By Luke Whitworth

Our latest Performance Support Series explores the past, present, and future of talent development. This series of learning is being delivered by Dr Edd Vahid, the Head of Academy Football Operations at the English Premier League.

For the second session of the series, Vahid outlined a few aims for those in attendance, as we continue to explore the ‘5 I’s’ model first shared in session one. If you missed out on the first part of this series, you can read about the model and other key points here. The aims were as followed:

• Introduce individualised and interdisciplinary support as critical features of successful talent development models.
• Discuss the challenges, tensions and opportunities in individualising support.
• Explore the conditions that allow interdisciplinary support to thrive.

Being individualised

As part of the first session of this series, attendees were asked to rank themselves around their effectiveness of the ‘5 I’s’ model. On a ranking of 1-5, below were the responses for the two parts of the model we explored in session two:

• Individualised Support: 4.1
• Interdisciplinary Support: 3.8

These responses provided some interesting insights into where we think we are in relation to our talent development frameworks and environment. Providing individualised and interdisciplinary support, scored highest out of the five elements of the model, but with clear room for improvement.

To help us think about the importance of being truly individualised, whilst also appreciating the tensions and challenges that come along with this, Vahid brought in some of the work from author Todd Rose and renowned sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to elevate these points.

The End of Average

In Rose’s The End of Average, there was an anecdote highlighting bodies of research by the US Air Force into why there were so many incidents, despite having some of the best pilots in the world and the best technology. One of the key summaries was that the cockpit was built upon the average needs of a pilot rather than the specific needs.

Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman could fit in the cockpit, within the average range on all 10 dimensions. One pilot might have a longer-than-average arm length, but a shorter-than-average leg length. Another pilot might have a big chest but small hips. Even more astonishing, (Lt. Gilbert S.) Daniels discovered that if you picked out just three of the ten dimensions of size — say, neck circumference, thigh circumference and wrist circumference — less than 3.5 per cent of pilots would be average sized on all three dimensions. Daniels’s findings were clear and incontrovertible. There was no such thing as an average pilot. If you’ve designed a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you’ve actually designed it to fit no one.

This passage in The End of Average highlights that being truly individualised is crucial in allowing us to optimise the support and impact we can have on individuals. It is also worth noting that individualisation continues to be a challenge with the scales we are operating at, and the resources we have at our disposal.

Habitus, field and capital

To align to the work of Rose, we complemented this with the research of Bourdieu, whose work encourages us think more deeply about ‘the individual’ and, in our context, who we are trying to provide individualised support for.

Bourdieu talked about the concepts of habitus, field and capital.

‘Habitus’ is the ‘product of history, (that) produces individual and collective practices. It ensures the active presence of past experiences, which, deposited in each organism in the form of schemes of perception, thought and action… Bourdieu and Wacquant suggest that when an individual encounters an environment that is compatible with their established habitus, they are like ‘fish in water’. It’s important to recognise that we all have individual habituses; we’re different.

‘Field’ is the social arena, where people compete for resources and demonstrate their power.

‘Capital’ is the notion of competing in a field and enhance social position – individuals require capital. Different forms of capital might exist and potentially include physical and economic. The new environment (field) establishes the cultural, social and symbolic. An individual must adapt if they have aspirations for distinction and subsequent progression. Relevant to us, how are we creating experiences to better prepare our talent for what’s next?

The tensions in being individualised

We know that being individualised is an important element of an effective talent development model. However, we must acknowledge the tensions and challenges that can exist around this. Some of these tensions and challenges can be ironed out, some just exist and are hard to eradicate. Based on some of Vahid’s experiences, he shared a few that he often sees:

The individual and / or the team. Cohesion is an important part of a high-performing team. There could be a tension in an individual who isn’t in the higher grading from an individual performance point of view, but is a strong contributor to team cohesion or getting the best out of others. What do you do?

Performance vs potential: many environments experience the challenge of defining potential – what is it and how are we assessing it? How predictable can we be in that assessment? There are many examples of individuals who were judged to not be at a particular level, but have moved to another environment and thrived.

Club and organisational philosophy. It depends on the organisation and what the philosophy is. Is it about prioritising and getting one or two athletes in the first team environment? Therefore, you would be in your own right to focus on A-grade talent and not so much those that might support the cohesion of the group.

