Friday 23 July 2010

Losing ‘yellow’ and ‘green’ and seeing ‘red’!

The last few stages of the tour have really lit the touch paper and stirred up some controversy and more interesting leadership issues

Firstly it was the sprinters, with one of the leading contenders for the green jersey, Mark Cavendish, winning an important sprint stage only to find his right hand man disqualified and thrown out of the tour. Sprinters stand the best chance of winning a stage if they have a well organised team who protect their rider through to the last few hundred metres. The team achieves this by creating a line of riders with the final sprinter positioned as the last man, peeling off as they get closer to finish until the sprinter makes the final dash for the line (they are at 60-70kph at this point ). Other teams try and disrupt the line, which can result in some physical contact. On this occasion Mark’s last man’s physical contact was deemed excessive by the race judges as they approached the critical point. As you can imagine this is a highly charged situation, with big stakes and huge amounts of adrenaline flowing! It’s often in these situations where the fine line between ‘acceptable’ conduct is defined. What tends to be the defining issue is the response of the team after a decision is made. It will be the emotional stability of the team leader and the ability to help the team return to ‘normality’ which will often determine not just the outcome of the stage, but also the performance of the team in the future, thinking strategically, regrouping after losing a key player and thinking of the bigger picture .

This mix of emotional response, behaviour and experience is also a critical determinant of leadership capability in the business world. How do you deal with highly charged situations and ensure that your team remains focused on the long term goals?

The next controversy surrounded the overall race lead entering the critical and defining stages of the race in the high mountains of the Pyrenees. The two main contenders, Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador, had been marking each other over the previous few stages, neither rider wanting to give the other an opportunity to gain time and just a handful of seconds separating them. On one of the toughest climbs, Schleck decided to make a move and accelerated to try to lose Contador. At the critical moment, Schleck’s bike suffered a mechanical failure, leaving him on the side of the road, separated from his team and team support car trying to fix his bike. There is an unwritten rule in cycle racing that if this happens then you don’t attack your rival, but Contador did and gained 40 seconds, putting him in the yellow jersey. A lot was said between the riders after the stage had finished, revenge being threatened and innocence pleaded.

A fascinating dilemma; do you behave in the way you where trained (Contador to race, business to make profit, lawyers to make logical sense of situations, accountants to add up the numbers, etc) or in stressful moments revert to your values and integrity and the impact this may have on the future, and then act accordingly?

Many leaders in recent dynamic times (and Mr Contador) will undoubtedly reflect on these paradoxes and the long term outcomes of their choices. Those working in a developmental environment might seek a deeper understanding of their orientations, and be guided through a coaching process. This can provide insight into when and where they might ‘derail’ in the future – in today’s business world, they are probably unlikely to get to many chances to get it wrong again.

No comments: