A former colleague and friend who writes for Businessworld interviewed John Buchanan, coach to the Australian cricket team. I loved this interview for two reasons. Firstly, that unlike similar interviews with the same subject, it steered clear of cricket and cricketing cliches and focussed exclusively on strategy. In that sense, it's a terrific example of how a smart journalist can take a subject which has been carpet bombed by the media and create a story that stands out. And secondly, because the interview provides fantastic insights into building and managing teams.

The original text of the interview can be accessed here. The only reason I'm posting the full text out here is because very often when I tried to read this interview online, my browser would crash very often.

'CONTROL THE FUTURE..."

Um. A question for you. What makes some teams great, while others spend a lifetime in mediocrity? To understand the gestalt of great teams, you could do worse than study the Australian cricket squad. The Aussies utterly dominated the 2003 Cricket World Cup. They came to South Africa without Steve and Mark Waugh; they lost Shane Warne at the very outset and Jason Gillespie a little later. And yet they savaged every team. Was it because they had a great bench? Because they had the most talented players? Or, perhaps, technology? The man with the answers is a tall Australian with a measured way of speaking. His name is John Buchanan. He coaches the Aussie cricket team.

Buchanan was in India last week. He had been invited by HSBC - as a part of its 150th anniversary celebrations - to talk about managing champion teams.

Buchanan's reputation as a coach began to build when, under his mentoring, the Australian province of Queensland won the national Sheffield Shield two years in a row. It was a remarkable turnaround. Before that, most people, including the players, had despaired of Queensland ever winning the trophy. And then, when Geoff Marsh quit as the Australian cricket coach, Buchanan got the top job. BW's M. Rajshekhar met Buchanan in Delhi to discuss what makes teams great. It was an insightful discussion, with tips that corporates can use. Read on.

How does one create a team as high-performing as the Aussie cricket squad?

There are two aspects to this. One, the management side. And two, the people who are being managed. To my mind, there is no question that you need talent. I don't think any high-performing team or organisation can exist without talent. So, obviously, there are ways and means of understanding how to get that talent inside
the organisation.

Then, the management side should have a very clear vision of the future: where does it want to be? To my mind, knowing the future is about two things - controlling the future and responding to the future.

For us, the 'control' side is that we want to be better than our opposition. We want them (the opposition) to be more concerned about what we are doing rather than what they are doing. Therefore, if we can have skills - technical, physical, mental and tactical - that they don't have or haven't thought of having, then that gives us a
competitive advantage and, as a result, we have control over how the game plays out.

Take Brett Lee. Brett is an express bowler, a fast bowler we can use to dominate a game. With him, we can dictate how the game is played out. Not all the time obviously, because some batsmen will play well against him. However, most teams will be worried, and will spend more time looking at ways and means of dealing with him rather than thinking about how they are going to play the game. That gives us control over the way we are going to play the game.

So, the link back to business would be: what picture of the future do we have and, therefore, what kind of people do we want in the organisation?

Let's take the 2003 World cup. What was the vision you went in with, and how was the team built around it?

As we moved to the World Cup, which is an important event as it defines where all the teams stand, we wanted to play cricket which put the other teams in awe. That was the vision we went in with. If we did that, other teams would be more concerned with what we were doing, while all we would have to do was be concerned with ourselves.

We began planning for the World Cup in 1999 with a general framework and then defined it more and more as time went by. Two-and-a-half years ago, we decided where we wanted to set up camp. We didn't want to set up camp in Johannesburg or somewhere with too many distractions. Two years ago, we decided what players we would be losing, and what kind of players we would need. A year before the World Cup, we were touring South Africa. We were looking at the grounds. We had a new captain and we were seeing how he was dealing with the new responsibility. And six months before the World Cup, we began to be clear about the kind of game we wanted to play. We knew we would have to be a good defensive side. South Africa has smaller grounds. Batsmen can hit out of the ground easily. So we wanted fieldsmen who could save boundaries. That became integral while deciding upon the team.

Similarly, we expect that four or so players from the current team will be around to play in the next World Cup. That tells us which are the areas we have to start looking at. Right now, we are playing a tournament in the West Indies. And the kind of pitches we will play on in the World Cup will probably not be too different. But that isn't the only thing we look at. While choosing the players, it's not just their talent which brings them into the side, it is their character.

Why Character?

A lot of the players wanting to get into the team have talent, but we always opt for a person who brings something more to the team. Like an Andrew Symonds in the last World Cup. His talent was probably equal, maybe slightly less, than a few other contenders for virtually the last position. But we took him as we knew that he would make a contribution to the team.