Interdisciplinary support

‘If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail’ – Abraham Maslow

At the heart of these conversations, the value of having multiple eyes and different perspectives that add value. An effective multidisciplinary team, working in an interdisciplinary fashion is reliant on an inclusive environment where everyone can turn up and truly express themselves and feel comfortable in contribution. How do we get an interdisciplinary function to work effectively?

The conditions

Psychological safety is an underpinning concept that supports interdisciplinarity. The work of Professor Timothy Clark at Durham University, a specialist in environmental humanities and deconstruction, suggests that the first step is about inclusion safety and how we as leaders or individuals are contributing to a team to ensure there is suitable inclusion into conversations, allowing everyone to contribute.

Author Patrick Lencioni’s work around the ‘The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team’ suggests that the heart of dysfunction is the absence of trust. Invest time to ensure that the individuals can show up to enable the multidisciplinary team to work in an interdisciplinary fashion.

Judgment criteria. When giving consideration to how disciplines or individuals are judged, these have to be aligned with the organisational vision. Each discipline can have their own detailed judgment criteria and if that is not aligned it can cause separation which undermines the ability to work in an interdisciplinary fashion. To underline this point, it’s also important to have interdisciplinary markers of success.

Role clarity. A consideration for how the various disciplines are inducted for how they contribute to the bigger picture.

How do we physically create the conditions for conversations? How are you working to create flow and connection in an organisation? In Edd’s experience in talent development environments, there’s been a strong push to get multidisciplinary teams sitting closer together to enhance interdisciplinarity but do we need to be doing more than just where people sit and creating more conditions within the environments to support this way of operating?

In Partnership with

By Sarah Evans

The focus of our fifth and final Leaders Meet of 2022 was around how to collaborate with the wider interdisciplinary team.

An ongoing thread throughout the conversations across the day was how crucial relationship building is when working within an interdisciplinary team.

Session 1: Session Observation with Loughborough University National Tennis Academy:

Featuring:

Nick Cavaday, Academy Head Coach, Loughborough University National Tennis Academy

Louis Cayer, Coaching Consultant, LTA

Ben Trevor-Jones, Physiotherapist, Loughborough University

Kam Sodha, Strength & Conditioning Coach, Loughborough University

Ranah Stoiber, Tennis Player

For the first session of the day we had an interactive session, observing a live tennis training session at Loughborough University National Training Academy. Nick Cavaday, and the coaching team wore microphones during the session so the attendees were able to see and hear how the team approach their coaching sessions. It was not only Cavaday and the tennis coaches that were on court providing input, they were joined by the S&C and physio for the duration of the session.

Session 2: A Coaching Perspective

Speakers (from the Loughborough University National Tennis Academy):

Nick Cavaday, Academy Head Coach

Alex Bailey, Performance Lifestyle Advisor

Nathan Miller, Academy Manager and Head of Performance Support

Following the session observation, we were able to hear from Nick Cavaday, Alex Bailey and Nathan Miller to get their view in a Q&A style format on what it takes to have a perfectly functioning team around the athlete.

• Is a psychologist also present on court as part of the interdisciplinary team? Yes, we work closely with the psychology team, however they are only contracted for one day per week. When the psychologist is working, she will be on court and listen to the sessions, the coaches’ feedback, and assess how the player reacts to the feedback. The psychologist also feeds into the wellbeing and psych/social team who are full-time practitioners.
• What are the processes around session design, especially for a technical proficiency session? How do you make it the best quality session? The athlete needs to be mentally engaged as there is high learning content and a lot of detail. It shouldn’t be scheduled at the back end of a tiring week, as the athlete needs to be more mentally fresh. These sessions actually have some of the highest load in terms of mental/physical so it’s better to do them in the morning and when the athlete is physically fresh.
• How much are athletes involved in the analysis process? There’s a balance, as they grow there’s a transition period of needing to know more about their opponent but then having information overload and not concentrating on her own game. When they are younger they don’t have analysis and so they just focus on playing, but getting this balance of how much information is needed as she gets older is key. As they get older, the coaches compare key stats against other world top junior players to see if there are any trends or areas of real improvement. Coaches can analyse the stats and use it to look deeper and understand how that can translate into coaching points before they share them with the athlete. Analysis varies so much when they are younger as it is so harder to pick out trends, and they are more focused on the athlete’s understanding of the game when they younger, and as they get older and the trends are more obvious, then you can incorporate the analysis into coaching.
• How do you encourage openness and feedback from the younger athletes? You have to recognise that it’s a huge transition process for the younger athletes, therefore we do a lot around helping the athletes feel a sense of belonging to the programme. We look to build relationships with the staff and players in the first instance, coaches visit their home environment too; and building relationships is a big focus when onboarding new junior players. Pre-match chats and post-match debriefs when on the road also encourage open feedback. These are interactive and collaborative sessions, rather than the coach telling them what they need/don’t need to do, and the athlete always feeds back first.

