Article
‘Multi-directional management’:
Exploring the challenges of performance
in the World Class Programme
environment
!!"#$%&'&()'('&*+,-)&'
')'.-'.('&'/0)((''1('&
'2'&1'0&'!"!#-- 334! !
!"#
$%&'&'('&)**'&*)')'
+"",- %
###%."/0
+"1%!,-%
###
-2!3!1%#%
!%#!%3141%#
!!%#5"
"6%
CLoK
-2#%
###
D. Collins and A. Cruickshank Reflective Practice
1
This is a pre-proof correct manuscript, as accepted for publication, of an article published by
Taylor & Francis in Reflective Practice on 3
rd
April 2012, available online:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623943.2012.670630#abstract
PLEASE REFER TO THE PUBLISHED VERSION FOR CITING PURPOSES
“Multidirectional Management”: Exploring the challenges of performance in the World
Class Performance environment
Dave Collins & Andrew Cruickshank
Institute of Coaching and Performance, University of Central Lancashire
D. Collins and A. Cruickshank Reflective Practice
2
Abstract
Driven by the ever-increasing intensity of Olympic competition and the ‘no
compromise – no stone unturned’ requirements frequently addressed by HM
Government and its main agency, UK Sport, a change in culture across Olympic
team landscapes is a common occurrence. The main ‘change agent’, or at least
‘change instigator’ in UK World Class Programmes is seen as the Performance
Director (PD) and recent investigation has focused on unearthing areas of best
practice in the role (Fletcher & Arnold, 2011). However, recognising the complex,
social challenge of developing and sustaining a high performing culture and the
growing rate of elite team management turnover (cf. Cruickshank & Collins, in
press
b
), there exists an urgent need to consider the context-specific delivery of such
pan-individual change; especially as this has played a major role in the realisation of
the Olympic Dream, or perhaps Nightmare. With a focus on process, this
contribution consequently presents reflections from 8 current or recently serving
PDs in the UK system on their experiences of creating and disseminating their vision
for their sport, a vital initial activity of the change initiative. To facilitate a broad
overview of this construct, reflections are structured around the vision’s
characteristics and foundations, how it is delivered to key stakeholder groups, how it
is influenced by these groups, the qualities required to ensure its longevity and its
limitations. Emerging from these perceptions, the creation and maintenance of a
shared team vision was portrayed as a highly dynamic task requiring the active
management of a number of key internal and external stakeholders. Furthermore,
the application of ‘dark’ traits and context-specific expertise were considered critical
attributes for the activity’s success. Finally, recent calls for research to elucidate the
wider culture optimisation process are reinforced.
Keywords: culture change, dark traits, elite sport, expertise, UK Sport, vision
D. Collins and A. Cruickshank Reflective Practice
3
As Olympic performance continues to push the boundaries of physical, technical, tactical and
mental aptitude, it is crucial that athletes and their support staff operate within high
performing cultures throughout the four year competition cycle. Indeed, reflecting the
energy, engagement and focus required to improve/refine all facets of performance, and
ensure that these are robust to the intense pressure an Olympic Games, a minute-to-minute,
second-to-second commitment to one’s profession across this period is essential if peak
success is to be achieved. As those responsible for managing and regulating individual, intra-
group and inter-group features of the performance environment, the perception, decision
making and action of the Performance Director (hereafter PD) is therefore central to the
functioning, longevity and achievement of Olympic sports teams.
Certainly, while Olympic sport PDs typically deliver little if any ‘hands on’ coaching
(or at least should if their role is not to become ‘clouded’), their ability to influence pan-
individual performance (positively, negatively or indifferently) is arguably the most
significant of any in the performance department of a national sport organisation (i.e., that
including team management, performance-specific administrative staff, support staff and
performers) apart from the personal coach him/herself. Specifically, through holding
ultimate responsibility for team policies, systems, structures and processes, at least in an
optimum system, a PD’s ambitions, principles and intentions will always, to at least some
extent, be reflected in the perceptions, preferences and behaviours of all those ‘lower down’
the organisational chart (we place lower down in inverted commas as this principle applies to
democratic as well as autocratic models). As such, due to growing awareness of this role’s
significance, attention has recently turned to consider these figures perceptions of best
practice.
Specifically, from enquiry into the position’s main facets and the qualities required
for optimal performance, Fletcher and Arnold (2011, p.223) revealed four areas of Olympic
D. Collins and A. Cruickshank Reflective Practice
4
PD competency, namely: operations, people, culture and vision. Operations entailed
“financial management, strategic competition and training planning, athlete selection for
competition, and upholding rules and regulations”; people involved “staff management, lines
of communication, and feedback mechanisms”; culture was represented by “establishing role
awareness, and organizational and team atmosphere”; and, finally, vision, or “the team’s
ultimate aspiration” (p. 228) incorporated “vision development, influences on the vision, and
sharing the vision”. Providing much needed insight into the nuances of Olympic team
management, this work offers a valuable overview of the required dimensions of proficiency,
albeit that the competency construct may impose some limitations on our conceptual
understanding of how exactly such ‘competencies’ are differentially blended and applied (cf.
in coaching: Abraham & Collins, 2011; in support science: Martindale & Collins, 2007).
Indeed, as alluded to by Fletcher and Arnold, it is reasonable to assert that the relative
importance and operationalisation of each identified theme will vary substantially across
contextually distinct phases and episodes of the real life PD challenge.
Expressly, while many of the sub-theme responsibilities identified by Fletcher and
Arnold (2011) represent inherent and ongoing tests of the PD skill set, successful engagement
in each area will undoubtedly be highly context-specific. For example, as in any complex
and dynamic environment, factors such as history, tradition, systems, structures and
interpersonal relationships will all interact to dictate/limit the options and directions available
to the PD in their efforts to deliver sustained optimal performance (Bevir & Richards, 2009;
Cilliers, 2000). Accordingly, the uncritical, pan-context application of generic
‘advantageous’ leadership behaviours, such as those espoused by transformational leadership
theory (cf. Callow, Smith, Hardy, Arthur, & Hardy, 2009), across a variety of scenarios will
presumably often generate sub-optimal impact or, in some instances, even be inappropriate.