For quite some time now we’ve been conditioned to believe what success is.

For many it’s family and friends. For most it’s wealth and affluence. Almost all wish for a healthy life or a long one.

For some it’s fame and for others approval and reputation. A few yearn for power. A lot more lately want influence.

There are those who crave learning and legacy - to traverse uncharted territories of knowledge (or like Musk, terrain) - or to leave a legacy having changed the world forever (in a Steve Jobs kind of way) so they can be remembered long after they’re gone.

These are the aspirational goals we’ve normalised as a society and we spend our entire existence pursuing one, many, or all of them.

In my work to date the top three are wealth, health and family. I’m yet to meet anyone who has extraordinary levels of all three.

When we single-mindedly dedicate our entire life to accumulating wealth, if successful, we may well be rich but perhaps old and lonely. A broken marriage and kids who hate us (perhaps not to our face if they want the inheritance). Every relationship is a transaction - every transaction is a competition.

Those that prioritise health, spending disproportionate hours a week in the gym, prepping protein shakes, wolfing down creatine or subscribing to the latest life-extending fads, often find they’ve left their loved ones behind -or dead - if they indeed live that comparatively long life.

A few focus on their family and friends - relationships - perhaps at the expense of all else - even themselves. Arguably the happiest of the three, if recent research can be trusted.

For most of my life, I joined the crowd trying to scamper up the mountain to reach the pinnacle in pursuit of these alluring goals.

When I thought I did, I yearned for a taller mountain - like most of my peers. Until I reached my Everest.

Now as I sit here in the wee hours of the morning of Holy Thursday heading into my 56th Easter, it seems I’ve been climbing the wrong mountain all along.

As we commemorate the Passion, death and resurrection of Christ this Easter, I cannot but confront the contradiction in what we consider success.

That wretched image of a man so badly beaten he was unrecognisable. Heaving himself and a wooden cross uphill. So broken that even his haters saw fit to get him help, fearing he might die prematurely and ruin their plans. Health was not achieved. At 33, neither was a long life.

Despite his recent popularity - the entire city had laid palms on the streets for him, even calling him a king - he was now despised. No approval. A ruined reputation, certainly lacking any influence. Powerless.

Poor, homeless and eventually naked, he had no wealth to his name.

Hanging embarrassingly on the cross gasping for his last breaths, he had no friends either. Of his apostles, one had just betrayed him for 30 silver pieces, whilst his most trusted ‘rock’ had denied him three times.

As for family, he turned to his surviving mother saying, “This is your son,” gesturing to another man - relinquishing even that.

And as this story ends, many still believe that all of this was for the salvation of the world - the greatest act of love. To change the lives of everyone that has ever lived or will live.

What if I’ve been trekking up the wrong mountain? What if all of those pursuits that we’re told we should dedicate our whole lives to were of little consequence?

Perhaps like Christ’s example it isn’t about health, or wealth, or family or friends or even some narcissistic desire for legacy (for all graves will be abandoned in three generations).

For all that we spend our lives accumulating must be left behind.

In fact, I’ve come to realise that the only things we take with us are what we give away. Sacrificing the very things that we’re meant to hold fast to. Living our life for others.

As in Christ’s example - to give of oneself until there is nothing left.

Perhaps it is Calvary, not Everest, that I must seek to climb.

There is a moment every seasoned manager, GM or coach knows. You watch someone warm up and think — that’s not the same person. And you’re right. The player you evaluated six months ago has changed. They often do.

This is the central challenge of leadership that most frameworks fail to address: people are not fixed. They are in constant motion — growing, declining, adapting, regressing — and yet the organisations, teams, and institutions that depend on them continue to make decisions as though human beings were a snapshot rather than a story still being written.

We call this the Human Continuum. It is the recognition that any assessment of a person — their character, their capability, their contribution — is valid only at the moment it is taken. The moment you stop reassessing, you stop leading.

THE ILLUSION OF THE FIXED PERSON

In sport, the consequences of static judgement are immediate and visible. A GM recruits a guard based on last season’s footage. A selector names a squad based on a trial performance eighteen months prior. A coach decides who gets minutes based on reputation rather than form. The results show up on the scoreboard.

In the boardroom and the office, the costs are slower to surface but no less damaging. A leader is promoted based on performance in a previous role and then left to either rise or founder without reassessment. S/he was humble and locked-in, but now arrogant, divisive and checked-out.

A high performer from three years ago is still treated as the standard-bearer of the team, despite the fact that their output has quietly plateaued — or that a quieter colleague has overtaken them entirely.

The human instinct is to categorise and then move on. Once we have labelled someone — reliable, difficult, talented, average — the label does the heavy lifting and we stop looking. But the label is not the person. The person kept changing. We just stopped watching.

THREE DIMENSIONS OF MOVEMENT

If we are to lead people well across the continuum of their development, we need to know where to look. In our work across executive search, leadership consulting, and high-performance sport environments, three dimensions consistently determine whether a person is an asset in motion or a liability decomposing quietly.

