The Bloods Culture

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I just don't get what the 'bloods culture' is...

The question has been asked, and I think it's a worthwhile off season topic for discussion. For those with no real experience of team building (in it's broadest sense) Culture Change, Leadership Development, Programs, Training, Courses, Cultural Change

[Lucky Knickers]

Bloods culture is real. It sets down what is expected of every player who dons the red and white.
Whilst they are just words to many, they have power because the players believe it.

They know that when they truly honour the values of the bloods they win, both on and off the field and the rewards come.

How many times have we heard players who come to the club say "The club just told me to play my role. That's what I did."

There are many organisations, businesses and footy clubs that have these types of value statements. Very few have a culture where every single person in the club has bought in. What is most admirable about the Swans is that these values are applied consistently to everyone.

Hall? A marquee player. Was he putting the team first when he smacked Glass and Rutten? Davis? Was he taking short cuts? Did he put the team first? Lewis Johnson? Was he honest with himself? Byron Sumner? Did he do extras?

It's very obvious when people haven't bought in. They either get with it or get out. It's incredibly effective.

There are so many examples of when this code and creed lead to success. How about the Geelong win at Kardinia in 2011. What a way to support your mates (McVeigh), Goodes 304th, the 2005 Grand Final, the entire 2012 finals series, Lewis Jetta's preseason.

At a recent Swans function, Henry Playfair was asked a question about Tippett and whether he would fit in to the culture of the bloods.
Henry responded along the lines of "we will soon find out. If he doesn't he won't be staying long". He then went on to say that Tippett wouldn't be expected to do anything spectacular and win games for us. He would just be expected to play his role.

Long may the culture of the bloods continue. It has bought us incredible success and joy.

[aardvark]

Can't normally stand Grant Thomas but this was good.

Hawks get a culture shock - Thomo

another interesting Leading teams article....

http://www.leadingteams.net.au/news_details/the_bloods_culture_trademark

[Nico]

Having been involved in Sales Management for many years and as a training facilitator of a leadership course, I see culture as a product of the people at that particular organisation. Depending on the structure of that organisation it can change from department to department. Leading Teams goes into an organisation and sets up the framework and then the people develop a culture. The culture is quite often dominated by the leader. A leader might be very charasmatic yet another might be conservative and most of the time these leaders create a culture in their own mould. To have the same culture to permeate through an organisation from top to bottom is a very hard task to set up and maintain. Partly due to different parts of an organisation having different tasks and goals.

There will be a number of factors that help us maintain the Bloods Culture. The main ones being a common goal and people at the top prepared to drive it hard without exception.

I believe the Bulldogs embraced the Leading Teams concept and we ended up with the Jason Akermanis inquisition. I don't know that the Swans would have handled the situation the same way.

[rojo]

A great article by Grant Thomas. From afar I wasn't sure what was meant by the Blood's Culture - until our Premiership win this year. One day recently, when I should have been doing something more useful, I checked out where in the draft each of our players was taken. I was astonished. I can now understand why journalists seldom rate the Swans as highly as they should. On paper we should have been no match for the Hawks. Six of our team came up from a rookie list, one was a NSW scholarship holder, seven were picks in the 40?s or higher. Of the remaining eight players, two were 30?s picks, two were 20?s, two were 10-20 and McVeigh and Jude were our two top 10 picks.

This is one of the reasons why those who know about these things (!) still can?t quite accept that the Swans are on top. Logic suggests that they shouldn?t be. I have come to realise how magnificent our team?s achievements were in this year?s final series. Who were our recognised 'stars'? Adam Goodes? ROK? Kennedy? Jets? Hanners? ummm?

What is the Bloods culture? Look at the last quarter of the GF - there it's outworking was on display - a special, undefinable dynamic, existing within a team with few recognised stars, that enabled them to get across the line against the odds.

[Lucky Knickers]

What is the Bloods culture? Look at the last quarter of the GF - there it's outworking was on display - a special, undefinable dynamic, existing within a team with few recognised stars, that enabled them to get across the line against the odds.

