The value of the substitute – when everyone contributes to the success of the whole
At a media conference this week, former Springbok coach and Sharks Director of Rugby Jake White brought up an interesting point about rugby, but its truth could so easily have been directed at industry or even politicians.
Communists, socialists and self-proclaimed fighters for the poor love to denigrate capitalism for its evils, the most obvious one being the dichotomy between the rich and poor. How regularly do we hear that Marxist ideological term "white monopoly" blamed for the ills of South African society?
It was something White said that rang so true with what many in opposition to capitalism don't get. They view this economic system as inherently discriminatory towards the workers, one which enslaves them unfairly and happily hires and fires in gay abandon without due sentimentality to the worker.
Capitalism is all about productivity and profitability. Communism is about control. Of everything. Capitalism values good workers. Communism values all workers, regardless of their ability and work ethic.
Something else the anti-capitalism group don't get is that hiring and firing is not actually productive. Retraining new staff and in South Africa, the huge costs of arbitration and the firing process eat into profits.
So where does the sporting lesson tie into business?
"I said after the Super Rugby final last year, if there was one thing that stuck out," he said, "it was when the Chiefs brought on their bench players, they were able to maintain their intensity and keep bashing at us [the Brumbies who he was coaching at the time]."
The quality of the winning side's bench players was just as good as the players who had started the game, and they were able to outplay the opposition bench which possibly wasn't at the same level.
The quality of player in the Chiefs' team was collectively greater than that of the other finalists, the Brumbies. What made the Chiefs better was that their 'work-force' had fewer weak links.
And this is where the analogy with capitalism vs communism shows up the latter's faults. With no profit to drive manufacture, there is no need to use the best workers, because the aim is not to produce outstanding work, but to provide a product using mediocre inputs.
There is no need to innovate (compare a communist-era car with a western one to come to the same conclusion as me), and no desire to improve. Without a system of incentives, communism is doomed to mediocrity.
And this is why winning is a habit and losing too. If you want to improve, if you want to win, if you want to be the best, you make sure that nothing gets in your way of achieving that goal. You hire the best to teach the best how to be the best.
If a winning mentality is not in your DNA, there is no way that you will win. Luck plays no part in success. But investing in the best will get you to the podium.