Reflecting on the FIFA World Cup and my love of sport, I look at how a professional football team prepares for a tournament. It is not just the talent they start with, but also how they develop it and how they integrate people. How do they build capability? It's instructive.

For a variety of reasons, some organisations don't consider leadership development the same way.

High-performing teams don't just assemble experienced players. They arrive with enough experience to handle pressure and enough developing talent to influence matches. That balance can require a different system from the one most C-suites operate under.

What that system actually does:

High-performing teams with great cultures balance experience and developing talent because they:

• Recruit strategically: before capability gaps become urgent, not after

• Structure mentorship deliberately: pairing senior and junior leaders so learning is active, not accidental. Bring in coaches to support development.

• Measure contribution broadly: valuing individual output and how well leaders develop others

• Reward leaders who hire better than themselves — the CFO who brings in a finance director smarter than expected. The Chief People Officer who recruits someone who challenges their thinking. The leader who plays for the organisation, not their position.

That last one matters. It changes everything.

A professional team's coach doesn't always promote internally to fill gaps. They source globally. And when a club recruits a player, that player often brings something the current squad lacks: a different tactical perspective, a skill set that reshapes how the team plays, or a capability that makes the existing core better.

In many organisations, leaders, consciously or unconsciously, hire people who fit them. Often, they hire people who will not threaten them or who fill the gap, but won't reshape the function. That's safe. It's also how you end up with homogeneous leadership teams that may not adapt.

When you measure whether a leader has hired talent that might be better than expected, with different thinking, expanded capability, and a perspective that challenges the status quo, you're measuring something real about organisational health. You're asking: Does this leader play for the team, or for their seat?

Experience becomes a learning multiplier.

"Players like Gavi (21), Pedri (23), and Ferran Torres (26) from the Spanish team have played multiple major tournaments and are barely into their mid-20s. In high-performing teams, that integration happens deliberately, pairing junior and senior players so learning is active, not accidental.

The value of a senior player isn't just what they do. It's what they teach. And the junior player isn't sidelined waiting for their turn; they're reshaping the senior player's thinking about the game.

That matters in your C-suite. How much of a CFO's contribution is measured by developing others? Is mentorship deliberate, or does it happen if there's time? And when a developing leader joins the team, are they integrated to learn and to bring a fresh perspective?

Cross-functional learning breaks silos.

In football, defenders understand what attackers need. Attackers know defensive pressure. The system learns as a whole.

In some organisations, less so in startups, the CFO executes their domain. Risk runs its lane. People work separately. During stability, that functions fine. During uncertainty, silos often strengthen. The CFO retreats into cash preservation. Risk tightens governance. People focus on retention. Each makes sense individually, but can create friction at the systems level.

Uncertainty over the economic outlook is intensely negative (-70 net balance), with nearly all (83%) citing it as detrimental to their business. In this environment, teams get more siloed, not less.

A high-performing team does the opposite. During uncertainty, they increase cross-functional learning because adaptability becomes critical. Everyone sees the entire field, not just their position.

What's worth examining?

There's a gap between how professional sporting teams build capability and how some organisations recruit and develop their leadership.

One system optimises for learning velocity under pressure. How quickly can the squad identify gaps, source new capabilities, integrate different perspectives, and adapt?

The other optimises for stability and execution. How consistently can each leader deliver in their domain?

The environment is shifting. Uncertainty is persistent. The landscape is changing faster than planning cycles. That gap becomes visible.

Some practical reflection:

How can your organisation strategically source external talent for emerging capability gaps? When was the last time you brought someone in from outside because they brought a different perspective your system needed, not because you had a vacancy?

When a senior leader on your team hires, are they hiring to fill the gap or to bring in talent that might be better than expected? Is that measured? Is it rewarded?

Do your CFO and Chief Digital Officer work together on strategic challenges, or operate in separate lanes? When the environment becomes uncertain, do silos strengthen or weaken?

The point isn't to copy a football team. It's about noticing which systems drive learning and growing velocity versus execution velocity. And to ask whether your leadership capability system is built for the environment you're actually in.

Source: Australian Industry Group, "Australian Industry Outlook 2026"

Link: https://www.australianindustrygroup.com.au/resourcecentre/research-economics/australian-industry-outlook-2026/

Data: Economic uncertainty sentiment (-70 net balance), impact on business decision-making