CHARACTER: THE INVISIBLE DRIFT

Character is not fixed. This is the insight that both ancient philosophy and contemporary science continue to confirm, and it is the one that leaders are most reluctant to accept.

Success — wealth, power, fame, public recognition — does not typically strengthen character. Research in moral psychology suggests it often erodes it. The qualities that drove someone’s initial achievement — hunger, humility, a willingness to sacrifice — can be quietly displaced by entitlement, insularity, and comfort. The person who was coachable and collaborative at twenty-eight can become defended and self-referential at thirty-five. Not out of malice, but out of the slow, invisible drift that unchecked success permits.

The reverse is equally true, and more hopeful. Adversity — failure, illness, financial hardship, public humiliation — has a long track record of forcing reflection and, in many cases, genuine character growth. People who have been broken open by difficult circumstances often emerge with a clarity, an empathy, and a groundedness that success rarely produces. The executive who went through a career crisis, the athlete who battled injury, the leader who faced public failure — these are not always cautionary tales. Sometimes they are the making of someone.

What we look for in character is not perfection but direction. Are the qualities of Honesty, Humility, and Hard Work — the three foundations of sustainable contribution — strengthening or atrophying? And critically: is this person’s character an asset or a liability to the culture of the team they are joining or continuing to serve?

A person of poor character in a strong culture is a slow poison. A person of strong character in a fractured culture can be the beginning of its repair.

Neither assessment, however, is permanent!

COMPETENCIES: THE PLATEAU NO ONE MENTIONS

Every leader can identify the moment a person reached their peak competence. Fewer can identify the moment they began to decline from it.

Competency is not static.

Skills atrophy when they are not actively maintained and developed. The brilliant analyst who stopped learning when the tools changed, the senior executive whose industry knowledge is a decade out of date, the player whose physical conditioning has quietly deteriorated while their reputation from better years remains intact — these are not failures of the individual alone.

It is just as easy to underestimate one’s unassuming yet formidable

growth and development.

They are both failures of ongoing assessment.

The question is not simply what someone can do. It is whether that capability is growing, holding, or declining. And whether the pattern is consistent. Inconsistent performance is its own signal — a person who delivers brilliance intermittently but cannot be relied upon creates a particular kind of organisational risk.

Teams cannot be built on maybes.

Leaders should be asking: is this person actively investing in their development? Are they working on the edges of their capability, or are they coasting on what they already know? Is their contribution getting sharper, or are the cracks beginning to show?

The mistake is not in recognising competency. It is in assuming it will remain constant without attention.

CONTRIBUTION TO PURPOSE: THE ALIGNMENT QUESTION

The third dimension is the one most often neglected, and arguably the most consequential.

Even a person of excellent character and strong, growing competency can be the wrong fit for a team at a particular moment in its history — not because of who they are, but because of what the team now needs. Purpose is not fixed either. Organisations evolve, strategies shift, markets change, competitive environments are transformed. The person who was perfectly aligned to the mission two years ago may be only partially aligned today — and genuinely misaligned tomorrow.

This is an opportunity cost question. Every position on a team, in a squad, on a board, represents a finite resource. The question a leader must be willing to ask — honestly and without sentiment — is whether this person, in this role, at this moment in the team’s journey, is the optimal use of that resource.

We have worked with coaches who spend their entire recruiting season evaluating talent against the opponents of the previous year, assembling squads to fight a battle that has already ended. The environment has changed. The competition has evolved. And the talent they are recruiting is solving yesterday’s problem.

Forward-thinking leaders assess contribution to purpose not just in the present tense but in the future tense. Who do we need now? Who will we need in twelve months? Who will best serve the mission as it evolves — not just as it currently stands?

THE DISCIPLINE OF CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT

Continuous assessment requires leaders to hold their judgements loosely, to revisit decisions they have already made, and occasionally to revise conclusions that were previously considered settled. It is easier — far easier — to maintain a fixed view of people and let the label do the work.

But the leaders and coaches who consistently build high-performing teams are those who have developed a genuine discipline of reassessment. They are watching. They are updating. They are willing to be surprised — in both directions.

The live that uncomfortable state of second guessing themselves, their biases and their fundamentals based on objective truths.

This is not the same as indecision or inconsistency. Clear standards are essential. What changes is not the standard but the willingness to measure people against it continuously, rather than once and then never again.

A player who has declined should not be protected by the reputation they earned in better form. An employee who has quietly transformed their work should not be held back by an old assessment. A board member whose contribution no longer serves the organisation’s current direction deserves an honest conversation rather than a polite indefinite extension.

A FINAL WORD ON GRACE

The Human Continuum cuts in both directions, and it is worth saying plainly: most people, most of the time, are capable of more than the last assessment of them suggested.

The leader who writes someone off permanently — based on a failure, a difficult season, a moment of poor judgement — closes a door that the evidence suggests should often remain open. People change. Character can be rebuilt. Competencies can be developed. Alignment to purpose can be restored or redirected.

