‘In interdisciplinary work, conflict only shows you care. However, it is important to work out the areas where you agree’.
A podcast brought to you by our Main Partners
The Head of Strength & Conditioning at Red Bull’s Athlete Performance Center in Salzburg is describing the learning opportunity provided by the interdisciplinary work that goes on around the organisation’s 850-plus athletes across four football clubs, two hockey teams, and approximately 250 sporting disciplines.
“The unstructured way is almost like a child and you are learning just by being there from practitioners who are better [in their field] than you,” he says.
“Then there’s this more structured approach where you actively seek opportunities to observe and have questions asked of you; and I think with that understanding it makes that interdisciplinary work easier.”
Conor is the first guest on this three-part series looking at Strength & Conditioning through a leadership lens.
On the conversational agenda were:
Listen above and subscribe today on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher and Overcast, or your chosen podcast platform.
What Leaders Performance Institute members said in a recent Virtual Roundtable around the challenges and possible solutions to finding a balance between short and long-term strategy.
Consequently, when thinking about these barriers, what solutions, approaches and changes are we looking to implement to find that balance? These were the two questions that formed part of the group conversations as part of our Virtual Roundtable discussions.
What are the major barriers we are experiencing?
To set the tone for our conversations and to ensure we were focusing more on solutions to our challenges around this topic, attendees were encouraged to share the main barriers to finding an effective balance for short and long-term strategy. As expected, there were a number of commonalities and we acknowledged the different contexts those on the call were operating in.
The need for week to week results and return on investment
As expected, the most popular response from the group was around the pressures, desires and expectations to win and see improvement quickly. Dovetailing this challenge was also the increased anxiety that can be experienced around ‘deemed success’ within certain roles and what the implications are if results don’t fall as we’d like. For those operating within the Olympic system, it was clear that there are pressures from funding partners to be seeing quicker return on investment which can also influence longer-term thinking. Outside of the final score or outcome, it was acknowledged that losses are not limited to just the end result – injuries or a lack of objective progress deters away from the long-term vision to a shorter-term, reactive mindset. Finally on this point, it was referenced that many environments can experience unrealistic expectations on performance outcomes that create uncertainty and misalignment from the outset.
Organisational alignment
Another common challenge outlined by the group was the lack of alignment when it comes to discussions around short and longer-term thinking. What are we witnessing on an organisational level? There is an absence of individual role clarity aligned to long-term thinking, unlike the short-term. There is a natural expertise or discipline bias that exists in environments which can impact a unified approach to both the short and long-term, thus impacting the ability to collaborate effectively. Mindset. This was an interesting reflection that arose when exploring both questions, is the organisational mindset aligned when it comes to finding this balance? Do those in the environment have confidence in the approach and that match realistic expectations?
To conclude this second major barrier, the group also suggested that communication is often a core part of this process that requires more attention – what is the interpretation of short and long, where does one stop and start? Is there consistent communication and space provided to dedicate time to both short and long-term thinking? It is also clear that there are structural challenges when it comes to alignment – are those in departmental lead roles aligned in both day-to-day performance focuses, but also the horizon scanning for the programme?
Shifting the dial and finding a better balance
As part of the group conversations, we looked to lean on one another’s experiences around how we are looking to affect the barriers in a positive way and what approaches or best practices are having the most impact.
Balancing short and long-term strategy requires ‘bravery’
Be brave and be deliberate was one of the key reflections that came from the conversations. Why did the term bravery emerge in the conversations? It was aligned to the fact that some bravery in terms of decision making is important to commit to something we believe in for the future. An environment from the Olympic world outlined that they found it more useful talking about ’12-Year Statements of Intent’. When looking at funding submissions, there was a short-term strategy set in the context of a ’12-Year Statement of Intent’ – it encouraged thinking around what 12 years ahead actually looks like and each time there is a conversation around why we’re doing something in a particular way, it gives the collective something to roll back to. Thinking that amount of time ahead does take bravery, but it provides an opportunity to ensure that the short and long-term are connected rather than having tension with one another.
