For Armstrong and Contador, the Leadership Wheels Come Off

COMMENTS

• No it could not be decided ahead of time. The leader of the team is determined on the road when there are two (actually in Astana's case) four very strong riders. The rider who proves the strongest on the first mountain stages and the fastest on the first individual TT claims the leadership and the support of the rest of the team. Once Lance conceded that AC was the stronger of the two, he performed the duties of super domestique beautifully although, since he is a champion at heart, it must have been incredibly difficult.

  CPBoyce Posted Friday, July 31, 2009 2:36 PM

• I agree with your points although I would offer these thoughts in response. Facilitating communication and cooperation is much easier when a team is constructed of the required parts. When these parts have optionality in duplicate, like AC and LA, competition takes over instantaneously creating conflict. This conflict is exacerbated by a manager whose goals are for the team's success, not the individual's collective success. Bruyneel's incentives (assuming) are based on the team performance, which was by all accounts astounding. I think this speaks to a broader problem that has plagued the world economy of late; managers creating short-term value spikes for excessive incentives rather than creating meaningful long-term shareholder value. This speaks to both points you make because true, the roles were ill-defined, but not because the manager didn't do his job. It was because the tactics employed to reach the strategic end was based upon a three-week race, rather than building a lasting institute based on principles, ethics, and values.

  Nate Sieber Posted Friday, July 31, 2009 2:48 PM

• I remember months before the Tour reading quotes from Armstrong and the manager designating Contador as the team leader and that Armstrong would concentrate on the Livestrong campaign, but apparently he got a little too greedy and decided to steal the show from Contador. The manager, being Armstrong's friend, was a little biased towards the ex-champion, and didn't help matters. Armstrong has no chance against Contador; He's younger and stronger. I personally feel that Contador was given the short end of the stick by his manager and teammate, so what else could he do but race his own race without them. i don't blame him.

  Hector Medero Posted Friday, July 31, 2009 4:15 PM

• Looking at comments from AC, LA and Johan Bruyneel, it seems there has been a kind of conflict well understood by JB but as the manager, using others to play against themselves. I do respect Armstrong as a rider because of his achievements but think he overplayed his role within the team.

  A little more sincerity from JB, could have made AC the team leader as agreed in the original gentleman's agreement but LA as the deputy, although, I think the deputy should have been Levi Leipheimer not LA.

  Now on the long run, I do not think either sides have benefitted from this as I think LA may be in for some disappointment on the list of cyclists who will be willing to put up with the manner he (LA) deals with team-mates when things do not go the way he plans.

  May be JB should have been more assertive in the later stages to delegate team-spokeperson to LA but AC as the technical team leader and having noticed how the team is doing could have been a bit smarter in allowing LA to take the glory for team achievements while AC is allowed to be supported for the numero uno in the GC.

  All this in my humble opinion.

  Ade.

  Ade Posted Friday, July 31, 2009 4:50 PM

• >Shouldn't the job of a manager (any manager) be to facilitate communication and cooperation among the stars on the team?

  Perhaps that's exactly what the manager attempted to do. And perhaps he was more successful that we realize.

  Dave Wyman Posted Friday, July 31, 2009 7:34 PM

• sir, your lack of knowledge of this sport is reason enough for you to concentrate on subjects more inline with your background. cycling is not politics or boardroom clashes and how managers need to respond to certain situations within there team. it takes years to understand and appreciate bike racing for what it is. Cycling is over one hundred years old but has never been understood or apreciated in the US and cycling will be around long after Lance Armstrong is. its just not something that captures the imagination of most Americans because people in this country only understand things within their own borders. thank you

  Frank Tellez Posted Friday, July 31, 2009 9:05 PM

• As a manager, a cyclist and a fan I was amazed by several facets of the race and the comments of Alberto and Lance. I agree with you on your two points, as well as to the point that the case has been simplified. Here are some observation that support your statements: Alberto demonstrated he was the the best and most fit rider. Lance Armstrong demonstrated loyalty by defending attacks to Contador as his teammates had done for him in years past. If Contador would have kept to the team strategy and worked with his team, they had a chance at filling the top three spots. It may not have happened, but Contador eliminated one of his teammates from contention with an ill-timed attack. Perhaps Alberto riding his own race was due to insecurity. That insecurity would be the result of Johan Bruyneel not making it clear who the frontman was at the outset. Granted that was not an easy call, but it became clear before Week 1 was over and should have been overcome. We don't know what efforts were made - so we can't be too critical as the first and third places were occupied by Alberto and Lance. Lance did a lot of things right, but by refusing to comment about tension with his teammate he added to it. As the senior team member, he dictated the attitude of the team and should have done more to bring them together.
  I am still a fan, and still have much to learn about cycling and leadership. Amazing what you see in sport that applies directly to the workplace. I am already looking forward to next year.