What do I look for in my players? It is an intangible quality. It is how they carry themselves on the field. It is the little things that they might do around the team. For me, I suppose, in one word, it would be selflessness. That they will be prepared to sacrifice themselves, in terms of their aspirations, their goals, their desires, to actually be a part of the outfit. And Andrew is very much that sort of a person, apart from all the other skills he offers.

And once you have the players, how do you harness them into a World-beating team?

One critical element we just talked about was that the coach and the management should have a clear vision of the future. They should know where they want to go. Vision is critical for exciting players. The other important thing is that the leader should be very concerned about the people in his team. We can get too caught up with results, with the bottomline, with putting new technology in place. But all of us - be it in cricket or banking or a magazine - are in a people business.
How do we regard the people we work with? Do we see them only as people who can make a contribution to the organisation - in terms of profits, sales, deadlines? Are they good people only if they meet their targets?

From my point of view, it is important to deal with my players as more than just cricketers. All of them come from different backgrounds, different circumstances, different ages. Some are married, others are not. Some have children, others want to have children. They are all different.

And I have to know them individually. I have to know them as a friend, a son, a peer, as the case might be. Someone might be a person who will bend the rules. Another might be a person I have to clip behind the ears. I have to know how they operate. What are the things going on in their lives? What do they want to achieve? And where are they now? So that we can try and help in any way, and at least get things in sync. So that, on a day-to-day basis, when they walk into the office or onto a cricket field, they can just do their best, not worry about something else. Knowing them like this has another benefit - it gives the team a chance to see how I operate too.

Then, I always emphasise the process over results. This is actually quite hard to do. Cricket is a game of results. But for me, results are almost meaningless. Of course, it is nice to achieve them. And it will be incorrect to say that we didn't like achieving them. But, to me, the important thing is not scoring 600 runs or taking 10 wickets. That is the outcome - the results you want. It is the process of getting there.

Take the second test at Calcutta. Australia was in a strong position: India were trailing us by 270 runs. They had already lost the first test. At that moment, our team just decided that the series was ours and stopped looking at the process. They ignored the entire process of controlling two quality batsmen. And (V.V.S.) Laxman and (Rahul) Dravid slowly changed the game. By then, the thought of having to fight to save the match was foreign to the minds of our players. That lost us the match.

Of course, I am not saying that that was the only thing which lost us the match. Dravid and Laxman did play incredible innings, with an incredible bowling performance by Harbhajan (Singh) later.

Even with the best of plans, there will be moments of chaos when the plan goes awry. The opening pair may not be able to built a sound foundation. The strike bowler may get smashed all over the ground.

How do you budget for such contingencies in the way you structure the team?

That is why we need people like Andrew Symonds. If all you have are specialists, then that speciality should obviously bring some corresponding outcome during the course of the game. However, you know it doesn't always happen like that. They cannot always score a hundred or take five wickets.

What you need then are people around them who offer some backup options, if you like. And so, going back to an Andrew Symonds, who comes into the game as an all-rounder because he can bowl two types of deliveries, he can bat in various parts of the order, he can bat in different ways and he can field in different positions. He isn't regarded as a specialist in all of them, but what he does do is bring you those options, which you can utilise in any situation. Either when you want to capitalise on a situation, or when things are in chaos - when something is not working as well as it should. These options can right the ship or, at the very least, arrest the situation to give you the time to maybe utilise the specialists later.

But how do you keep the second-rung palyers happy given that most attention goes to the prima donnas - the strike bowlers and the specialist batsmen?

It is very difficult. We had the case of Justin Langer during the 2002 Ashes tour, where he carried the hurt and the tension of trying to get back into the side. (As a result) he could not perform. Finally, he and I talked and he was able to unload all his feelings. He was subsequently picked for the final test and scored a hundred! I now try to be more in touch and aware of this group of players. In addition, I try to ensure that they are always recognised by the total group.

How do you get a team to believe in itself?

I suppose I go back to my Queensland days. And I think the only approach there was that it had to come from the team. Initially, it was about working with the senior players. And talking, again, about vision. Where we can go? And what can we do to get there? It was also about saying that "You are the senior guys and you have been around a lot longer than I have been. So give me your expertise and we will make our framework for this year together."

The senior players bring both advantage and disadvantage. They have lots of experience and that is invaluable. However, among those experiences are bad experiences. The senior players carried that baggage like "When we get close, this is what happens." That was almost a common saying in the team: "Here we go again." So, it was about utilising the senior players to expose a lot of the stuff that was mythical. So, in a sense, it was challenging with the senior players.

