermination #resilience #bookmarketing #leadership #winners
#uncategorized #doitright #postcovidsuccess