Leading teams program

[Ghost Dog]

Just finshed reading an article where Luke Darcy backs up his comments re leading teams.
There is plenty of evidence for the system. Some in this article was against it.
Regards that below.


Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse does not approve of the system, saying it can "break" some players, and former Essendon captain Matthew Lloyd felt it did not work at his club, because only a handful of players spoke up at the feedback sessions.
( source, Darcy stands by Wallace attack, (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/darcy-stands-by-wallace-attack-20100802-1127d.html) WILL BRODIE
August 2, 2010 - 11:23AM )


Does anyone have any first hand experience of the system? What is everyone's view on the concept ?

[dog town]

The whole concept has been grossly misinterpreted by the media. It is not about just sitting guys out the front and hammering them. All the feedback is given in relation to certain rules/behaviours the group has decided upon. The way it is reported is that its just a bunch of senior players singling people out and grilling them. It is probably not perfect for every club but I think the proof is in the pudding with the teams that have adopted it over the years. Even as far back as Central Districts in the SA league it has proven to be valuable in changing the culture of clubs.

[AndrewP6]

I had quite a lengthy discussion at work with my boss about the program. Our school had considered it for our leadership team. It was rejected on the grounds that the practise of isolating people in front of their colleagues would not be an effective strategy for all staff members. She has a book about it, just waiting for a good opportunity to remind her about lending it to me! Without in-depth knowledge of it, I'd have to say I'm not a fan. I believe the confrontational nature of it would work for some, and have the opposite effect for others. Putting myself in that position, I don't think it'd bring out the best in me - and that wouldn't necessarily indicate a weakness in me. As Lloyd said, there'd be plenty of times when no-one speaks up, and the same small group run the entire session. Too many flaws, for mine.

[Ghost Dog]

I had quite a lengthy discussion at work with my boss about the program. Our school had considered it for our leadership team. It was rejected on the grounds that the practise of isolating people in front of their colleagues would not be an effective strategy for all staff members. She has a book about it, just waiting for a good opportunity to remind her about lending it to me! Without in-depth knowledge of it, I'd have to say I'm not a fan. I believe the confrontational nature of it would work for some, and have the opposite effect for others. Putting myself in that position, I don't think it'd bring out the best in me - and that wouldn't necessarily indicate a weakness in me. As Lloyd said, there'd be plenty of times when no-one speaks up, and the same small group run the entire session. Too many flaws, for mine.

This is interesting. Food for thought.

[Ghost Dog]

The whole concept has been grossly misinterpreted by the media. It is not about just sitting guys out the front and hammering them. All the feedback is given in relation to certain rules/behaviours the group has decided upon. The way it is reported is that its just a bunch of senior players singling people out and grilling them. It is probably not perfect for every club but I think the proof is in the pudding with the teams that have adopted it over the years. Even as far back as Central Districts in the SA league it has proven to be valuable in changing the culture of clubs.

Ok. So the way it works you are saying, is guidelines are set in terms of team focus, goals and so forth. The feedback given later must be limited to those points that were highlighted earlier. Is this right?

[AndrewP6]

There's some info on their website
http://www.leadingteams.net.au/

[BornInDroopSt'54]

The dynamics of group approval/disapproval are potent. It can raise people or crush them. However I think that in the rarefied culture of an AFL club, where trust is established and imbedded, the open forum could be powerfully bonding. Maslow's hierarchy of human needs claims we need accurate feedback about our performance within the group, it's critical. Most of us don't get it and sometimes find out negative feedback behind our back which can be debilitating. The open forum like the Leading Teams Program could provide trusted accurate feedback to players in a caring environment. Conversely it could lead to the same old domination of the same old voices determining the agenda in a not so good or caring environment. Whether Darcy is right and a more open forum and empowerment of player attitude would have delivered us a flag, or whether Wallace is right and the club had in place an effective communications manager and system who knows? If Libber's kick had been a little to the left or had been adjudged correctly, if Mark West hadn't shat himself running in to an open goal, if Chris Grant had been able to get his foot to the ball from a metre out...It wouldn't have taken much more in 97 for us to make the GF, maybe even better feedback. I believe the Leading Teams Program could be very effective.

[LostDoggy]

Here's the thing, if an “elite group” exists, they're going to be the vocal group whether the feedback is given in an open and direct manner or behind the player's back. At the end of the day, anybody who has worked with any large group of men, whether they be footballers or otherwise, knows that men can sometimes gossip and bitch about each other more than women do, and I think Leading Teams perhaps removes that bad part of a team's culture and gets everything out in the open.