What is required is not naïve optimism but rigorous, compassionate attention. The willingness to keep watching. To keep asking the question. To resist the comfort of the permanent conclusion.

Because on the Human Continuum, the story is never quite finished.

---

Nick Marvin is the Founder and Managing Director of marvinHR, a Perth-based executive search and leadership consulting firm. He works with leaders across sport, business, and the not-for-profit sector on character-based selection, team culture, and high-performance leadership.

Most communication failures in high-performing teams aren’t about what is said. They’re about what type of communication was needed in the first place.

INTRODUCTION

Championship teams don’t just communicate more. They communicate better. They know when to inform, when to consult, when to seek sign-off, and when to simply act.

Yet most teams operate with a single, undifferentiated communication channel. Everything arrives the same way — in a group chat, a cc’d email, a meeting that should have been a message, or a message that should have been a meeting. The result is predictable: noise drowns out signal, decisions stall and accountability blurs.

High-growth, high-pressure environments — start-ups scaling fast, sports franchises in-season, executive teams navigating change — can’t afford that inefficiency. They need a shared protocol. A common language for how information moves, who contributes, who approves, and who acts.

The FYI/FYF/FYC/FYA framework maps every communication to one of four modes: For Your Information, For Your Feedback, For Your Consent, and For Your Action. Each mode has a distinct purpose, a clear ownership structure, and a corresponding character disposition. Together, they form a communication operating system for teams that need to move with both speed and precision.

THE THREE PROBLEMS WITH ONE-SIZE COMMUNICATION

The first is over-communication — where everything is escalated, everyone is copied, and leaders become bottlenecks because no one is sure what they need to know versus what requires a decision. Inboxes fill. Meetings multiply. Energy drains.

The second is under-communication — where information asymmetry creates silos, assumptions fill the gaps left by absent data, and by the time the right person finds out, the damage is done.

The third — and most damaging — is miscommunication of type. The wrong kind of communication for the moment. A leader who shares information when they needed feedback. A team member who acts when they needed consent. A decision made without the right people in the room, or held hostage by too many.

The FYI/FYF/FYC/FYA framework optimises individual efforts to achieve team performance.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION — HONESTY

The first mode is the most common and the most mishandled.

FYI means: you need to know, and nothing more is required.

It is an act of appropriate disclosure. It does not request a response, invite a debate, or seek a decision. Its purpose is to ensure the recipient has the data and context they need to operate effectively. Nothing more, nothing less.

Appropriateness is the operative standard. Too much information overwhelms. Too little leaves gaps. Information shared at the wrong time maybe irrelevant or even dangerous. The question an informer must answer is not simply “should they know?” but “what do they need to know, when, and in what form?”

This places responsibility squarely on the sender, not the receiver. It is the informer’s obligation to be understood — not the recipient’s obligation to decode. That requires genuine knowledge of how the recipient processes information: whether they think auditorily, visually, in writing, or through doing. Effective FYI communication is calibrated to the recipient’s modality, not the sender’s preference.

FYI is asynchronous by design. It does not require a live exchange. A well-crafted message, report, or briefing note delivers information efficiently without demanding immediate attention.

The risk in FYI is silence. When information gaps exist — when context is incomplete or timing is off — recipients fill them. They fill them with assumptions, with subjective bias, and sometimes with misinformation. The result is noise in the system. The antidote is precision: share what is necessary, in the right form, at the right moment.

The character disposition of FYI is honesty. Not radical transparency, and not information dumps. Calibrated honesty — the right truth, for the right person, at the right time.

FOR YOUR FEEDBACK — HUMILITY

The second mode is where the best teams separate themselves.

FYF means: your expertise is needed, and feedback is the contribution. Knowing when and from whom to ask for feedback is key.

Feedback-seeking is not a sign of weakness. It is the structural recognition that no individual — regardless of experience, intelligence, or positional authority — has full visibility. Every leader has blind spots. Every plan has assumptions. Every decision carries risk that only exposure and candour can surface.

FYF asks the questions that ego resists: What have I missed? Where are my assumptions wrong? How do you see this differently? What would you do?

It is an act of deliberate vulnerability in service of better outcomes. Teams that practise FYF consistently outperform those that don’t, not because they are less confident, but because they are more calibrated. They close the gap between what they think is true and what is actually true before committing to action.

Feedback is synchronous. It requires a live exchange — a conversation, a working session, a structured review. This is not incidental. The back-and-forth of dialogue is what allows the transmitter to fill information gaps in real time, to adjust assumptions under scrutiny, and to reduce the bias and noise that asynchronous communication leaves unresolved.

Effective FYF communication also sets the tone for how feedback is received. It signals that candour is welcomed. That convergence — shared understanding and mission alignment — is the goal, not validation. It builds the psychological safety that allows teams to say hard things before hard things become hard problems.

The character disposition of FYF is humility. Not self-deprecation — conviction and humility coexist. The willingness to genuinely not know, and to seek what you don’t know from the people best positioned to provide it.

FOR YOUR CONSENT — COMMITMENT

The third mode is where agility meets convergence.

FYC means: your consent is required before this moves.

Consent is the commitment mechanism. It clarifies what is to be decided, by whom, when, how, at what cost, and using what resources. It draws the line between who influences a decision and who is answerable for it. It requires leadership convergence in the best interests of the team or organisation rather than the individual.

This matters most in fast-moving environments. In start-ups, scale-ups, professional sporting organisations, and executive teams under pressure, decisions must be made quickly. But speed without governance is recklessness. FYC creates the checkpoint — the moment where the right authority endorses the path forward and accepts responsibility for it.

Importantly, FYC is not bureaucracy in disguise. Used well, it removes bottlenecks rather than creating them. It prevents the paralysis of escalation by making accountability explicit upfront. When people know exactly whose sign-off is required — and when — they don’t need to guess, escalate, or wait for the wrong person to weigh in.

FYC also empowers the people closest to the work. Clear consent mechanisms delegate authority appropriately. They tell front-line leaders: within these parameters, you are authorised to act. That is not control — it is the structure that makes autonomy functional.

And it affirms commitment. When a person gives consent, they are not merely approving a plan. They are taking ownership of its outcome. They become a champion of the decision, invested in its success. That changes how they show up for the work that follows.

The character disposition of FYC is accountability. The willingness to be answerable — not just to sign a form, but to carry the weight of the decision made.

FOR YOUR ACTION — HARD WORK

The fourth mode is the point of the exercise.

FYA means: action is expected, and you are responsible for delivering it.

Nothing gets done without doing. Information transferred, feedback received, consent granted — all of it is preparatory. FYA is where the commitment becomes conduct.

Effective action begins with clarity: agreed goals, defined outcomes, explicit expectations. The FYA mode converts decision into execution by ensuring the person acting knows precisely what they are accountable for producing, by when, and to what standard.

But action is not a single event. It is a cycle of disciplined performance — progressive habits, deliberate iterations, and optimised rituals that compound over time. High-performing teams don’t just act once well. They act repeatedly, consistently, and with increasing precision. They build the routines that make excellence less effortful and more automatic.

The control structure matters here. Not control in the sense of micromanagement, but the right controls — the feedback loops, performance markers, and qualitative and quantitative measures that allow a team to know whether their action is producing the intended result. Without those signals, effort accumulates without progress.

And critically, FYA cycles back. Action generates new information, which returns to FYI. Doing surfaces new questions, which return to FYF. Results create new decisions, which return to FYC. The framework is not linear — it is a self-reinforcing system, with each mode strengthening the others.

The character disposition of FYA is hard work. Not activity for its own sake — purposeful, aligned, disciplined execution in service of a shared mission.

THE FRAMEWORK IN PRACTICE

The FYI/FYF/FYC/FYA framework works because it does three things simultaneously.

First, it creates a shared language. When a team adopts these modes, “FYC before you proceed” becomes a complete instruction. Everyone knows what it means, what it requires, and who is responsible. Communication overhead drops. Clarity increases.

Second, it maps communication to character. Honesty underpins information. Humility underpins feedback. Accountability underpins consent. Hard work underpins action. These are not abstract values — they are operational dispositions embedded in the structure of how the team communicates every day. Culture, in this framework, is not declared. It is practised.

Third, it scales. The same protocol that works in a two-person leadership pair works in a fifty-person organisation. It adapts to asynchronous digital environments and synchronous in-person teams. It is as applicable to a board communication as it is to a project debrief.

The teams that perform at the highest level are not necessarily those with the most talent. They are the teams that convert their capability into coordinated action with the least friction and the greatest clarity. FYI, FYF, FYC, FYA is the operating system that makes that possible.

SUMMARY

FYI = Honesty, when Informing.

FYF - Humility, when seeking Feedback

FYC Accountability, when giving Consent.

FYA - Hard work, when taking Action.

The author works with executive, corporate and sporting teams on leadership culture, communication protocol and performance architecture.

Christmas 2016 was one like no other.

Whilst the rest of the nation was busy with the usual family commitments, holiday merrymaking, or the momentous religious significance, we at the Perth Wildcats were facing the very likely prospect of not making the finals for the first time in the club’s record-breaking history.

We’d cut a shooting guard, replaced him with another who after just two games wanted to be released, brought back the former who then failed a drug test! Key players were injured, and we were sliding to the bottom of the ladder.

Pressure was mounting on coaches and management to turn things around.

So, instead of the traditional festivities, the coaching staff ran depth charts and made phone calls worldwide.

Our recruiting model was simple: the coaches picked the talent, and I had veto rights on character.

Whilst they were watching tapes of the player’s competency, I was screening for tell-tale signs on character.

What were their behaviours on a made play? Did they acknowledge t…

Read more

Prayer Breakfasts at Warwick Stadium

☰ Monday 24 November – Paul Morrison – singer/song-writer, ex-Chaplain Eagles, SonshineFM

☰ Monday 13 October – Lea Cockram – Chaplain

☰ Monday 25 Aug 25 – Dave & Teige Morrell – Coach and Player – Husband and Wife (NBL1 & WNBL)

☰ Monday 28 Jul 25 – Danny Mills – GM – Perth Wildcats

Read more

Quarterly Leadership Breakfast Series in Perth – Fraser’s Restaurant – Kings Park

☰ Wed 15 Sep 2025 – Kevin Bailey

☰ Thursday, 4th December 2025 – Mike Needham

Mike Needham is a senior global executive at one of the world’s largest technology corporations and a devoted Catholic based in Perth, Western Australia. Drawing from his extensive experience in technology and unwavering Christian values, Mike will share personal insights on navigating the ethical, spiritual, and societal challenges posed by artificial intelligence.

I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou
Shouldst lead me on;
I loved to choose and see my path; but now
Lead Thou me on!
I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will. Remember not past years!

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still
Will lead me on.
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile

Meantime, along the narrow rugged path,
Thyself hast trod,
Lead, Saviour, lead me home in childlike faith,
Home to my God.
To rest forever after earthly strife
In the calm light of everlasting life.

John Henry Newman
Blessed John Henry Newman (1801-1890)
Beatified by Pope Benedict XVI
September 19, 2010
by

Read more

Contents

☰ Guardian Angel Prayer

☰ Morning Offering

☰ St Michael Prayer

☰ The Angelus

☰ The Magnificat

☰ Benedictus

☰ Humility Prayer

☰ The Memorare

Read more

As we wrap up another year, we wanted to share with you five key learnings from working with leaders in various walks of life.

REFLECTION TIME

• Leaders report having little time to think. Overwhelmed by urgency, always being ON, and the need to respond to endless communication channels leaves little time for reflection. Social media distractions, fleeting attention spans and multi-tasking have made considered leadership difficult.

THE SOLUTION

• Spend at least 15 minutes at the start AND the end of each day to think – away from all distractions. Pen and paper.

MORNING

• • Revisit your and your team/organisation’s Purpose – its response to an ever-changing world.
  • Consider if you have the right people in the right positions on the boat. Who is redundant? What’s the opportunity cost of keeping them? Who do you now need to solve today and tomorrow’s needs?
  • Are they rowing in sync? Are they headed in the right direction?

EVENING

• What did we accomplish? What should we accomplish?

• What were the failures…

Read more

When Jesus emerged from the Jordan River, a divine voice declared: “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” These words capture something fundamental about the need for paternal affirmation and its immense importance in a child’s sense of self-worth, purpose and commitment to mission, even courage.

Modern psychology confirms what this ancient narrative suggests: a father’s words of love and pride hold extraordinary power to shape a child’s entire life trajectory. When fathers consistently express love and pride, they’re participating in one of the most profound acts of human development.

THE SCIENCE OF PATERNAL AFFIRMATION

Research demonstrates that fathers play a unique and irreplaceable role in child development. Active father involvement significantly reduces psychological problems and depression rates, particularly in young women. When fathers are emotionally present and affirming, children develop stronger self-esteem, better emotional regulation, and more resilient psyc…

Read more

As an outsider to sports management, it took me a while to understand winning and losing games during a season.

Regardless of our performance, the outcome of the game dictated our response—reflect and learn from losses or rejoice and celebrate wins.

The problem, of course, is that winning and losing, certainly in a finite ecosystem such as a league or game environment, is a poor indicator because it is comparative.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how badly you play; if you were better than the opposition, even marginally, you won. Sometimes that margin could be a point, a free throw, a bad referee decision, or just plain luck.

This mindset can be limiting – narrowing ones focus to transactional tactics rather than aspirational, purpose-driven cultures. But more on that later…

All the coaches I worked with usually paid particular attention to the game tape after a loss. The version we received post-game by our video coach was always edited to remove breaks, timeouts, and audio.

It was fasc…

Read more

Not everyone is on the team for the same reason.

A manager's genuine understanding of each team member's key drivers can greatly improve individual and team performance.

In most good teams, there is clarity of mission, good-charactered people committed to playing to their strengths, and accountability on expected efforts and results.

However, the primary motivators for joining and contributing to a team can vary.

In our work, it's usually one of three things: Purpose, People, or Performance. And while they all matter, different individuals place differing values on each.

PURPOSE

"We have one problem," the CEO said cautiously. We can't afford to compete on salary with the rest of the healthcare industry. After all, we are a non-profit in the alcohol and drug sector. The work is hard, the clients challenging, and regrettably, the pay isn't great."

"We don't see that as a problem," my colleague responded calmly.

The CEO looked back, surprised. "What do you mean? We've had trouble finding staff for so long because of affordability?"

"Perhaps we could try a different approach," she suggested. "Why don't we talk more about your purpose, mission and the lives you change and less about salary."

And so started a long-term relationship lasting many years, recruiting staff for this wonderful organisation with a retention rate far higher than the industry average.

Interestingly, most employers we speak to concern themselves with remuneration or Reward. While this is a significant factor (especially at sustenance levels), our research, based on over 3,000 surveys, indicates that other factors, such as recognition, voice, choice, and learning, are also important.

Increasingly, however, Legacy or Purpose has become a key driver in attracting and keeping people. All things being equal, people, especially in advanced economies, want their work to be meaningful.

This explains why, in Australia, 36% or 9.5 million people performed formal volunteer work in 2023 (up from 26% the previous year). For some of us, a compelling purpose is enough to work even for free [Volunteering Australia – Key Volunteering Statistics – March 2024].

They want to be on teams whose mission aligns with their values. They want the organisation's mission to be well-articulated and inspirational. And they want to know how their team and, importantly, their unique work contribute to the broader objectives and outcomes.

Managers who succeed in personalising the team or organisation's mission witness higher levels of performance and retention.

Gallup's research suggests that even a 10% improvement in employee connection to purpose results in a 4.4% increase in profitability and an 8.1% decrease in staff turnover.

To achieve this, managers must have regular conversations with their team members on how their unique contribution is linked to the organisation or team's purpose.

PEOPLE vs PERFORMANCE - Longley or Jordan

Some people are on the team to win, while others are there for the team. These are not exclusive motivations—they are predominant drivers for differing individuals.

Knowing the difference is critical to get the most out of them.

When success, performance, results, or winning are the primary motivations, individuals can occasionally leave their teammates behind or, more commonly, not be the most congenial. Conversely, sentimental people value interpersonal relationships more than outcomes or objectives.

The former want to win at all costs, whilst the latter are more concerned with camaraderie and team culture.

A great example is the well-publicised championship run of the Chicago Bulls under Michael Jordan. Following the Netflix documentary, Australia's ABC interviewed Michael Jordan, Luc Longley and Steven Kerr (now head coach of the NBA's Golden State Warriors) regarding their time together.

Longley's perspective of Jordan was a one-eyed, success-focused, results-based team-mate that could not be disagreed with - 'carnivorous'!

Jordan agreed. "My mentality was to win at all costs and to pull, push, yank, whatever, to get everybody on the same page...I think it was needed in some respects, and our success illustrates that."

"I don't think Luc had the mentality of what it took to win. You want to see that frustration; you want to see a little bit of anger. You want to dominate, you know, and there's times where I had to push him on that," he said.

Longley's motivation was quite the opposite. He was what people call a 'team player' willing to sacrifice individual glory for the team - putting his teammates over everything else, even performance and success.

“I cared about my teammates more than I cared about winning. Winning became how to reward them, so that’s part of what drove me to be good.”

Longley's contribution was not limited to the basketball court. He was famous for his home barbecues, which built social bonds among the team, something unheard of in the NBA. In an environment where players were traded like commodities between teams, he built life-long relationships with Kerr, Pippen, and even Rodman and Jordan.

As now NBA head-coach Steve Kerr summarised, "He became one of the people who connected everyone because he shared relationships with everybody.

While there are no statistics or scoreboards to measure the contribution of 'team players', their impact is critical.

As Jordan now puts it, “I loved him as a team-mate. If you asked me to do it all over again there’s no way I would leave Luc Longley off my team. No way possible. Because he mattered, he had an impact on me. He made me better as a player, you know, as a person.”

A winning team requires all three types of people: the ones who keep focussing on the why—purpose-driven; the ones who focus on the what—performance-driven; and, more and more importantly, the ones who focus on the how and the who—people-driven.

It takes a good manager, coach or leader to know what drives each individual to ensure they satisfy their needs and mobilise their motivations for the team's success.

There is no greater tragedy than doing well that should not be done at all.

Yet, we fall into habits that are unfruitful at best or dangerous at worst - in business and life.

Taking stock every 90 days enables us to evaluate, eliminate, and make room for what must be done to accomplish our objectives.

This allows us to constantly refocus our time, energies, and resources.

Strategic Abandonment is best achieved by considering three key dimensions: Purpose, People and Performance.

PURPOSE

1. If we were not doing what we are doing right now, what should or would we be doing?

2. Is what we are doing maximising our comparative competencies to create value in the current environment?

3. What is the opportunity cost of our current pursuits? In other words, what pursuits should we abandon for more productive or profitable ones?

PEOPLE

4. Who would we not have on the team if we started again today? How could we appropriately exit them?

5. Who on the team is taking up a spot best served by someone else?

6. Is anyone negatively affecting our culture or not living our values despite their results?

PERFORMANCE

7. What parts of our operations have become blithe, lazy, and inefficient?

8. What are the disruptions, noise and silly rules that need to be abandoned?

9. What are the bottlenecks that are holding people back from performing?

Atrophy

We are all susceptible to atrophy.