Session 3: Building Relationship Intelligence

Speaker: Jide Fado, Coach & Trainer, Management Futures

For the third session of the day, we shifted our attentions to exploring a skill that can be hugely impactful in working with others, building relationships. Fado began the session by asking our attendees to discuss in their roundtable groups and think about what skills needed by those who are good at building relationships. The attendees were then asked to make a snapshot wheel of their relationships with the colleagues/departments they work with, and score their relationship with each out of 10. He then invited participants to answer the following questions:

• What strikes you about your wheel?
• What surprises are there?
• Where would you like to focus some energy?
• What score would you like this relationship to be?
• Specifically, what does that relationship need from you?
• How motivated are you to do it?
• What is your first step?
• When will you do it?

Key takeaways:

• Don’t find time; make the time to build relationships.
• Show your appreciation.
• Regularly reflect on the quality of your relationships and take action.

Session 4: A Bird’s Eye View

Speaker: Mo Bobat, Performance Director, England & Wales Cricket Board

Moderator: Edd Vahid, Head of Academy Football Operations, Premier League

For the final session of the day, we had the opportunity to explore the strategic view of the inter-disciplinary teams and hear from the Performance Director of England and Wales Cricket, Mo Bobat. The session format was a Q&A style with Edd Vahid from the Premier League drawing out some learnings around interdisciplinary support.

• What is high performance? It’s important to pay attention to both words, and inevitably it means to be better than everyone else, and to be able to sustain it. I think you need three ingredients to operate at a high performance level: quality of people, alignment to a vision, and to be less dysfunctional to your opposition.
• Interdisciplinary support is all about cohesion. Ultimately you want cohesion so you can add to the player experience.
• When you think about problem solving, often there’s not one problem that is wrong, so why would there only be one solution?
• When you have diverse thinking, you’re more likely to find the best solution.
• Just having more people at the table and more disciplines working with athletes, if they are not aligned then it can create more problems than it solves. They have to work together in a clear, cohesive and simple way.
• We have had healthy disruption recently with a new head coach coming in. There is enough pressure around the first team at the moment that my role is to not add to those pressures. How can you get them to prepare like a professional but play like a kid enjoying the game with no pressure? It is important to do the work off the field to cover scenarios so they don’t have to think on match day, they can just perform.
• Start with the needs of the athlete and getting buy-in from the people that are closest to them such as parents, agent etc., and then collaborating to speak about their performance programme. If you start with the programme you can miss some of the most obvious pieces and solutions, and also lack the buy-in from the athlete.
• Don’t underestimate the value of having the athlete in conversations about their development, with the other practitioners. They need to understand the bigger picture and also the process.
• Managing multi-format players across different schedules is a challenge and so is finding a time to sit down and make a plan for these players with the wider team.
• We are conscious of wanting to make the players feel like they are a part of one programme rather than stretched across different programmes with different outcomes and with different practitioners.
• Is it in the player’s best interest? Practitioners have to be humble enough to be able to recognise whether it is in the players best interest for you not to be a part of their development.
• A skilful generalist who is really adaptable might be more valuable to a team than just simply adding more specialists to a group. Of course, a specialist can be incredibly valuable but if you think the answer is just adding more specialisms, it doesn’t necessarily add more value if they aren’t aligned and don’t work cohesively.
• Player power and player ownership is a key area of work within interdisciplinary teams moving forwards.
• Strategy is all about priority. Therefore you have to be really honest and clear about what the key focuses are. How you then communicate this with the athletes is also key, and you need to have them bought into the strategy.
• If the player is self-aware and clear on their own needs that really helps the wider team. But if not how can you communicate and involve them in the development process. Having the player at the centre is crucial, and you must let them adapt to the different practitioners.
• If you’re struggling to fulfil a need or a role, an adaptable generalist in your team can be invaluable as part of the interdisciplinary team. You don’t want to compromise specialisms but you have to be aligned and cohesive.