Russia at the Olympics: Bad Business

The Russian team came up short on medals because their system failed them.

Russia’s domination of the medal race at the Vancouver Paralympic Games will hopefully soothe the country after its disappointing showing at the Olympics.

There, Russia finished 11th in the medal tally, an unusually low placement. The fallout was swift, with President Medvedev publicly calling for those in charge of the national team to “make the courageous decision and hand in their notice,” lest “we will help them.”

There is a point in my talking about the Russians and the Olympics, so read on.

World-class performance and leadership is seen as a high strategic priority in Russia. Far be it from me to judge whether this is right or wrong. And with the country set to host the Sochi Olympics in four years time, the pressure is only going to increase.

So what went wrong in Vancouver?

A lack of funding was certainly not the issue. Inordinate amounts of money are invested in amateur sports in Russia. Consider, for instance, the size of the bonuses the Russian Olympic Committee established for Vancouver medal winners compared to other countries. Russian athletes received $135,000 for every gold medal they won, compared to the $20,000 given to their American and Canadian competitors.

Rather, the poor performance has been attributed by many experts to the gradual disappearance of the “Soviet school.” As older coaches retire, there is no one to hand over the reins to and training methods are lost. So, while there is a significant amount of investment, there is no systematic approach to it.

What does this remind you of? Isn’t it something we often see in the corporate world: former glory, riding the wave of the past accomplishments for as long as it can carry you, then recognizing that there is a problem and throwing money at it in a piecemeal fashion without any system?

This won’t do, not for a corporation, nor for a country aspiring to be a world leader in sport. The right place to start is to establish a clear objective. I will continue with the Russian example to illustrate this.

Ostensibly, there are two possible distinct goals here for Russia:

1. To do well in Sochi in 2014.
2. To become a world leader in winter sports.

Why are these goals separate? The first one is specific and has a well-defined timeline. It is a short-term goal akin to making an annual projection or delivering a new product on time. Once it is achieved, there isn’t necessarily a lot of residual value left over.

It can be done by assembling a star “project team” of subject matter experts to find the talent, put it through a state-of-the-art prep program, whittle the team down to the desired size, and do incredibly well in Sochi. This will result in a bunch of great athletes, a bucketful of medals, and perhaps a few lessons learned, but no lasting effect. There won’t be an enduring methodology, a succession of coaches, or a sustainable selection “funnel.”

The second goal is long-term. To become a leader in something (sports, innovation, design, service, growth, efficiency, productivity, etc.) you need to build a “school” to maintain a legacy. You need to create a system, which, in this case, should consist of:

1. Judicial, systematic investment within well established guidelines.
2. Sponsorship at the top level to maintain focus and momentum.
3. The right people, including exceptional coaches, scientists, athletes, technical support, and administration.
4. A system of incentives to reward the desired behavior.
5. A culture of amateur sport participation – just look at Australia – to grow the pool of potential star athletes.
6. Facilities to enable this participation with a low cost of entry.
7. Heuristics and methods (which should, with time, become self-correcting algorithms) of identifying and selecting talent and training methods.
8. Knowledge retention and amelioration.

This will take time, maybe 10 years, to see results, but these will be long-lasting, repeatable, sustainable results. Russia would be wise to pursue both objectives at the same time, with the full understanding of the expectations attached to each goal.

The Russian sports example is a terrific illustration of a common issue in the corporate world. Too often, organizations are so anxious to see a change that they embark on it in earnest without first establishing clear goals and determining the best way to address them. These issues pop up all over the organizational map: investments that generate no return, failure to define a clear strategic direction, misguided projects, fixing things that don’t need fixing, lost time, lost productivity, “feel good” initiatives that have no value… If only the decision makers took the time to think it through.

Will the Russians be able to regroup for Sochi? I don’t know, but they better get their act together if they want to be a force to be reckoned with.