Behavioural science: goalkeepers, brands and transformation
I think it was Buddha, who once said that when faced with a challenge the best course of action is to ‘do nothing.’
Perhaps Buddha was a goalkeeper, or perhaps he should’ve been.
Why?
Because one in three shots taken by a striker when a penalty is awarded ends up being struck straight at the middle of the goal. And yet goalkeepers will dive to their left or right to save a shot 94% of the time.
That’s right. If a keeper acts like Buddha – just does nothing – then they’re more likely to save the penalty.
Of those keepers who dive to save a shot, one in seven penalties will be saved. Keepers that remain in the centre of the goal will save one in three.
Why do goalkeepers ignore the data?
By standing in the middle of the goal and making him or herself as large as possible a keeper will save more penalties – fact.
Why do they feel compelled to dive to the left or the right.?
In their podcast on behavioural science, Richard Shotton and Michael Aaron Flicker explore the possibility that this is down to action bias. Our need to do something. This was first noted in a study by behavioral scientist Michael Bar-Eli, who examined thousands of penalties and looked at the data.
Now I am aware that the world is full of football experts. The recent European championships have demonstrated that.
Practically anyone interested in the sport has an opinion on what managers and players should or should not do and why they do what they do. I say this in order to protect myself from people like Steve (see inset), whose view on what England manager Gareth Southgate should, or should not have done, was made perfectly clear to his friend.
There are of course many different scenarios at play, and there are many different reasons why people act the way they do and way they don’t, but the concept of action bias is something that we should take seriously both as individuals and as leaders of teams.
When is the right time to act, and when’s the right time to shut up and do nothing i.e. to see how it pans out?
As a leader of a team, it is easy to jump to action, to do something new, to be seen to be decisive. And that might be the right course of action, but it is always worth considering whether or not you are being led by action bias.
Of course, sometimes you have to act, and this is where game theory comes into play.
Ignacio Palacios-Huerta is a data analyst who has studied penalties and advised teams like Atletico Madrid and Chelsea. His data matches that found by Michael Bar-Eli, but he has gone one step further.
In the wonderful book by Simon Super and Stefan Szymanski, Soccernomics, they show how Ignacio calculated the best strategies for keepers. When to dive left, when right, and when to stay still.
After all, if you always stay still then the striker is going to know that. Sometimes you do have to act, just not 94% of the time.
Ignacio has noticed that strikers tend to kick the ball towards their natural side 60% of the time and towards their unnatural side 40% of the time.
If a keeper insists on diving – and yes, sometimes the keeper has to make it look like they are playing a game and not being predictable – then, their best bet is to follow the data. Go 60% to the natural side and 40% to the unnatural.
This is called mixed strategy game theory and it matters in the business world, because these strategies can be used to gain competitive advantage when you know whether to dive left or right that is.
If a brand decides to diversify to appeal to a wider range of customers in order to open new revenue streams, then it needs to remember to dive to the left and right once it’s worked out what the natural side is for each customer segment.
Because, there will be valuable segments who want different things from your brand be they customers or employees. Work out who those valuable segments are and focus on diving the right way for them alone.
Equally, businesses looking to change and transform need to decide whether to dive left or right or stay in the middle.
The brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail. When is comes to change, brands are like keepers.
There are two theories behind transformation: Theory E: making big cuts and Theory O: price cutting.
But you can’t dive left and right at the same time.
As Nitin Nohira and Michael Beer suggest in this wonderful Forbes article, a blunt dive to the left or right usually ends in all the wrong headlines. Instead there is a way to combine game theories.
There’s a way to stand in the middle and know when to dive left or right and that involves being more Buddha – working with your people; planning for unpredictability; incentivising your people; bringing in resources to support your people; and embracing change rather than trying to battle against it.
Like strikers, customers and employees may think that they do things randomly, but they rarely do. Yes, there is a level of unpredictability but human being love short-cuts.
Think about a commute to work.
A commuter may make their way to a station, they may buy a coffee en route; they may plan their arrival before the train or bus is scheduled to leave; they may wait with other passengers.
So many variables.
And yet how many buy coffee from the same shop and buy the same coffee? How many always arrive just in time or ten minutes before? How many wait at the same place on the train platform each day?
We are unpredictable but also predictable.
Understanding that predictability is key to building relationships and saving the penalty.
So the message to brands and business leaders is: think like keepers.
Don’t rush to judgement, but when you do act, follow the data.
Don’t dive one way and hope for the best result. Remember it’s sometimes best to wait in the middle. And if you do start diving, then look at what your target audience has naturally done in the past and choose wisely.