Creating dedicated space and time
It was interesting to hear that many environments aren’t intentional in creating opportunities and space to talk about the long-term. Often, we are finding that the long-term thinking is morphing into the day-to-day and we aren’t moving into ‘new spaces’ to explore new thinking and how to carry information forward. We can do better at connecting the two through a methodology such as ‘plan, do, review’ which can be an effective approach. If we can get this to work, it can help to connect the short with the long-term.
The groups also felt it was important to note that creating space and time for these conversations should be a systemised approach, it shouldn’t just be a one off – integrate this into how you operate. Deliberately, every three to four months, come together and look at what we said we were going to do in the short-term and review how is that connecting to the long-term.
It was also encouraged that we are deliberate in creating space for different mindsets, there are different mental states required to think in the long-term vs the short-term. One is more creative and the other is more action-orientated. One environment from the Olympic system shared that a scenario they have had this year is preparing for Paris 2024 and submitting funding around what the strategy may be. The team did some work around futurology and brought in an external facilitator from the University of Oxford who does scenario planning and future thinking work.
As part of your organisational strategy, it was also suggested that allocating resource and reward processes related to long-term thinking and not just short-term delivery help find a healthier balance – often most of our resources are aligned to short-term delivery.
Clear vision and values
Start with the end in mind and work backwards from where the long-term strategy is targeted at was another key suggestion – what are the milestones, targets and priorities to close the gaps? It requires time and effort to continue to keep the strategy alive with the behaviours that underpin them and not just seeking short-term success.
Many environments witness frequent change where progress around long-term thinking can be stifled – look at handover and inductions with a focus on the culture and vision of the organisation to provide an element of sustainability and alignment. Creating a vision is the start, particularly bringing to life the ‘how’ we get there is vital for clarity. Have respect for all the different departments and teams within the organisation that have different priorities.
Accountability
Finding a balance between short and long-term thinking requires a level of accountability within the environment. There is an importance placed on ongoing communication, buy-in from all involved and accountability to the long-term plan. Outside of individual accountability, there is also a need for ‘programme accountability’ to reviewing (week-to-week, month-to-month, cycle-to-cycle) in a fashion that links with the long-term vision and strategy.
Changing the mindset
We have already briefly alluded to the idea of mindset or the mental spaces required for these kinds of thinking. There is an importance in being deliberate and recognising the different mindset required to think in the short and long term – an intent, purpose and real desire to affect change in a positive manner. There was a great reflection in the discussion that most of the team meetings we experience are often focused on the things we are reacting to on a daily or weekly basis. Maybe we need to make an intentional shift to ensure we don’t get caught up in the reactive mindset.
We also discussed language. Make the long term strategy as a concept more exciting to talk about – long-term strategy can often sound quite uninteresting, so how can we change the language to galvanise a group and create excitement? There is sometimes a deterrent that the ‘long-term’ is so far in the future you can’t realistically consider it, whereas it should be exciting to think about the future.
23 Aug 2023
ArticlesIn the second half of a our two-part interview, physical performance coach Ben Rosenblatt discusses behavioural nudges and the gamification of training.
But what can a practitioner do when an athlete doesn’t ask ‘why’?
“There’s a few options,” says Ben Rosenblatt, a physical performance coach who has worked with the England men’s football team, GB and England women’s hockey teams and Olympic Judoka amongst others.
“Do you know them well enough to understand why they don’t want to know? If it’s because they just want to get told, they’ve got trust, and they don’t want to know ‘why’, they just want to crack on with it and say ‘go on then, give us the programme’, I’ll commit to it, we’ll give it a crack, and then afterwards we can work out how well that worked.
“Do they not want to know ‘why’ because they’ve disengaged? If so, then you might just see them floating around a session or trying to disrupt others.
“The other one is that they’re just not that interested in physical conditioning and preparation because not everyone is. Most people take up sport or play high level sport not because they love doing press-ups and sit-ups, it’s because they love their sport.
