“Leaders are not born. … They are made” is a theory that many will attest to. There are some who take the opposite approach, and believe that “leaders are born and cannot be made.”
It was famed American Football Coach Vince Lombardi who coined the first phrase and the full quote is” Leaders are not born. They are made by hard effort, which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that is worthwhile.”
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two theories. As many who make it to a leadership position, have shown leadership qualities to gain that role; although as we all know that is not always the case, politics, family, and cliques can also play a part in some appointments. Yet the difference between great leaders and the also rans is that the great ones are always open to new ways, to learning from mistakes. They grow through trial and error, they persevere and they become great through experience.
Of course leadership comes in different forms. There are some who lead by example, others lead by what they say. There have been many teams which have adopted a leadership group to bring together the qualities of a group of individuals that compliment each other and make one strong cohesive team that leads the others. In such a group there may be a player who shows great leadership in a game and who rallies everyone around them when it matters, but who shies away from such responsibility off the field. There maybe a leader who is articulate, who can handle the public persona of the team and they will front press conferences. The leader off the pitch may well be a listener, a nurturer, someone who has the ability to make people feel a part of a team and believe in their ability.
Never has leadership been more important than with Hockey Australia and the Hockeyroos. All eyes are going to be on those charged with righting a ship that did more than just list, it damn nearly capsized.
One of the issues holding back many sports is the staff merry-go-round away from the pitch, as has been covered previously. (A Management Criterium) Sadly many of these “leaders” do not learn from their mistakes, do not listen and have not grown through experience. They are simply happy to still hold a position of authority, take home a good salary, enjoy the perks that come with their position and stay in the CEO club.
Reading the report into the Hockeyroos that was released this week it would appear that leadership was found to be a key issue.
Under the recommendations section the first point is headed “Leadership.” It states in the first subsection:
“That the Board consider whether a full reset of the leadership of the High Performance Women’s Program is required.
Although since the review began, the dynamics in the program have changed with the departure of the High Performance Director (HPD) and one of the assistant coaches, the review has made many observations about leadership of the program.The Board should carefully consider whether the replacement of the HPD and the assistant will deliver a sufficient “circuit breaker” that will allow the program to galvanise behind leadership to give the Hockeyroos the opportunity to perform to their best at the Tokyo Olympics and beyond.”
The part of the report that has been shared with the public is worrying on so many levels. It is written more like a university assignment than an actual report for starters. What is a concern is that the document that has been shared is advocating how a coach should run their program. Suggestions are made to implement all manner of training programs away from the pitch which are admirable, but are they truly realistic in such a program? When are the players going to have time to fit in all of these additional education and awareness programs between training, their jobs or study, and living a normal life away from the High Performance environment? Let us not forget that these athletes are not professional athletes, they do not get paid a salary that means all they do is play hockey. Does Hockey Australia have the required funds to pay for such add-ons?
What this report has clearly shown is how the Australian Institute of Sport model that served Australian sport so well has disintegrated. Egos and empire building of many of the leaders of yesteryear have killed the support mechanisms that were created.
It used to be that the AIS had the expertise that any program could call upon when they needed it. Now each sport hires their own support staff, they have their own nutritionists, psychologists, bio-mechanics experts etc. Who all command a salary which reduces the money available to the actual players. The trouble with this, as covered previously (No Longer Is It About Talent Alone) is who do these people owe their loyalty to? The coach who brings them in, or the High Performance Director that employs them or the player who confides in them? It is always going to be a recipe for disaster as their role is going to at some stage be compromised in terms of in whose best interests are they acting, the athlete, the coach or the program as a whole.
With the AIS offering this expertise there was no conflict. What is more in those times frequently sports would have joint sessions on key topics. This was a great way for all involved to broaden their knowledge and grow. Now remaining in their ‘bubbles’ few have the opportunity to see how another sport approaches an issue, and possibly learn and adapt a similar approach. All sports are the poorer for this. The focus has become too narrow, as has the vision.
The report has advocated “That a team psychologist be appointed, preferably on a full-time basis.” Is this really going to help in the long term? The same issues will still be there. Surely a better option would be for the psychologist to be outside of the program, so that the players can go and see them in total confidence and know that their issues will not impact on their selection for the squad or the team.
