Organising excellence?

Was it the “greatest show on the earth?” Or is that the wrong question? How does any nation or any organisation evaluate large organisational goals and objectives, with some degree of objectivity and professionalism? But was this not the greatest performance in Olympic history? How does one professionally evaluate such large systems performance? Is that even possible when hundreds of variables are involved in any such evaluation? Maybe such an evaluation may not even be worth it? Or are there other important questions and issues to consider?

My preference for any such evaluation is the concept of ‘performance’ rather than a ‘show.’ A show focuses on viewers. Performance lends itself to a two-way evaluation of/for both actors and audience, and actually even a third performance criterion of future implications and impact of the specific event. Usually in any such performance evaluation we use three different time-based variables of performance, premised upon ‘outputs’, ‘impact’ and ‘outcomes.’     

Therefore, if we review the performance of any large event, we must consider all players, actors, and non-actors (future generations) involved in the success of the event. Three major components come to mind.  For example, we need views and perspectives of every actors’ and players’ (and nation’s) efforts.  We also need views and perspectives of the organisers i.e. the International Olympic Committee (IOC) ) and those also of the hosts and partnering organisations.  

We must never forget that it is never just governments alone that collaborate for success of organising such large events. In the case of the British organisers, they chose a great vision of “inspiring the next generation.” That too factors in how we undertake any evaluation of their performance.

In Organisation Theory, we generalise that behaviour is a function of both; the person and the environment. If we extend this line of thinking, first and foremost we get the outstanding sportsmen and women who are the focus of these championship’s performance. But, do they ever get to the Olympics by themselves, without their coaches, nation’s support and all else? That is also the reason why the tally of medals is based on the record of nation-states. Therefore we could label these games as a ‘United Sports of Nations Championships’.

Now, when we put all the national and other teams into the sporting arena, we need the hosts of London 2012, who spent billions just to pull off the games.  If this urge to host the Games is not done in a prudent way, it will also lead to the bankruptcy of the nation.  Greece seems to be a case in point.

But, then again, there are aspiring nations who want to showcase their national prowess not just in the games and but through the games to inspire a new generation.  The UK in particular, called Team GB (Great Britain) for the very first time, more than showcased their prowess in the games (they came out third in the medal tally) but also picked a downtrodden part of London to host the games with the hope this will rejuvenate the location after, for the local community.

But, for me, the most exciting and hopeful aspect of this games was the role and process through which the organisers made sure that ordinary Londoners and British citizens were involved in the hosting of the games; especially the young. They literally chose to inspire the next generation.

What constitutes winning?

What were the outputs of the Olympics at London 2012?  The obvious there are the medals, and so many see this as a competition of sorts. But, does this constitute winning? Is the US the best winner of the 2012? Actually, there was a researcher in the North Western University who developed a different model of the Games evaluation; using per capita or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or population as key measures. The alternative results showed smaller countries on top of the table.

So, can’t we also talk about other measures to evaluate national team performance?  Why should it only be in outputs measured of the medals won, although it is a credible measure?

Being a development policy person, I would also raise the question if a country was sacrificing human development of their nations in exchange of for Olympics gold medals; would that be right? Alternatively, if it is all funded by public funds, is that the right thing to do? What about the impact of the medals won? For instance, is it only good enough that a nation’s athletes win medals?

How can we translate Chong Wei’s silver into “growing a new generation” of badminton players of all colours, shapes and sizes nationwide? Or, can we motivate Pandelela to win the gold in diving at Rio and give both her and her coach first priority in deciding and dictating this to some degree? How can her diving association and her coach be given more leeway to train another ten look-alikes to go to Rio with her and see her as their mentor? These then become impact questions.        

But, one must also take a longer term view and ask questions about the outcome of the Olympics for the organisers and the rest of the world. What then was the greatest impact of the 2012 Games?

From my view, it was the almost equal participation of women. Much more needs to be and can be done but we must recognise the one Saudi lady in boxing who helped make Olympic history. For doping and cheating in general, it appears that science has been able to help set and monitor standards. Maybe the global banking system can also learn from the IOC and maybe also every other competitive sports world, especially football.

Another aspect of potential impact of the Olympics is can we focus our development agenda not just for athletes but also how to use the Olympics to rid this world of abject poverty? Here too I think London 2012 has made a major contribution.

I did not think much about the closing ceremony, but I absolutely enjoyed the opening ceremony. That alone would make me say that the British were absolutely thoughtful and generous about propounding positive and good British cultures for a different world view about the Olympic Games and all it stands for.

Sebastian Coe concluded, “We did it right… we lit the light and lit up the world.” I agree. At the opening ceremony, they retold the Olympic torch story in a whole new way and I think they changed the operating paradigm in the process.  It took all of British Empire history and geography to have pulled off what they did, and they did it in complete style.

To have broken up the Olympic torch, once carried by ladies and Spartan sportsmen, to pass it forward to seven young athletes of different sports and then to light the Olympic flame in this new way, which resulted in all the little lights becoming one big torch was very profound to say the least. They were like tongues of fire that came together at the top to become the Olympic torch and which truly inspired one of the greatest human events.

In this Olympics, because one of the major TV channels was BBC, they also had the privilege of controlling the means to tell the whole story.  There was no way that Mr Bean would have been noticed by the audience except for the BBC live coverage, and so also for a ‘British Monarch’ jumping off the helicopter with Mr Bond. It was both fiction and virtual reality we had to deal with; it was also the best of British culture with all her nuances about the good, the bad and the ugly.

It was an excellent performance. Well done IOC, the Team GB and all participating nations and team members. May the Good Lord bless us with more such good performances, and not just shows.