“So you’ve got to try and understand the reason why they’ve disengaged and you’re also trying to find out, as a consequence, how they’re best going to receive information. So you can just ask some really simple questions to ascertain that. If it were you and me working together I’ll ask: ‘what’s the best way that we communicate with each other? What do you need from me? what’s important to you physically? what’s worked in the past?
“You might say: ‘I just need a programme and to crack on’. That’s absolutely fine and that’s what you’re going to get. But then we can also ask the athlete ‘can we review it every six weeks?’ This will give you both the opportunity to learn more about each other.”
This is the second part of our interview with Rosenblatt, who discussed behavioural mapping in the first instalment.
The conversation takes a turn into nudge theory, which is defined by Imperial College London as: ‘based upon the idea that by shaping the environment, also known as the choice architecture, one can influence the likelihood that one option is chosen over another by individuals.’
“This is where you bleed into the gamification of training and environmental nudges to encourage people to engage in stuff they might not necessarily want to,” says Rosenblatt, who in 2021 visited the Behavioural Insights Team (commonly known as the ‘Nudge Unit’), which previously operated under the auspices of the UK Government but is now run independently. It has informed his approach, as have visits to University College London, the University of Bedfordshire, and the Design Museum in London.
Returning to nudge theory, Rosenblatt says: “The basic principle is called EAST, which is making things: easy, accessible, social and timely.
“If you can make anything align with any of those four things, if you can make something really easy to engage in, really accessible, so it’s at the right time and the right place, it’s part of the social environment and it’s timely, it’s at the time when they should be doing it, then you’ll absolutely get the behaviour change.”
He cites an example from his time with the England men’s football team. “One problem was how we get the players to go in the pool immediately after training on a particular day with the physical performance team. Using nudge principles we decided to nick the players trainers and put them in the pool area! This meant, to walk back to the hotel, they had to go to the pool first! We also put recovery shakes in there and scattered some balls and some inflatables in the pool. So when they went to get their trainers, it was easier to take a shake and then jump in the pool with their mates rather than leave! They ended up staying in for half an hour or so.
Gamification can be a useful tool in training environments. “If it’s a group that does want to engage a little bit more, like the hockey girls, then you do things like have a synchronised swimming competition. Again, if you’re saying we’re going to do a pool recovery session, then the players will come in knackered, they’ll go up and down the pool for 10 minutes and get out. If we say we’re having a synchronised swimming competition and you’ve got 15 minutes to come up with a routine, they’re in there for 40 minutes working out what the routine is, hanging around the pool to play afterwards etc. Those are ways you can get players that just aren’t interested or who don’t want to know. Rather than giving them full autonomy, you create an environmental nudge that means that they have to dive in there literally.
“There’s other ways of doing it. One other idea is to play with the schedule. OK, so let’s say you’re trying to introduce a new form of training to the group (like strength work). Rather than make the session an additional training session, make it part of the original training session. So if they’re coming into the gym before going onto the grass, start with a familiar warm up, something they’re comfortable with and then you introduce the new activity as a competition. If it’s aligned to something you want them to get better at and want them to improve at; because it’s a competition everyone’s automatically engaged in it.
“Again, this is more relevant to athletes who aren’t as engaged with their physical preparation. But if you do a familiar warm up and there’s some little competition then they’re automatically going to engage in it. If it’s aligned to the physical outcome that you want, then they’re going to improve! The best way I’ve found of organising competition for maximum engagement is 1 1v1 competition in a team v team scenario… essentially you stack up points for your team by winning individual competitions against your opponents.
“You can then start to make it fun. We had an ongoing jump squat competition throughout the Euros where the players would compete for boxing belts based on how fast they were moving the bar. Training intensity and enjoyment went through the roof! All the athletes have noticed is that they’ve had a bit of fun and they’ve enjoyed themselves whilst being really physical. But if you start stacking that up over a course of two, three, four or five weeks, you’ve got a really strong physical conditioning response there.”
Ben Rosenblatt is the Founder of 292 Performance.
Want to discuss environmental nudges with Ben?
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @ben_rosenblatt