Great post but have to disagree with you about it being undefinable.
The Swans were hard, disciplined and united for the entire game.
There would be quite a few Hawks not meeting their own eyes in the mirror knowing they did not give the best.

Re leading teams at Bulldogs I'm sure I read somewhere that the Dogs did not go through the full program against advice.
When reading McLean's books you realise how damaging feedback sessions can be if not handled correctly. It's really interesting to see that the Dogs after some success have dropped off so quickly. Funny that the Swans of '96 went through similar. Fortunes changed in 2002 after introducing the program and Roos handed responsibility largely to the playing group.
Akermanis is very dark on the way the feedback sessions were managed and that he felt he had done what was asked of him (gave up the handstands etc) but drew the line when Scott West told him his hair and beard were too individualistic. This would not be in line with the philosophy of the program.
It has been interesting to hear Colless speak about his view of Eade and the handling of Goodes early in his career. Goodes has blossomed under Roos. Two brownlows, two premierships, leadership group and captaincy.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

There's no great secret to successful team building, but most performance management initiatives fail at the point of initial implementation. Getting an individual to sublimate their personal agenda to that of a team is a major job. In the case of Morton it took more than half a season for one individual to become properly aligned. Imagine what it must have been like in 2003.

Since then, the club has maintained a dynamic of confronting honesty despite changes in personnel and in individuals priorities regardless of cost (Barry Hall for example). Very few organisations are capable of maintaining a high performance team culture for years on end (9 so far for the Swans).

So how did the Swans manage to adopt and keep to their chosen path, when other clubs who have tried the leading teams approach have not?

I suspect the answer may be in the Bloods mythos. Which may have been deliberately created/used at this time to serve as a focal point for the initial implementation. An emblematic foundation myth to set things moving in 2003 (although because of the Swans truly woeful history the construction/management of meaning must have been a very judicious one).

Watcha rekon???

[Primmy]

Can't normally stand Grant Thomas but this was good.

Hawks get a culture shock - Thomo

another interesting Leading teams article....

Leading Teams

Thanks for that aaaar. I'd missed those two articles. Thomo's is very interesting.

Good points LuckyK. Especially the change in Goodsey after 2002. Noted by nearly all of us. Had to be a reason. Not hard to spot.

[Big Al]

The Bloods Culture

Having been involved in Sales Management for many years and as a training facilitator of a leadership course, I see culture as a product of the people at that particular organisation. Depending on the structure of that organisation it can change from department to department. Leading Teams goes into an organisation and sets up the framework and then the people develop a culture. The culture is quite often dominated by the leader. A leader might be very charasmatic yet another might be conservative and most of the time these leaders create a culture in their own mould. To have the same culture to permeate through an organisation from top to bottom is a very hard task to set up and maintain. Partly due to different parts of an organisation having different tasks and goals.

There will be a number of factors that help us maintain the Bloods Culture. The main ones being a common goal and people at the top prepared to drive it hard without exception.

I believe the Bulldogs embraced the Leading Teams concept and we ended up with the Jason Akermanis inquisition. I don't know that the Swans would have handled the situation the same way.

Terrific post Nico. I work in a large organisation and I get to see the different cultures that exist throughout the organisation. The area with the best culture (area I work in now actually) is the best due to strong leadership coupled with quality staff who "buy" into that culture. What the Swans do is nothing different. Strong leadership with a buy in from the all within the club.

[Dan]

Goodes has blossomed under Roos. Two brownlows, two premierships, leadership group and captaincy.

C'mon, credit where credit is due. One premiership under Roos, One premiership under Longmire

[CureTheSane]

Bloods culture is real. It sets down what is expected of every player who dons the red and white.
Whilst they are just words to many, they have power because the players believe it.

They know that when they truly honour the values of the bloods they win, both on and off the field and the rewards come.

How many times have we heard players who come to the club say "The club just told me to play my role. That's what I did."

