What construction businesses can learn from elite sport about recruitment, succession planning and developing high-performing teams.

This week, I released an episode of The Building Talks Podcast with David Misson, a high-performance specialist who's worked with some of Australia's most successful sporting organisations, including the Australian cricket team, Sydney Swans, Melbourne Storm and Cricket NSW.

We covered plenty of ground, from leadership and culture to individual performance and developing future leaders. But one observation particularly resonated with me, largely because it relates so closely to what I see recruiting across the construction and property industry.

David was explaining how seriously elite sporting organisations take their roster management. Not simply who's playing this weekend or next season, but what their squad might look like five years into the future.

Who's developing? Who's approaching retirement? Who's capable of stepping up? Where are the weaknesses? Who might leave? And who's coming through to replace them?

In elite sport, this thinking is fundamental to sustained success.

Which got me wondering. How many construction businesses apply the same level of attention to their own teams?

Construction businesses spend an extraordinary amount of time planning. We forecast project costs, procurement schedules, cash flow, subcontractor availability and future pipelines of work.

Yet how much time do we spend forecasting the capabilities, development and potential departure of the people responsible for delivering those projects?

Imagine you've got an excellent Project Manager who's been with the business for four years. They're commercially astute, clients love them, they manage their teams well and their projects consistently perform.

Fantastic. You've got yourself a very good PM.

But what happens if they resign tomorrow?

Who's capable of taking over? Is there a Senior CA ready to step up? Could another PM absorb the workload? Would the Project Director have to get involved in day-to-day delivery?

And perhaps more importantly, do you understand why that PM might leave?

Maybe they're looking for larger projects, greater autonomy, more flexibility or a pathway into Construction Management.

If you don't understand what motivates them, how can you realistically plan for their future within your business?

I've recently been analysing career histories from our database at Building Environs Recruitment, looking at the movements of Melbourne construction professionals.

Importantly, these aren't simply people who've applied for jobs or registered with a recruitment agency.

Over the years, I've identified and followed thousands of individuals across Melbourne's construction industry, monitoring their progression, the businesses they've worked for and the positions they've moved into.

We've developed targeted talent lists across different disciplines and seniority levels, comprising individuals assessed against our suitability criteria and scoring between 7 and 10 out of 10 for their respective roles and experience.

These are people we've deliberately identified as worth following, often over several years.

Across 6,785 recorded periods of employment since 2010, drawn from 1,622 individuals with sufficiently detailed career histories, the median tenure with an employer was approximately 1 year and 9 months. Only 41% of those employment periods reached two years.

It's not a representative study of the entire construction industry, but rather an insight into the careers of people we've identified as having strong suitability within their disciplines.

Another finding caught my attention.

Where individuals had been promoted internally, median tenure was 4.5 years, compared with 1.6 years without a recorded promotion.

That doesn't prove promotion causes people to stay longer. Naturally, remaining with an employer provides more opportunity to be promoted. Nevertheless, it's an interesting relationship.

And it ties in with a conversation I had this week with Peter Colacino, CEO of the Australian Constructors Association, who also raised the importance of career development and progression in retaining people.

Of course, there's an obvious complication.

Not everybody can be promoted.

Imagine you've got four excellent Contract Administrators, two Senior CAs and a Commercial Manager.

All four CAs might have ambitions to progress. They might all be capable, committed and performing well.

But unless the business is growing, or somebody above them moves on, there may only be one opportunity for promotion over the next couple of years.

So what happens to the other three?

They don't suddenly become poor employees because somebody else got the opportunity. Nor does the business become a bad employer because it couldn't promote everybody.

It's simply the reality of organisational structures. There are generally fewer positions available as you move up the hierarchy.

And somewhere in Melbourne, there's probably a recruiter talking to one of those other three CAs about an opportunity offering exactly the progression they're looking for.

I might even be that recruiter.

People have ambitions, businesses have limitations, and occasionally those two things no longer align.

The question is whether the employer saw it coming.

I spoke recently with a Contract Administrator who'd spent several years working for a large apartment builder.

Over the preceding 12 months, he'd repeatedly raised his ambitions to progress into a Senior CA position and increase his remuneration, including during his six-monthly reviews.

His employer's position was that he'd need to deliver a project from start to finish before being considered for promotion.

Fair enough, potentially. There may have been sound reasons for that requirement.

But the next project he was assigned was a billion-dollar data centre, outside his previous project experience and likely to occupy him for the next couple of years.

From his perspective, the goalposts had effectively moved several years into the future.

He subsequently accepted a Senior CA position elsewhere.

On his final day, while packing up his belongings, he received a call from the Managing Director asking whether there was anything they could do to convince him to stay.

Unfortunately, that conversation was about three or four weeks too late.

The employer had been given plenty of warning. The employee hadn't hidden his ambitions; he'd first raised the subject 12 months earlier and had revisited it on several occasions since.

Now, perhaps he genuinely wasn't ready for promotion within that business. That's entirely possible.

But if that's the case, employers need to explain what development is required, how it will be assessed and what realistic opportunities exist.

Otherwise, sooner or later, somebody else may offer that pathway.

And that's why, in a previous article, Always Be Interviewing: Why Talent Identification Should Be Continuous, I discussed the importance of continually identifying and engaging with potential talent, rather than waiting until somebody resigns before considering their replacement.

