That was a question I was asked by a very respected senior player during my first week working with an NRL club.
This player was a very reliable but under-rated, first-one-picked type of player. I had coached him at a previous club, and I noticed a shift in his demeanour. To say he was cynical about some of the club’s recent recruitment decisions was an understatement. He was genuinely confused, and I could tell it had affected his commitment.
He was referring to the observation that management had recruited players, paying large sums of money, that were either well past their use-by date or they did not have the skills or willingness to lead a positive shift in team performance. They were recruited purely on individual talent, and the result was that nothing changed from a team performance perspective. The comment that emerged was, ‘They helped us win a game here and there, but they didn’t make our team better’.
At Leading Teams, we facilitate programs that allow teams and leaders to understand that we have to consider both competence and character when looking to recruit new staff. The character part has two components: they are good as their word, and they put the team before self (when required).
The other clear standout for me was that the commitment and performance of some of the inherently solid performers waned due to what management rewarded with their recruitment decisions. That negativity spread throughout the group quickly.
Furthermore, teams and organisations that are clear on the culture and behaviours that they aspire to or want are looking to bring in people who not only fit their culture but add value to it. Knowledge, skills and experience are important, but the cultural element is critical.