I've done a lot of training in Conflict Resolution as part of my former role in the Navy, and in those contexts something like Leading Teams sounds like a good strategy. We lived in very close quarters, spent lots of time together and depended on each other, not just as a team working for something, but sometimes you needed to depend on a man to safeguard your life. My point is, open and honest feedback encourages a team to get the problems and gripes — and ANY group of men is going to have them — out in the open. Yes, negative feedback may have an adverse effect on a player, but more than likely that kind of feedback is going to reach that player's ears via gossip and innuendo, and that is FAR more damaging.

I think the proof of Leading Teams is in the Ablett situation. We have to assume the playing group has sat ol' Gazza out the front at some point about his contract — and they continue to play as if it doesn't bother them. Maybe it has helped keep a very volatile situation in hand. Geelong players would have to be upset about it all — every day he holds off is a day harder for them to negotiate their own contracts.

Or, look at Brisbane — do they use it? How are they handling the Fevola situation? By all reports, he is totally hated by the group and 100% on the outer. Very interesting situation come season end. I'd love to know if Leading Teams is up there and whether it has helped or hindered Brisbane this year.

[FrediKanoute]

What I find interesting about the debate is that those footy people against it are generally (and this is very much a generalisation) individualists.....Aker, Lloyd, Malthouse, Wallace etc.....they are people in a football club who do thing's their way.

Leading Teams is never going to work for these people because of their very nature they are compeltely self absorbed.....that is not necessarily a negative though, because one of the worst things a "team" can do is engage in group think.....hence a collective psychy that leads to poor decisions, because team members are so reluctant to disturb the function of the team. A guy like Aker can, if used correctly be a means of realigning a team away from a group think mentality.

Where a Leading Teams approach really works is ensuring that key non-negotiable team standards are set which are congruent to the overall team objectives. In effect it sets baseline under which performance/behaviour will not be tolerated.

[LostDoggy]

Gia spoke about it quite a bit on One Week at a time. 3 main points:

1. What you need to stop
2. What you need to work on
3. What you need to keep on doing

[mjp]

I have used it for footy and in corporate life.

It is AWESOME.

Feedback from your peers is incredibly compelling...but it is something that you work up to - it doesn't begin on day one.

Anyone who has a chance to do it at work will not be disappointed.

[Greystache]

I said in another post that most corporates use a 360 degree feedback model for mid level staff and higher. They expect people with a certain level of responsibilty to be able to handle a bit of reality rather than the fluffy everybody is unique and special in their own way type of garbage being shoved down everyone's throats by civil libertarians these days. I can say from experience that while confronting it certainly helps you become a better person.

[Topdog]

Or, look at Brisbane — do they use it? How are they handling the Fevola situation? By all reports, he is totally hated by the group and 100% on the outer. Very interesting situation come season end. I'd love to know if Leading Teams is up there and whether it has helped or hindered Brisbane this year.

Really think this is one of those rumours that is 100% BS. He was out drinking with JB after their loss in Melb the other week.

[Topdog]

I have used it for footy and in corporate life.

It is AWESOME.

Feedback from your peers is incredibly compelling...but it is something that you work up to - it doesn't begin on day one.

Anyone who has a chance to do it at work will not be disappointed.

We technically don't use it at work but I and 3 or 4 others use it amongst ourselves and when needed within the group. I really fail to see a negative to it.

Whats better 3 people bitching about someone behind their back or 1 person walking up to said person and telling them that they are expected to do / work better?

[mjp]

I had quite a lengthy discussion at work with my boss about the program. Our school had considered it for our leadership team. It was rejected on the grounds that the practise of isolating people in front of their colleagues would not be an effective strategy for all staff members.


It doesn't work this way. That you think it does indicates a bit of a gap in your research. Establishing a framework of values and behaviors is the first stage...individual feedback will only happen once the group and the individual are prepared for it.




She has a book about it, just waiting for a good opportunity to remind her about lending it to me! Without in-depth knowledge of it, I'd have to say I'm not a fan.

I fear what I do not understand?



I believe the confrontational nature of it would work for some, and have the opposite effect for others. Putting myself in that position, I don't think it'd bring out the best in me - and that wouldn't necessarily indicate a weakness in me.

If you have trust in your colleagues and honestly believe their feedback is well intentioned and given to help you improve, then you will benefit. If you are not prepared to listen to others and believe that everything you already do is perfect, then you wont. Honest feedback about your performance can only help you improve and I don't understand why you wouldn't want to be better at your job? If you think of it as criticism then you are kind of missing the point...

To be truthful, giving honest feedback to someone you like about their performance is far harder than receiving it. Far, far, far harder.