  K Riggs Posted Friday, July 31, 2009 11:36 PM

• Well, it is both complicated and simple. The _stated_ plan for the Tour for Astana was that Contador would be the team leader. Even Bruyneel stated this before the race began. What we really had in this race was an ex-champion who did not want to play second fiddle to the young buck. It's really that simple. I fear also, that there were sympathies on the part of Bruyneel towards Lance, and against Contador. This put Contador in a nearly untenable situation. No pro-class rider of his caliber ought to be put through this.

  I should add, however, that both riders, with one exception each, on the tarmac, rode like true champions, and cooperated for the whole, but off the bikes, Lance made Contador's life hellish. Examples. For the last individual time trial, Lance took one of the last team cars for himself, and sent the rest to the airport for his family, leaving Contador to find his own way (called his brother, who took him), and don't you wonder why Lance pre-announced that on the day of the time trial, afterwards, he would announce a new sponsor? That was no accident.

  This tour was a classic example of an attemt of a coup d'etat. Contador showed his mettle, however, and won the Yellow. Sadly, he may have won the tour, but lost more in the long run, thanks to Lance and his willing minions (and yes, I mean the media).

  Lastly, I'll ad this. I have liked and appreciated Lance, having followed him for years, but after this year's tour, he has completely lost my respect as a human. He has shown himself to be a big cry baby, a manipulator, and ultimately selfish and worse, a borderline narcissist and meglomaniac.

  JonGl Posted Saturday, August 1, 2009 3:36 AM

• Scott,
  Your article sites Johan Bruyneel as being at fault. If he had managed the team any differently it would have resulted in a more lackluster finish. By pitting Armstrong and Contador against eachother, both achieved a better result. Another team member, Andreas Kloden, also thought he had an outside chance of winning and took 5th overall in the race. This parallels our political system: if you are always conciliatory and try to make everybody homogenious, then the result will be average - everyone does just enough for the good of the team because that's what their paid to do. If you provide carats or incentives for highly capable people to do their absolute best, your result will be very different. That is where the art of management comes into play. If Bruyneel had taken a traditional route to managing the team (sought control and ruled with an iron fist), it would have been a predictable average performance by some highly talented individuals.

  John Easterbrook Posted Saturday, August 1, 2009 10:37 AM

• Never, ever, put two prima donnas on the same team!

  Potato Man Posted Saturday, August 1, 2009 10:40 AM

• The talent and firepower on the Astana team proved triumphant at the winners podium, but so did their egos. Hats off to the team for providing the fireworks in the absence of a doping scandal at this years tour.
  Grow up little boys.

  Ted Simpson Posted Saturday, August 1, 2009 4:00 PM

• Lance Armstrong clearly stated that the strongest rider would be leader, and that Contador was stronger. There wasn't really any dispute about it...just media hype. Contador says "I'm the leader" Armstrong says "The strongest man is the leader" Contador proves himself to be stronger, thus ends the "argument".

  Braden McKay Posted Sunday, August 2, 2009 12:49 AM

• Once it was seen that AC was the stronger rider Armstrong did his duty and helped AC take the race. It should be interesting next year.

  Rick Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 8:21 AM

• What more could Johan Bruyneel have accomplished? Astana riders took first and third on the podium, and Astana won as best team. So, better management would have accomplished ... what?

  Alberto Contador is extraordinarily talented, but still young. Bruyneel and Armstrong probably managed AC about as well as anyone could. Watch AC in the future to see if he gains maturity to match his talent.

  The more interesting leadership lesson from this year's Tour is how Astana (by holding back AC and Lance till the end) allowed other teams to win stages and points. This created goodwill towards Astana in the Peloton. The team (Columbia) that seemed to "hog" stage wins had no friends in the Peloton at key points when they needed cooperation.

