The Mouse That Roared [2003]
Epitomised by the work of Peter Jackson and his colleagues at Weta Workshops, a very lively, creative but focused energy is gaining strength in New Zealand.
In 2002 people knew they were witnessing something new and inspirational in the exciting displays of two of our traditional underdog sports teams - the Tall Blacks and the Warriors.
The crowd's imagination was captured; victory was unnecessary; their transcendent performance was enough. More recently, the Auckland Rugby Team won the National Provincial Championship using an exciting alternative to the more calculating style of traditional rivals, Canterbury.
There seem to be some common elements to the success of these teams:
- greater clarity about what they are doing and why
- better basic skills
- a high work rate
- more sophisticated inputs
- more passion, enjoyment and flair
- higher value outcomes.
This is about a number of small-scale, focused, well thought out actions that together create a high level transformation - spiritual in the broadest sense. Invariably it's driven by strong leadership.
In Peter Jackson's case, cast and crew on the Lord of the Rings likened their film shoot to a student movie, where divisions between actors and crew were minimised and "baling twine and number eight wire" solutions supplanted more expensive proceses.
It was chaotic, but it was highly adaptive and clearly focused.
The common link is a degree of commitment and direction which generates an almost freakish level of performance. It's the kind of edge Australians and Americans have traditionally brought to their sport and their business.
In New Zealand's case, our ability to deliver on our promise has often been hampered by unduly modest expectations of what is possible.
This is a competitive edge. It seems odd to say so in relation to something as ephemeral as a state of mind, but this simple thing could be huge for all New Zealanders, not just a film company and some sports teams.
Despite its borrowings, this is a distinctive Kiwi mindset - perhaps because it draws on the underdog's advantage - a kind of "mouse that roared" mentality.
This odd blend of guts and naivety (how hard can it be?) is strengthened by association with the preparation and experience of the more hard-bitten foreigners.
It's like the difference between good brands and great brands.
The products and services that achieve the greatest resonance with consumers are certainly well made or well organised, but their edge is that they have a strong expressive quality:- from Sony appliances and Virgin air travel to Harley bikes and Apple computers.
It's not what they do, but the way that they do it.
If all New Zealand's offerings were produced with the same degree of creativity and attention to detail as one of Peter Jackson's films, we might all be a little better off. Already the landscape as interpreted by him has inspired the Lonely Planet guide to make NZ its number 1 tourist destination for 2002.
Now we need to question whether Helen Clark's government, and the New Zealand Stock Exchange's listed companies and the local neighbourhood's small businesses can do the same.
New Zealanders might be culturally quite kind and friendly but we have a weird sort of value system when it comes to performing well. You are allowed to succeed here, but you mustn't go round thinking you're better than everyone else - even if you obviously are.
We don't like "skites" who brag about how good they are. But we do despise losers who didn't try as hard as we would have if we'd been in their position. Or think we would have, from the comfort of the living room.
Sports teams that don't seem to do their best get short shrift here. The board of the New Zealand Rugby Union was rolled last year, precisely for committing the crime of not trying as hard as "we" would have tried to host the next Rugby World Cup.
Tellingly, Richard Taylor of Weta Workshops who collected a couple of Oscars last year bought a hundred small Oscar replicas as gifts for his team of artists and craftspeople.
This seems a little quirky to many people because there is a general notion that you must have great individuals to produce the greatest success. But a group-based system with high standards and strong leaders also seems to encourage transcendent performance.
he All Blacks have only to think of how their mates would love to be in their position to recognise the privilege they have earned and the responsibility it entails.
The trouble is, such performance is often highly specific. At a time (back in the sixties) when the All Blacks were a dominant force in world rugby, New Zealand itself was so dull and under-developed that various notable visitors pronounced it "closed".
What's more, low expectations in that kind of environment can cause strong condemnation of critics or innovators - the so-called tall poppy syndrome which isn't really - it's the group norm syndrome.
We do get out a little more now but there remains the question of performance drivers. How can we embed the notion of being the best you can be deep in the mindset and social fabric of New Zealand?
Our citizens have explicitly rejected the kind of dog eat dog society that might bring out the best in some people -though with unacceptable levels of collateral damage among the rest.
Rich people now pay 9 cents in the dollar more on their earnings over $60,000 so that we don't have to watch poor people beg or go without essential services.
The rationale for such transcendant performance must therefore come from other sources - not need, but desire and not just economic incentives, but ingrained cultural imperatives. To re-phrase Cat Woman: "I am Kiwi, see my flair. . . "
"It seems odd to say so in relation to something as ephemeral as a state of mind, but this simple thing could be huge for all New Zealanders"