Because by the time you're discussing a counteroffer, you've already lost considerable ground.

Elite sporting organisations don't simply develop their starting team. They invest in the players coming through, preparing them for opportunities that might arise through injury, retirement or changes in form.

How consistently do we do that across construction, property development and engineering businesses?

If your PM takes four weeks' leave, could your Senior CA manage aspects of the project in their absence?

Could a Foreman take on additional Site Manager responsibilities? Could an Assistant Development Manager participate in more senior decisions?

These opportunities develop capability while providing the business with greater flexibility.

And flexibility matters.

People have children, ageing parents, sporting commitments, relationships and responsibilities outside work. They also get tired, experience difficult periods and occasionally need a break.

Even your best performers can't operate at 100% indefinitely.

In elite sport, when players are consistently overloaded without sufficient recovery, their performance suffers and their risk of injury increases.

The workplace isn't all that different. Continually push somebody beyond their capacity without sufficient support or opportunity to recover, and eventually their performance is likely to suffer. Stress increases, motivation declines and, before too long, they might start wondering whether there's a better environment somewhere else.

And that's often when somebody like me gets a phone call.

Providing genuine flexibility becomes considerably easier when you've developed enough depth that the entire operation doesn't grind to a halt whenever somebody takes a holiday.

If Sue wants four weeks travelling around Europe, who's covering her responsibilities?

If the answer is nobody, or that she'll return to four weeks of accumulated work, perhaps there's a problem with the depth of your roster.

And there's another advantage to getting this right.

Greater flexibility can make a business considerably more attractive to both existing employees and prospective hires. It can also give good people another reason to stay.

But providing genuine flexibility requires depth. Somebody needs to be capable of stepping in when another person isn't available, without simply shifting an unreasonable workload onto their colleagues.

For employers who can develop that capability, there's a real opportunity to create a more attractive workplace while maintaining operational performance.

There's another consideration that deserves more attention during recruitment.

Employers naturally want the strongest candidate they can find. Somebody technically capable, ambitious, commercially astute, hardworking, an excellent communicator and ideally capable of doing everything, everywhere, all at once.

Preferably without ever needing a holiday, to do drop offs/pick up, get sick, get tired or needing a break. Unfortunately, those people are somewhat difficult to find.

But even when you identify an outstanding candidate, are they necessarily right for your business?

Imagine recruiting a CA who's already operating at the upper end of their position, ambitious and ready to progress into a Senior CA role within 12 months.

But you know your business won't have that opportunity available for another three years.

Should you hire them? Possibly. But recognise the mismatch between their ambitions and what you can realistically offer. Perhaps somebody less experienced, with excellent potential and another two or three years of development ahead, would be a better long-term appointment.

Recruitment needs to go deeper than assessing whether somebody has delivered a particular type of project.

What motivates them? How do they respond under pressure? What do they want from their manager? How do they treat teammates? Are they interested in developing others, or primarily focused on their own progression?

David also discussed technically outstanding performers who negatively affect those around them.

Every business has probably encountered somebody like this.

A brilliant PM delivering excellent financial results but leaving unhappy colleagues behind them. A technically exceptional Construction Manager who struggles to retain project teams. Or a commercially outstanding CA who refuses to help anybody else.

Individually, they might be excellent. But what are they doing to the wider team's performance?

David's view was that there comes a point where an individual's negative influence outweighs their technical contribution. It's a difficult decision, particularly when that person delivers strong results.

But high performance isn't simply about having the best individuals. It's about having the right combination of people who collectively deliver the best outcomes.

And that includes leadership.

Some people thrive with autonomy. Others need more direction and feedback. Some respond well to being challenged, while others require a more considered approach.

Understanding how your senior people lead, support and develop their teams is therefore just as important as understanding their technical capability.

If you're running a construction, property development or engineering business, this doesn't necessarily require a complicated HR system or another lengthy management meeting.

But it probably does require some deliberate thought.

I'd suggest sitting down with your senior leadership team and working through five questions:

Not simply who's delivering the best financial results, but who's developing others, supporting teammates, building client relationships and contributing positively to the business.

Identify the people with potential and consider what practical experience, mentoring or responsibility would prepare them for the next opportunity.

Which roles have no obvious replacement? What happens if a key employee resigns, takes extended leave or becomes unavailable during a critical project stage?

Consider the ambitions people have expressed, the feedback they've provided and whether the business can realistically offer what they're looking for. Don't assume somebody's happy simply because they haven't complained.

Consider your future project pipeline, the capabilities you'll need, who could develop internally and where you'll probably need to recruit externally.

The important part isn't simply answering the questions. It's identifying what needs to happen next, who's responsible and when you're going to review progress.

Because a succession plan sitting in somebody's filing cabinet isn't particularly useful when your best PM hands in their notice on a Friday afternoon.

You can't prevent everybody from leaving, nor should you necessarily want to. People have ambitions, circumstances change and sometimes the next opportunity simply isn't available within your organisation.

But there's a considerable difference between losing somebody unexpectedly and having understood the possibility, developed your people and prepared the business for what comes next.

Because winning a project is one thing. Having the right people available, capable and motivated to deliver it profitably, while maintaining the relationships that generate repeat business, is something else entirely.

Elite sporting organisations understand that today's starting team is only part of the equation.

Perhaps it's time more construction, property development and engineering businesses started thinking about who's coming off the bench.