Having sought counselling after an illness this writer can advise that it is a very personal choice. I called several and had conversations on the phone before opting for one that I felt comfortable with. Surely these players deserve the same option? Why can’t a pool of suitably qualified individuals be interviewed and approached to be an option for the players, but the player then choose which one they feel comfortable with from those experts? Having a full time Psychologist is not going to change things in the long term.
What is good to see is that the athlete well-being is being acknowledged, although the recommendation is for “ongoing professional development programs for HP program staff.” This is a vague statement. Are the players classified as High Performance staff? If so all well and good, but reading the document one gets a very different feeling.
This should be one of the most important aspects of the High Performance programs. Just as in a normal workplace good employers talk to staff and work on helping them advance their careers. They encourage them to go on courses that will equip them to do their jobs better. Surely this should be exactly the same in a High Performance program? That courses to make these individuals better people and better equipped not only to perform but also to find work in the real world when they leave the program should be incorporated. That the environment in which they find themselves is one where they can further themselves as both athletes and individuals.
Former Kookaburra Simon Orchard spelled out this problem last year in Hockey World News when he wrote the jarring truth, “depending on which country you’re from – people quickly forget what you achieved on the field when you enter the real world.” What is the sport doing to prepare these individuals for that day, a day that could come at any time, with an injury, a lack of form or an illness?
As we covered in Paying a Price For The Past the issues with this program have gone back a long way. The scope of the report was to only go back to after the Rio Olympics. Which was simply not enough. While understandable that many skeletons would have tumbling out of cupboards that have been locked for years, if the issues were to be properly addressed the scope of the report had to be greater. How do those players who’s dream was dashed prior to the Rio Olympics feel? One would imagine they feel let down, and that they have been forgotten. In fact how do those who left the program recently and spoke out publicly about it feel?
They were dismissed by those running the sport. Yet the report has shown that their claims were vindicated. A public acknowledgement of failing to listen needs to be made for faith to be restored. Not just the acknowledgement of a recommendation that this needs to be the case moving forward. Being a whistleblower takes a huge amount of courage, and can often have a long term impact on those people’s lives. It is important that Hockey Australia, whether they like it or not, acknowledges that they were wrong and looks to mend the relationship between themselves and those former players.
The Hockey world has been told that this is not about ‘blame.’ Yet unfortunately unless a public relations team kicks into overdrive that is exactly what it looks like.
An inquiry into the High Performance Unit of the Hockeyroos was launched in December 2019. At that time all of those employed in the women’s High Performance were publicly backed by the CEO and the Board. The CEO Matt Favier was quoted as saying, “Paul (Paul Gaudoin – head coach) is still absolutely backed and supported by the leadership team and the board,” Favier told AAP. “And Toni (Toni Cumpston High Performance Director) is probably one of the best performing high-performance directors the sport has ever had. She is tough but fair. We’ve had our challenges along the way to where we are at this time, and Toni is providing excellent leadership to this group.”
On 15th January 2020 Toni Cumpston resigned from her role. In February assistant coach to the Hockeyroos Steph Andrews left the program to take up a coaching position with the Western Australian Institute of Sport. This week head Coach Paul Gaudoin resigned after, it has been reported, receiving the report. Virtually the whole Hockeyroos high performance team has gone. No one has been fired, but all have left and many feel that pressure was brought to bear for them to leave.
The report has shown that there were clearly issues within the program. Issues that the administration claimed on more than one occasion did not exist. Will we now see them resign or step aside?
The report is fairly scathing and questions the quality of those on the Hockey Australia Board. It states:
“Responsibility for tracking and monitoring the implementation should sit with a mechanism such as a committee of the Board and there should be transparency on the implementation process. This could include half yearly reports to stakeholders on progress – players, parent group, sponsors, the hockey system etc to be published and from time to time personally presented.
That in the context of implementing the recommendations of this review, the Board revisit the Davis report on the HP Program and Rio 2016 Review and include recommendations yet to be implemented in full.”
Surely this should have been happening anyway? There were Board members whose portfolio was the High Performance Unit, which raises the question what were they doing in terms of monitoring the program from a governance perspective? Was the program being judged purely on performances at major tournaments, because that is how the flawed Government funding model works? The odd phone call to a player or a coach is never going to be adequate, if you are overseeing such a program you have to be far more intimately involved. Should these individuals step aside? Should they be given new roles on the Board? These are questions that face the remaining Board Members.