As Lloyd said, there'd be plenty of times when no-one speaks up, and the same small group run the entire session. Too many flaws, for mine.

It doesn't work this way. It is a very inclusive system that actually gives a voice to junior members of the group as opposed to having things done on a purely hierarchical basis.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

I said in another post that most corporates use a 360 degree feedback model for mid level staff and higher. They expect people with a certain level of responsibilty to be able to handle a bit of reality rather than the fluffy everybody is unique and special in their own way type of garbage being shoved down everyone's throats by civil libertarians these days. I can say from experience that while confronting it certainly helps you become a better person.

The development of self esteem is critically dependant on accurate feedback not a cajolling "evryone gets an award" system as practised in the USA for example.
A Polish born professor in the USA whose seminars I attended claimed the killers in the mass school shooting scenarios were originally thought to be low self esteemers, but were found to have an inflated sense of self esteem which he blamed on the system that rewards everyone and tells everyone they're wonderfull without basing it on evidence or their achievements necessarily. The killers and others then have a sense of themselves as better than they really are and when reality shows this to be unreal, people can becaome very violent to protect their sense of themselves.
The point is that people need accurate, realistic assessment from others, even though it may be challenging. Of course it must be balanced and come from trust. When people have a strong sense of themselves within the group they can perform strongly.
An interesting counterpoint to this is the notion that a benign dictator is the best leader, because their vision can be best implemented without distraction from the rank and file. A la Napoleon, he is able to perhaps capture and inspire people's opinion rather than harness it.
As a secondary teacher part of my ongoing training emphasises the importance of feedback. It's ALL about feedback. And feedback is two way, ongoing and becomes discourse, open dialogue and must be related to the expected outcomes.

[Greystache]

The development of self esteem is critically dependant on accurate feedback not a cajolling "evryone gets an award" system as practised in the USA for example.

As a secondary teacher part of my ongoing training emphasises the importance of feedback. It's ALL about feedback. And feedback is two way, ongoing and becomes discourse, open dialogue and must be related to the expected outcomes.

Good post bornindroopst, you must be increasingly frustrated by parent groups trying to prevent you from giving kids accurate feedback in regards to their true capabilities?

I have a school teacher friend who is being attacked more and more regularly by parents of students who aren't very bright insisting it was the teachers fault they weren't getting straight A's because they didn't realise their child was so much smarter than everyone else in the class that they were getting bored and tuning out.

[Bulldog Revolution]

After reading Ray McLeans book (Any Given Team) a fair while a go I felt the leading teams approach was something that made a lot of sense, and resonated strongly with my experience in successful teams, that had positive cultures.

I believe its a very positive approach, but of course, it needs to be adapted to each environment in which it is used, but does contain some core ideas of how successful teams function.

For the Bulldogs I view it as empowering the playing group to take ownership of what it is they are trying to achieve, and the peer feedback systems are ways of addressing how members of the team are performing both on and off the field. I see this as developing leaders within, and communication between members of the team.

[AndrewP6]

It doesn't work this way. That you think it does indicates a bit of a gap in your research.

Research? My post stated it was a discussion I had. Just a discussion. Based on the thoughts of the school leaders who had met with LT reps.


I fear what I do not understand?

Fear isn't the right word. Dislike ...based on what I have heard/read. Which isn't everything.


If you have trust in your colleagues and honestly believe their feedback is well intentioned and given to help you improve, then you will benefit.

Honest feedback about your performance can only help you improve and I don't understand why you wouldn't want to be better at your job? If you think of it as criticism then you are kind of missing the point...

Wouldn't trust some of them as far as I could throw them.

We have regular performance reviews, at which my performance is discussed,evaluated and feedback is given. Which I then act on if necessary. That's plenty of feedback, from the people I'm answerable to. Speaking from my own experience, such feedback coming from any and all would end in tears (not mine, but there'd definitely be some!)


To be truthful, giving honest feedback to someone you like about their performance is far harder than receiving it. Far, far, far harder..

Agreed, which would lead some to avoid giving feedback at all.


It doesn't work this way. It is a very inclusive system that actually gives a voice to junior members of the group as opposed to having things done on a purely hierarchical basis.

Sure, they'd have a voice, but would they all use it? I know for certain in my school, Lloyd's "5 speak, 35 say nothing" would be the case a lot of the time.

[Ghost Dog]

All means are not the same ends.
I have done similar programs in my undergrad course and they were horrible. Basically because the person facilitating them was lousy and there was not enough encouragement, just criticism.