However, as Peter Drucker noted, “In turbulent times, the enterprise has to be kept lean and muscular, capable of taking strain but capable also of moving fast and availing itself of opportunity.”

And these, indeed, are turbulent times.

In our experience, typical constraints to accomplishing this include tradition (we’ve always done it this way), routine and inertia (avoiding conflict and change), and familiarity (being too close to the problem or the people).

In such instances, there are few better approaches than having an external consultant facilitate the process. This ensures thoroughness, avoids conflicts of interest, and eliminates bias.

Personal Lives

Even in our personal lives, spending half-a-day every quarter, going through our possessions and splitting them up into three groups:

• The first - items that we still use and need to keep;

• The second - things that we no longer use and need to trash;

• And third - stuff that we’re unsure of - which we put in storage...if we don't use it over the ensuing three months - dispose.

If we purchase something new, it must accompany the disposal of something redundant.

Abandoning bad Habits

We need to constantly focus our time, energies, and resources on what is important. Otherwise, distractions creep in and dilute our abilities.

We start by asking a very simple but powerful question: With the information we have today if we weren't already doing this, would we engage in such an activity?

What habits have I formed that are unhelpful or damaging?

What relationships have we fallen into that are not in our best interests?

Opportunity Cost

Only if we stop doing certain things and free up our resources can we effectively chase new opportunities.

Sometimes, of course, it’s about doing ‘less of’ or ‘more of’ certain things—reducing the investment of resources and people on certain projects or, conversely, increasing time and effort on others.

Now is as good a time as ever to run a ruler across everything in the organisation, be it purpose, people, product or service, process, department, capital investments, or even suppliers and customers.

Financial Planning

Financially, we suggest including A Divestment budget and an Opportunities Budget in our planning.

The former puts every activity on trial, asking questions such as: Is this really necessary? Does the cost justify the results? Is there a better, more cost-effective, efficient way to achieve the same outcome?

The latter considers opportunities in the environment and the financial cost or investment required to deploy the organisation’s comparative competence in pursuit of them.

The rule here, as Drucker put it, is to “feed opportunities and starve problems”.

SSML - Stop/Start/More/Less

A useful tool is the Stop/Start/More/Less framework from a personal and professional perspective…

What should we Stop doing, Start doing, do More of, do Less of?

When we use this tool, we uncover tremendous insights, not only from board members and managers but from those on the front line - whether they are working on the factory floor, engaging with customers, knowledge workers, players on the court, support staff, or even suppliers and partners.

After more than two decades of working with professional sporting teams, high-net-worth individuals, and C-suite executives, sleep health consistently ranks among the few indicators with proven performance results.

There are others, but none with as much science to reinforce what we have experienced.

Back in 2011, Stanford University's Cheri Mah's Sleep study on basketball athletes prompted us at the Perth Wildcats and Perth Lynx to partner with UWA's Dr Ian C Dunican, championed by our own head of Physical Performance, Josh Cavanagh, to conduct our own research into sleep and its effects on performance in 2015 (https://lnkd.in/gd3JhYyy).

Mah's study proved that just two extra hours of sleep has significant improvements such as:

- Players ran faster 282-foot sprints (16.2 seconds versus 15.5 seconds) than they had at baseline;

- Free throw percentages increased by 9 per cent;

- 3-point field goal percentage increased by 9.2 per cent; and

- Fatigue levels decreased following sleep extension,…

Read more

When recruiting,if you can’t compete onPurpose or Culture you will have to compete on Price...

⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯

The greatest test of any leader is at home – how they lead their own life—and, above all, their family.
For who we are in private will eventually be manifested in public.

⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯

For every significant weakness in an individual there will be an equally significant strength.
It is a leader’s responsibility to find and maximise it on the team…

⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯

When it comes to culture, it’s the first straw the breaks the camel’s back.

⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯

You are replaceable at work but irreplaceable at home

⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯

The Miracle of Teams
As individuals, we are limited by our greatest Weakness…
But in a team, we are limited only by our greatest Strengths

⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯

When you silence the noise, the signal appears. That’s true in sport and leadership.

──────────────

06SEP24 - Time

Of all the resources available to us, time is one that we spend without knowing how much we have left.

I don’t know if I have one or a…

Read more

☰ My Frequent Prayers

FAITH DIARY

“You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”

“To fall in love with God is the greatest romance; to seek him the greatest adventure; to find him, the greatest human achievement”

St Augustine of Hippo

We must never let creatures or created things to separate us from the creator.

Edify or be silent

Each one of you has received a special grace, so, like good stewards responsible for all these different graces of God, put yourselves at the service of others.

1 Peter 4:10

Character is the congruence of one’s moral compass and consistent behaviors—especially when no one is watching.

…nearly all that we call human history—the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.”
C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, Book II, chapter 3,

CEOs, Chairs, and Managers often say it's lonely at the top. And that may well be true.