Some would also ask should someone with no High Performance experience now be a part of this portfolio on the board? As all those with this role currently have been a part of it in the past. Would not a fresh face with no experience ask more questions and see things with fresh eyes?
Another issue that we have raised in the past (Guarding The Future of Sport) also came up, that the board should acquaint itself more with the duties it has. “The Board should apply the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) tool – Governing Organisational Culture, using external facilitation if necessary, to audit the culture of the HP Program and the organisation more broadly, and develop a multi-year program to improve it, based on a set of agreed values, behaviours and metrics to be embedded in the organisation,” was another recommendation.
Since the report came out the Board members have come under the spotlight, and many are asking whether the Hockey Australia Board has the right mix of skills to be effective? Is it too Hockey-centric, with five ex-players making up the nine board members? With Hockey being a fairly close-knit community is there enough independence, or is there too much familiarity to be able to be objective?
There are still many questions that need to be answered and you will not find the answers in the recommendations that have been published from the report conducted by Bruce Collins QC, Gabrielle Trainor AO and Moya Dodd. You will find 29 recommendations, and that the players’ claims at the end of last year appear to have been well founded as it states they “broadly found a dysfunctional culture within the program.”
Three people have resigned. To the public two are seen as being guilty even though they left of their own accord. Hypothetically, if they were the ones at fault for such a culture, surely there were others close at hand who could have spoken up? They may in fact have spoken up, in which case that should be made public to protect their careers. Surely there were others overseeing the program that should have been aware of the problems, and if not why not? Are their positions still tenable?
Which comes back to why it is so important to appoint the right people. People not afraid to speak up and ask questions, and make the hard decisions. When in a position of responsibility it is no good hiding behind an excuse that you love the game too much to hurt it. Sometimes you have to suffer short term pain for long term gain. Many of those who speak up and take action, care just as much about the game, the difference is they are not prepared to sit by and let things continue until breaking point. Ask all of those who had the courage to go public how they feel about the game, it is guaranteed that despite feeling they have been kicked in the teeth, they too will claim that they still love it.
Leaders know when action needs to be taken. They do not have to be forced into taking action.
Is this going to be the end of the matter, and is the focus now on finding a new head coach to take the team to the Olympic Games? Or will there be more fall out? Will some leave of their own accord or will they be pushed? Sadly it is unlikely that this is the end. Only a fool would believe that. The statement from the CEO and the President of the Board claiming that this unrest all came about because of “the uncertainty rendered by Covid-19 and the delay of the Tokyo Olympics,” shows that there is still an inability to accept the truth of the matter.
If the Olympic Games had taken place as scheduled, then as mentioned in Paying a Price for the Past the cycle would have simply continued through to another Olympic cycle. Yet this group of players penned their concerns prior to the Covid-19 Pandemic and the cancellation of the Tokyo Olympic Games, so such claims can only be summed up as a case of denial. If there is still denial, realistically how will the recommendations possibly be implemented with passion and speed to make things right again?
There are a lot of recommendations, and it is important that the Hockey public realise that they are just that, recommendations. They are not compulsory changes that have to be made. However the question needs to be asked who will go through the recommendations and work out which can feasibly be implemented? Will the players themselves be involved in this process, will there be independent outsiders? This is a key question, and could have an impact on some of the recommendations actually working. Do the Board have the people with the right skillset to do this? Will there be another added cost by recruiting new staff or consultants? Whatever the decisions, how then will the recommendations be implemented? Do those in the program have faith that those who ignored their pleas for so long have the inclination to implement change, and are they happy with the recommendations? So many questions to be answered. No doubt over time all will become clear. Yet what is the timeframe?
One thing is totally clear at this point in time and that is strong and trusted leadership is required. Leadership that Vince Lombardi claimed will result from “hard effort, which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that is worthwhile.” Yet at this point in time it is appropriate to remember the words of one one of the World’s truly great leaders, – was he a born leader? – Martin Luther King who said ” A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a moulder of consensus.” Who will make that mould for the future Hockeyroos?
