A brief article in the March 31st Economist caught my eye. "Rhythm and blues" described how the Cambridge University rowing club is applying management theory to selecting and training the rowers for their April 7th race with rival Oxford. (And this isn't just any old race. It's now been held 153 times, and its url is simple, elegant, and so very British-ly understated theboatrace.com.)
In any case, the Cambridge club's try outs and trials have been observed by business school management theorist Mark deRond, who "thinks that the time-honoured contest holds lessons for business today."
As in any company, the members of the boat club are torn between competition and co-operation. Colleagues vie with each other for preferment, yet must collaborate closely to fend of competition from without. To win a seat in the blue boat, a rower must outshine his clubmates; but to go fast, rowers must synchronise their efforts with the same people they are trying to outdo.
The club coach, Duncan Holland, is shown coaching by "leading from the side." When two rowers are each trying to "impose his natural tempo on the other," Mr. Holland doesn't tell one to pick it up or the other to slow it down. Instead, he encourages the team to solve the problem themselves. They do. So it's not about individual ego, about individual best, it's about team success.
The coach (with Mr. de Rond's help?) ends up choosing the final rowers from a highly competitive field of hopefuls, and at least one of the picks appears at first to be unorthodox. Dan O'Shaughnessy's technique is awkward, but he is someone who "gets the best out of his crewmates, who like to have him around."
There is a brief mention of a Harvard Business Review article "which found that workmates prize amiability over ability, preferring the 'loveable fool' to the 'competent jerk.'"
My work as part of teams over the years certainly underscores the notion that groups that get along are more productive. But in my experience it's entirely possible to work with people who are both loveable and competent. And that there's nothing worse than working with someone who's both incompetent and unpleasant.
The article brought to mind my experience working on a team effort in which a group of us were prepping our boss for his "big" presentation to executive management. We all had our roles - numbers crunching, fact finding, prototyping, info gathering - although one member of the team seemed to be able to dog all work. He took on a self-appointed role as cheerleader, checking in on us and giving the worker bees an occasional atta-girl or atta-boy.
As the hour of our boss's departure for corporate HQ neared, I took on the role of lead scrambler, pulling everything together - and doing the copying, collating, binding. (All those good girl tasks.)
My boss appeared at the door of the conference room where I was busily packing things up for him, overcoat already on, ready to race out the door with the goods. Right behind him stood my cheerleading friend. Also wearing an overcoat.
Where, I wondered, might he be going in the middle of the morning with his overcoat on.
Although the team had been told that our boss was flying solo at this meeting, somehow or another, Mr. Cheerleader had convinced him that his presence was necessary. To add insult to injury, he had the nerve to come over to me, pat me on the shoulder and thank me for all the help I'd given him and Steve.
Grrrrrrr.
I've been on other teams with jerks like this: showboaters, credit-grabbers, goldbrickers.
Sometimes, it seems, things work to their benefit - to management, they appear to be leaders, on top of things, the one in charge.
But things look very different when you're on a team with them. People seldom elect to team up with them again, and, invariably, their behavior catches up with them. If someone is both useless and a jerk, it will generally be recognized sooner or later.
In any case, and for whatever reason, the article on the Cambridge Blues reminded me of this long-forgotten incident.
And oh, yes, Cambridge beat Oxford by a length and a quarter.
2 comments:
I think the issue you raise--how competition and collaboration can co-exist--is one of the important business issues of our time.
We have been raised on an ideology of competition like mother's milk. But we're entering a world whose dominant characteristic is that everything is linked. Can you say "disconnect?"
Metaphors and stories are powerful ways to learn lessons that confuse us cognitively. The solution to the crew issue is a great story. More please!
The story captures some of the essence of what was a complex situation. We certainly took some notice of ability to collaborate, not only of straight rowing ability.
Post a Comment