Team of Teams

What is amazing about this book is that it was a solution that was forged organically to meet the needs of the situation. The story is what makes this sticky – the Iraq War forced the US military to adapt to an ever changing landscape. We are constantly having to come to this realization as a coach.

One of the keys I took was the evolution of reductionism and efficiency in the workplace. We are constantly bombarded with this narrative to improve the output of everything we are doing based on producing consistently. What I took was that this is necessary to adapt to new situations. I would argue that once you find a solution that meets the needs of that unique problem, finding ways to become more efficient is paramount to long term success.

As we break down an athletic department or a team staff, they are forced to collaborate on a larger more fundamental goal. As I was reading this I couldn’t help but think about the European Sport Science Model taking form in the US. This meritocratic system where everything was the sum of its parts, and the lead on anything was relative to what the situation needs. We all know that there has been serious problems with Europeanizing US Sport teams, but you cannot help but wonder if it was the system or the environment that was the problem. 

You think about Team of Teams most fundamental aspect – increasing speed of information gathering and dissemination through less hierarchical leader structures. The way the US Army was to be successful was to break down silos within branches and divisions and collaborate and connect more. The same model is largely used with US sports teams, hierarchy and siloed off, so you would think that this would be a logical evolution to the European/Team of Teams model. But it has not been the case, in my opinion not even close. 

If you look at the person or group that decided to break down walls within the military – it started from the top. Imagine presenting that to a Head Coach or Athletic Director. Imagine going to the lead on Sports Medicine or Nutrition as a Strength Coach saying we want to break down existing barriers, open lines of communication, distribute authority and decision making collectively, to provide higher level decision making to our athletes. You might be fired on the spot, or at best be viewed as a mortal enemy that cannot be trusted due to a dangerous agenda. 

Take for example tracking GPS and workloads. This is one that costs a lot of money, so you need to demonstrate to the coach this will bring value. Then you need to sell the athletic department that this will bring ROI and this is the best valued product on the market. Then you need to get someone on staff to take point on this. Then they have to work out logistically with equipment on who gets what and how to maintain equipment/garments. Then you need to collaborate with Sports Medicine on workload management and return to play. Finally, and sadly lastly, you coordinate with the athletes why you are doing this, how this will benefit them, and what/when they have to do. 

This is honestly inverted from order of operations. This fundamentally good thing to hold everyone to a higher standard is viewed as potentially a negative. Your athletes have a hard time trusting because they will view this as negatively judging them by their coaches. The trainers will say that every coach is trying to hurt them. The coach will view this as you are trying to tell them what to do. Athletic department will view this as a waste of money. 

This could be a common talking point to manage athletes’ health and performance. Instead it becomes a nightmare to manage and you are viewed as a disruptor of a delicate ecosystem. I am not saying that GPS is a European system, but it is an example of how an integrated system does not translate as readily to US teams/departments. 

Team of Teams is a really good book. There is a little Utopia-like quality about it. I myself got disenfranchised with constantly hitting roadblocks with bureaucracy and politics. I changed that by opening my business and setting it up as such. Not everyone will want to do that. You will have to find compromises and build over time. You can get closer to a completely integrated and interdependent department, you just have to remain optimistic. There are some amazing rituals and action steps in this book that should be encouraging that if the US military can change your team or department can change.