Then I did a second post grad cert that used feedback but the facilitators were professional and really left their egos at the door. The feedback was very structured and you kind of knew that nobody could just attack you from left field on some irrational basis. It was practical.
It went very well, even though it was not always easy.

In short, I get the feeling it is not just the system but how people use it and for what purposes and how it is implemented.


MJP --> " To be truthful, giving honest feedback to someone you like about their performance is far harder than receiving it. Far, far, far harder. "

I am not sure I agree with this. Case by case for each person

[mjp]

Research? My post stated it was a discussion I had. Just a discussion. Based on the thoughts of the school leaders who had met with LT reps.


Yep - a discussion. You then detailed the reasons why the model had been dismissed by the school, which to me indicates an informed discussion...semantics I guess. I guess I have a pet hate about people talking about things as if they 'know' when they haven't experienced it or at least made the effort to investigate.



Fear isn't the right word. Dislike ...based on what I have heard/read. Which isn't everything.

'I fear what I do not understand' is a quote. I can't ad-lib the quote.



Wouldn't trust some of them as far as I could throw them.

Then you need a team values program. Quickly. Trust is an outcome of behavior...



We have regular performance reviews, at which my performance is discussed,evaluated and feedback is given. Which I then act on if necessary. That's plenty of feedback, from the people I'm answerable to. Speaking from my own experience, such feedback coming from any and all would end in tears (not mine, but there'd definitely be some!)

The people you are answerable too? Leading teams is not about who you are answerable too - that indicates a hierarchy. It is about people working together to improve. I don't know you at all, but if you have a quick read of Ray Maclean's book it would give you some perspective about how your answers would be received by a LT facilitator. In short, they would say:
- It sounds like you are concerned what your peers might really say about you.
- Your 'would end in tears' comment also suggests that you are not prepared to receive direct feedback on your work, or would be determined to make the person 'suffer' for challenging you. This is not good.

Remember, if someone gives you honest feedback and you simply listen and say nothing, it makes them think about THEIR behavior. If you fire back at them, they will immediately take the 'Why did I bother, he didn't listen anyway' approach.


Agreed, which would lead some to avoid giving feedback at all.
Again, the whole feedback model is not a day 1 thing. It is about coaching people so that they do have a voice. Do these people provide any feedback NOW? I would suggest not - but under LT they would be coached in this.



Sure, they'd have a voice, but would they all use it? I know for certain in my school, Lloyd's "5 speak, 35 say nothing" would be the case a lot of the time.

In early days it would, I agree. But it is a persistent model not something that is dropped and left. The reality is the decisions and behavior patterns will be set by the few now - coaching people to both want a voice and use it will work and an inclusive model will develop.

We could go back and forth on this forever. My advice is give the program a go in the work-place and be open minded about the potential benefits...there will be many. I am yet to meet someone who didn't live through the LT experience and find it both beneficial and life changing.

[LostDoggy]

Great reading your thoughts everyone - I know relatively little about Leading Teams - however, I have worked in Human Resources for most of my working life, and think i will do some research. I have never worked in an environment where you were really encouraged to give 360 degrees feedback. Appraisal systems were in place for your supervisor to appraise your performance etc., and whilst I worked in a very open environment and my supervisor welcomed feedback, most others did not. I do think most work places would benefit from this type of program. Again, thanks for all your insights, now time for me to do some research!

[Picken Knows]

I am yet to meet someone who didn't live through the LT experience and find it both beneficial and life changing.

I know of one bloke that found it life changing, don't know if he found it beneficial though.;)

[EasternWest]

I know of one bloke that found it life changing, don't know if he found it beneficial though.;)

I know of about 50 odd blokes that found it beneficial.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

Good post bornindroopst, you must be increasingly frustrated by parent groups trying to prevent you from giving kids accurate feedback in regards to their true capabilities?

I have a school teacher friend who is being attacked more and more regularly by parents of students who aren't very bright insisting it was the teachers fault they weren't getting straight A's because they didn't realise their child was so much smarter than everyone else in the class that they were getting bored and tuning out.

It does happen but most of the parents I deal with are very suuportive of the school and their child's education.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

All means are not the same ends.
I have done similar programs in my undergrad course and they were horrible. Basically because the person facilitating them was lousy and there was not enough encouragement, just criticism.

Then I did a second post grad cert that used feedback but the facilitators were professional and really left their egos at the door. The feedback was very structured and you kind of knew that nobody could just attack you from left field on some irrational basis. It was practical.
It went very well, even though it was not always easy.

In short, I get the feeling it is not just the system but how people use it and for what purposes and how it is implemented.