  Also, the rivalry between Armstrong and Contador was, in sports terms, beneficial: it made a more exciting race, generated more publicity for Armstrong/Livestrong, and undoubtedly increased viewership/fans.

  Bruyneel excercised what one might call "360-degree leadership" as he harnessed all these forces, won convincingly -- and incidentally put himself in a position to ride into the sunset with a new sponsor that presumably will pay its bills.

  Anita Blair Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 8:33 AM

• I, too, was disappointed by the sniping - and agree that it speaks volumes about leadership, especially for Contador. I was concerned early in the race that Armstrong might be challenging his teammate but concluded that he was pushing him instead and that he would not dare upstage the appointed leader. I think the results indicate that was, indeed, the strategy. Contador is clearly a gifted cyclist but has plenty to learn about leading a team. Regardless of what may have transpired behind the scenes, Armstrong's advice is spot on.

  Steve Richardson Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 8:40 AM

• Great article and you bring up interesting points. Bruyneel's objective was to fill the podium. He almost achieved 1-2-3 (had Levi Leipheimer not crashed out, he may have succeeded). He did exactly what he needed to do to achieve this. Let them fight it out on the road. Once it was clear that Contador had a substantial lead, Armstrong ceded the role of leader and simply fought off the other worthy competitors from other teams (Andly Schleck notably). Armstrong's point was that Contador apparently, at least what we read in the media, not acknowledging the support of his team. While your point of clearly establishing roles and responsibilities is certainly true, in this example, cycling isn't always a suitable analog to modern business. Certainly both Contador and Armstrong were strong enough to win and had a strong team to support both of them. Most teams don't have that luxury or horsepower. In Armstrong's heyday, he was the clear leader of his team. In modern business, we should not let these uncertainties and sniping behavior exist. In sport however, as you note, this is what brings the excitement.

  Frank Peri Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 8:47 AM

• Let me ask your question again, in a different way: Who was the leader of team Astana and what was the goal of team that Buryneel was leading?

  What if Bruyneel's leadership role was to obtain two gifted riders with huge egos on the same team and keep them riding successfully throughout the tour? You're right that the sniping between the two competitors takes luster away from a great team achievement, but can you fault Bruyneel for putting together a team that took first and third in the most storied event in cycling?

  It all depends upon how you define the goal and for whom the goal is defined. For Contador, he succeeded in winning the Tour. For Armstrong, he showed he's still among the elite physically, though he didn't show much leadership or teamwork. In fact, for him this Tour seemed like a sidelight to his Radio Shack sponsorship of his team next year.

  Bruyneel did better from a results standpoint than any other team manager, and he DID keep the team working even if the egos were unhappy. He kept the team together and achieved a goal; pretty good job, maybe. But was the price of bickering afterward worth it?

  Evaluation of leadership depends upon the goal definition, for whom and during what time frame. Thanks for something interesting to think about.

  Dave B. Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 8:47 AM

• Getting both riders to communicate and "get along" is more idealistic than realistic. Their egos are too big; maybe more AC than Armstrong. Bruyneel knew going in that AC and LA would clash. The decision was about winning and money, not about about strategic or even smart leadership. Only the Zen Master of coaching and managing, Phil Jackson, could have kept the 2 men in stride. Bruyneel was worried about the climate or culture of the team, only who got the yellow jersey.

  J. Doe Posted Monday, August 3, 2009 8:55 AM

• I think it needs to be added that Astana is/was an organization in dissolution. LA was brought in to give the team a future. I truly believe that AC's comments are a face-saving gesture since he was never going to be invited on to the new LA-owned Livestrong/Radio Shack team which will surely include Bruyneel, Leipheimer, Popovich and likely Kloden and many others. It has to be hard to realize you're effectively being kicked off a team when you are THE or certainly one of THE best riders in the world at this place and time. AC will be back next year on a team that is built 100% around him, and LA will be back on a team built 95% around him. It should be a great season.

  Ed M. Posted Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:15 AM

• The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) recently published a coaching guide. It appears that SIOP is trying to compete for a piece of the coaching pie by the language on the site, and I applaud them for finally doing so

  Lia Gravely Posted Saturday, September 18, 2010 12:24 PM

Post a Comment

By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.