The beauty of the younger players is they didn't have any baggage. They didn't have any experience, but all they needed was a little leadership to go in the right direction. I remember one game we should have won. We were playing against a West Australian team. We were chasing 120 runs to win, a day to go and, again, the same thing: "Here we go again," "This is the way it always is." And we lost the game. The next day, I got the whole team into the dressing room. And I told everyone to write down what they thought happened. They had to write it as they would have to think about it. And two, they would not have to worry about what the others might think. We then collected the common thoughts and dealt with these. Again, it was about coming back to the process, not looking at the result only.

What happens when the leader himself is suffering from a lack of self-belief?

It is very hard on the captain. But a good captain is one who is capable of compartmentalising his life. That is something which Steve Waugh is able to do very well. So, if his cricket is going well or not going well, that is in one box. He deals with it. He is captain of the side and that is in another box. His home life is in a third box. This is not an easy thing to do. And that is what probably defines very good leaders. (Mike) Brearley had this quality too. He wasn't necessarily a great player, though he did have his moments. But he was able to divorce that from his leadership style.
I am not sure if this quality can be taught, though it can certainly be enhanced. We have Ricky Ponting and I think he will make a very good captain. And what we can do now is work with him to ensure that he clearly understands where the various pieces fit. That is what defines a leader. He can put some things aside to get a clear sense of what he is dealing with at the present moment. He can live in the moment. I think Ponting has the capacity to do that. I don't think our other players do. Which is why he has gravitated to the leadership role.

How do you create a learning team?

That is the role of the coach. We have to create that learning environment. It is about learning from good and bad experiences. It is about understanding that everyone on the team has the ability to contribute. Just because they are young or senior, neither view is more or less important. It is also about how you provide information into that environment so that it is not subjective, but based on stats, computer technology, video.... Then, we learn from what we did today for tomorrow. We analyse the runs we scored and the wickets we took. We don't just look at how many runs we made or wickets we took. But also at how these were taken, so that we can improve the next time.

The team should be independent in its thinking. It should be able to solve problems quickly and creatively without having to involve you. If the players keep coming back to you, it is time- and energy-sapping for you, and indecisive for the team. I want to make myself redundant. I want to place as much responsibility on the players for their actions as I can. The further I remove myself from their decision-making process, the better they are at knowing themselves, coaching themselves and developing themselves. One important thing in this learning process is questioning why a player did what he did. We do this every time. Irrespective of whether they made the right or wrong call. Once they give me a rationale, I question them again about the reasons underlying that decision. Because that gets them thinking about how to make the right decision.

As International cricket is a high pressure game with the players being routinely thrust into do-or-die situation, how do you keep the team motivated?

For starters, it is not the coach's role to keep the team motivated. It is not the CEO's role to keep them motivated. If it is, you have the wrong staff. The desire to perform has to come from within the individual. The coach's role, or the CEO's role, is to nurture that environment. The Australian cricket team is like an extended family. And, for us, family values like hard work and perseverance are very important. We have to ensure that the environment fosters people with such values. But these values aren't driven by Ponting or Waugh or me. It has to come from the individual. Another big motivator is the history of the organisation - the tradition of Australian cricket. Once you are selected to play for your country, that provides an injection of motivation, if that is the right word. It's borne by symbols like the baggy green cap.

And the Folklore which builds up around the team...

Yes, tradition's not just the green cap, but the words and the actions and the legacy of previous generations. It is one of those intangible processes which we encourage all the time. We encourage it through chants - a team song. Through the words of people in the team - a young player, a Steve Waugh, or whoever. Through team meetings. It is a constant reaffirmation - both in subtle and non-subtle ways. To motivate the team, we use a lot of similes. We have discussions about our team. Like, what can be considered the Mount Everest of cricket? We discuss the 1948 team, 'The Invincibles'. How did they achieve what they did? How can we achieve what they did? What is the difference between being good and being great? And where do we stand on that?

I've always wondered -- will India continue to exist as a nation state 10 years down the line? Coming to think of it, there is nothing really that can bind this country together. Where is the common language, common history, common religion, common food and common customs? The more I travel, the more differences I see. The north, is so vastly different from the south. As much as the east is from the west. Which is why, when I came across news reports that spoke of how the four South India states were trying to form a federation along the lines of an economic union, I thought my worst fears were coming true. That the Balakanization of India had begun.

Having said that, I must also confess that there is another world view -- one that another part of me subscribes to. That for all its idiosyncrasies, this country will survive. Not just survive, but flourish. Shekhar Gupta, editor in chief of The Indian Express articulated why in his brilliantly written column National Interest in today morning's edition of the newspaper. Read on .....