MJP --> " To be truthful, giving honest feedback to someone you like about their performance is far harder than receiving it. Far, far, far harder. "

I am not sure I agree with this. Case by case for each person

All the feedback has got to be clearly related to the agreed outcomes. So "I think you've achieved this well by doing x,y and z" or "I think you need to improve your tackling after turnovers because you're under the average g=for the team"

[LostDoggy]

Aker's dislike about this program probably stems from a lack of respect for the opinions of team mates who haven't won 3 flags and a Brownlow?

[Desipura]

Aker's dislike about this program probably stems from a lack of respect for the opinions of team mates who haven't won 3 flags and a Brownlow?
No, just a lack of respect, full stop. He did not give a rats clacker about what his Brisbane teammates thought of him either.

[AndrewP6]

Yep - a discussion. You then detailed the reasons why the model had been dismissed by the school, which to me indicates an informed discussion...semantics I guess. I guess I have a pet hate about people talking about things as if they 'know' when they haven't experienced it or at least made the effort to investigate.
I did say I am waiting to read the book about it, and don't yet have a huge amount of information. And the OP asked for opinions...


Then you need a team values program. Quickly. Trust is an outcome of behavior...

We need a lot of things... more resources, less pointless crap, a clean-out of deadwood etc etc...


The people you are answerable too? Leading teams is not about who you are answerable too - that indicates a hierarchy.
Maybe I'm old fashioned...that's the way I like it.

- It sounds like you are concerned what your peers might really say about you.
- Your 'would end in tears' comment also suggests that you are not prepared to receive direct feedback on your work, or would be determined to make the person 'suffer' for challenging you. This is not good.

The 'end in tears' bit wouldn't be me. Others would react in this way. I receive direct feedback already.


My advice is give the program a go in the work-place and be open minded about the potential benefits

I could be persuaded, but it's not my call.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Aker's dislike about this program probably stems from a lack of respect for the opinions of team mates who haven't won 3 flags and a Brownlow?

If Aker only respects the opinions of people who have won three flags and a Brownlow,
he's got a very small circle of feedback there.

Michael Voss and Simon Black would be about it.

Not sure they'll be giving him great feedback either.

[LostDoggy]

If Aker only respects the opinions of people who have won three flags and a Brownlow,
he's got a very small circle of feedback there.

Michael Voss and Simon Black would be about it.

Not sure they'll be giving him great feedback either.

I didn't mean it that he was right to not respect them, was just posing a question for comment.

One thing I've noticed in all this Aker debate — there are a LOT of very strong opinions on this board and a lot of heated debate. The important thing to remember is that this forum is about debate, and to get up each other for differing opinions is kinda funny considering that's what the Aker situation boils down to.

Ironic…

[Ghost Dog]

I didn't mean it that he was right to not respect them, was just posing a question for comment.

One thing I've noticed in all this Aker debate — there are a LOT of very strong opinions on this board and a lot of heated debate. The important thing to remember is that this forum is about debate, and to get up each other for differing opinions is kinda funny considering that's what the Aker situation boils down to.

Ironic…

Well said. Too often, people take disagreement as an insult rather than a possible compliment! ( in the sense of 'complimentary colour'
Perhaps it's a virtue of short, faceless bits of blunt text that can be interpreted in different ways.

Anyway, there would be some pretty short threads if everyone agreed.

[EasternWest]

Well said. Too often, people take disagreement as an insult rather than a possible compliment! ( in the sense of 'complimentary colour'
Perhaps it's a virtue of short, faceless bits of blunt text that can be interpreted in different ways.

Anyway, there would be some pretty short threads if everyone agreed.

Agreed :D.

[chef]

Well said. Too often, people take disagreement as an insult rather than a possible compliment! ( in the sense of 'complimentary colour'
Perhaps it's a virtue of short, faceless bits of blunt text that can be interpreted in different ways.

Anyway, there would be some pretty short threads if everyone agreed.

And they would be pretty boring.

[Hotdog60]

Should be a very long meeting at the club this week.;)

[mjp]

Should be a very long meeting at the club this week.;)

Actually, it should be pretty short.

[BulldogBelle]

The 'short' meeting should involve a small group of people... the list management committee with the president and board, and they should be trying to get down to the hard decisions that need to be made on the careers of some players for next year. We have blokes in their late twenties and thirties that probably let us down in big games that we have to move aside and start giving opportunities to the next wave of youth that we have on the list. I don't mean for the remainder of this season, but we should start next season with a younger, fresher approach, where players (especially those in the older age bracket) aren't afforded weeks to get their form up.

[mjp]

Huh?

Leave the recriminations for the off-season. There is a game vs Sydney to be won next week...