There are many organisations, businesses and footy clubs that have these types of value statements. Very few have a culture where every single person in the club has bought in. What is most admirable about the Swans is that these values are applied consistently to everyone.

Hall? A marquee player. Was he putting the team first when he smacked Glass and Rutten? Davis? Was he taking short cuts? Did he put the team first? Lewis Johnson? Was he honest with himself? Byron Sumner? Did he do extras?

It's very obvious when people haven't bought in. They either get with it or get out. It's incredibly effective.

There are so many examples of when this code and creed lead to success. How about the Geelong win at Kardinia in 2011. What a way to support your mates (McVeigh), Goodes 304th, the 2005 Grand Final, the entire 2012 finals series, Lewis Jetta's preseason.

At a recent Swans function, Henry Playfair was asked a question about Tippett and whether he would fit in to the culture of the bloods.
Henry responded along the lines of "we will soon find out. If he doesn't he won't be staying long". He then went on to say that Tippett wouldn't be expected to do anything spectacular and win games for us. He would just be expected to play his role.

Long may the culture of the bloods continue. It has bought us incredible success and joy.

Sounds like the SWANS culture.

How is what is written above related to the 'bloods'

What was the culture of the bloods back when they were referred to that?

What did Bret Kirk mean by his "This is for the Bloods" comment after the 2005 GF?

I take it that he was referring to older longer term supporters who had endured a long wait.
That comment seemed to evolved into some kind of spirit that is akin to the old 'Bloods spirit'
Yet nobody seems to be able to define what this actually is.

Rough & tough?
A reference to the Carlton bloodbath?
an old no dickhead policy?
Did the players in the 30's play for each other rather for individual kudos? is this how it equates to the current squad?

[Lucky Knickers]

As most of us know, the Swans playing group of 2002 adopted "The Bloods" as the name for the code, or principles they adopted and wanted to stand for.
The name was chosen to pay homage to the South Melbourne history. That is fact and very real and is what is known as "Bloods" culture. It refers to the culture that this generation of Sydney Swans players has cultivated and yes it is Swans culture too.
"Bloods" sounds so much better tho' IMHO. It has a touch of romance to it, and strength.
There are so many references to "bloods" abounding through our clubs history. "It's in the blood", "Blood-stained angels", when in Melbourne I attend the game with a lot of long-standing fans and they all yell out "go the bloods".
It's clearly gelled with players and fans alike.
There's plenty of available information on the historic roots of the club and the usage of "blood" as a representation of the Swans. Some have said it was about the red feature over the white guernsey, as well as the bloodbath final.
What the culture and creed of those past generations was I could not say. There are lots of old players to ask tho' who are still with us. Perhaps there are other fans with more knowledge of the Melbourne-based teams who would be better placed than I, as I am unable to answer your questions. Did you want someone to?

[dimelb]

I am auditorily challenged (i.e. about as deaf as the proverbial) and I have often listened as carefully as I can to Kirk's GF onstage statement. My impression is that he actually said, "It's the Bloods" as he clutched his guernsey. From other reports I understand that he was excited when he first discovered that South Melbourne used to refer to themselves that way and decided to make it a marker (I detest the word 'brand' in sport contexts) for the current Swans. That decision, adopted by the team, fulfills several aims: it embodies tough times and the tough discipline needed to deal with them (like 'blood, sweat and tears'); it taps into the South Melbourne passion in a way that seems to grow over time; it feeds directly into the ethos proclaimed on both our recent Premiership game day banners, 'Two cities, one team, together (again) living the dream.'
In a sense it was tailor-made for our culture, even if that is a recent creation. I think it has become one of the more significant statements of our club.

[R-1]

Yeah calling it the Bloods culture makes it sound a lot less sterile and corporate than "an institutional environment characterised by effectively-given omnidirectional feedback, in order to foster accountability and unity", doesn't it?

[Big Al]

The Bloods Culture

Yeah calling it the Bloods culture makes it sound a lot less sterile and corporate than "an institutional environment characterised by effectively-given omnidirectional feedback, in order to foster accountability and unity", doesn't it?