Increasing research, however, suggests that this is a problem throughout most organisations.

Ironically, loneliness is a global epidemic despite all the communication channels and high tech available to us.

This flows into the workplace. And with half our waking hours spent at work, it's no surprise.

Gallop's new State of the Global Workplace: 2024 Report is confronting:

» Job levels have little association with loneliness.

» 20% or one in five employees report experiencing loneliness a lot.

» Same percentage for both men and women.

» Loneliness is more prevalent in younger (under 35) people.

» On-site is best with just (16%) compared to hybrid (21%) and fully remote (25%) levels of loneliness.

Key symptoms are unpunctuality, sick days, fluctuations in performance and job changes.

However, managers have a powerful and influential role to play in reducing loneliness.

1. E…

Read more

Nick firmly believes that every individual possesses unique strengths and talents that should be recognised and utilised to their fullest potential.

🔴 Embracing Personal and Organisational Strengths:

He states the significance of individuals and organisations leveraging their strengths, highlighting each one's distinctive competence.

🔴 Challenging Competitive Advantage:

Nick challenges the conventional understanding of competitive advantage, which implies that the success of one necessitates the failure of another. He advocates for a more inclusive approach to achievement and success.

🔴 Value Creation:

He stresses that achieving excellence in something is not fulfilling if there is no demand for it. This is the missing piece of the puzzle: the ability to solve different problems at various levels.

He mentioned the example of the Self-Perpetuating Brand, explaining how merchandise sales at the Wildcats increased from $20k per annum to over $200k per annum. The goal is to create value that people can sustainably afford. It's preferable to consider a recurring revenue model rather than a one-time payment.

1. Under-Managed Industries 

2. Recurring Revenues 

3. High-value Creation

4. Scale 

It is a defining moment when a young child of primary school age meaningfully engages with a sporting brand, becoming a fan for life.

Nick refers to this as the defining moment.

Personal Connection: Consider why you support your teams. Often, a significant event in childhood sways your allegiance. For example, if your family supports the Dockers but your grandfather gifts you a West Coast Eagles scarf, you might be a lifelong fan. 

Strategic Targeting at the Wildcats: Primary schools are a crucial focus, intending to turn 30 kids per school into lifelong fans. 

Compounding Effect: This strategy drives long-term support. Consider 300 schools annually over 15 years. As these children grow into 25-year-olds with jobs and disposable income, they transition from buying $20 seats to purchasing $200 seats. - 

Importance of Brand Colour: The initial colour choice was black, but this was changed to red to differentiate, as no other team in WA shared this colour. This led to the creation of what Nick dubbed the "Red Army."

Failure rate: The image has only a 0.8 failure rate. But to put it into perspective, while the vast majority of the audience, let’s say over 34,000 people, might have had a positive experience, a subset—the 280 angry individuals—did not. 

"I don't see why this even needs to be discussed," the CEO exclaimed, somewhat frustrated, "the answer is obvious."

We were facilitating the company's annual strategic retreat, and during the morning break, the senior executives were debriefing an incident at one of their sites.

Something went wrong on a project, and the client needed to be informed.

The operations manager asked that the customer be called and advised of the incident and the possible delays to their completion timelines.

The state manager, who had worked with the client for over a decade, disagreed and suggested that, given the proximity of their facility, someone should drive over and meet with them to discuss the details and ramifications.

The CEO was appalled.

"These matters must always be addressed in writing," he announced. "The client deserves a formal response so they understand we are taking things seriously. It also ensures clarity so there is no miscommunication."

As the break drew to a close, the leaders were still at odds and turned to us for an objective opinion to end the debate.

Whilst each of these managers thought their’s was the right way to deal with the problem, they were really revealing their own primary communication modality.

We had already established this through their individual Scout Profiles and when we shared this with them they realised how their preferred communication styles were influencing their thinking.

The correct answer to the mid-morning conversation was, of course, to preference the customer’s ideal communication protocols.

Too often managers tend to project their proclivities over their customers, teams and organisations. They assume, often incorrectly, that their way is always right, the best or the only one.

“The responsibility of being understood is primarily yours,” is a challenge we often put to the leaders we work with. For a CEO this applies to the board, the management team, the suppliers and most importantly the customers.

In our work with professional sports, we were confounded by the way in-game tactics were being communicated by a coach in basketball. The traditional methodology of ‘drawing up a play’ on a small whiteboard during a time out, in our minds was inadequate. It was failing those players who were not visual. Sure enough when we encouraged assistant coaches to ‘talk to’ those who were more auditory and ‘walk-through’ plays with those who were more kinaesthetic, we noticed significantly better outcomes.

Players who were previously labeled as having a low basketball IQ were simply less visually inclined.

In these current times when people are highly distracted and low on attention, not only must leaders be succinct, clear and precise in their communication, they must be aware of preferred communication modalities of their constituents and ensure they address them accordingly.

For in the end it is the responsibility of the leader to be understood.