Chances are we have all played sport for a great team at some time – whether ‘great’ just meant beating your local rivals from the tag of underdogs or else overturning a half-time deficit to win the game. Perhaps it meant winning awards on a broader national or even international sporting stage.

The same goes for outstanding performances in the work environment. We all remember participating in great work teams and achieving success against the odds.

Success is relative at work too. After all, not all of us have the opportunity to work at the best, most efficient mines in the world – but perhaps working at the more challenging, marginal mines provides even greater satisfaction on making budget.

Getting the best out of your team, whether at work or on the sporting field, can require tough choices. Each person in the team must be treated as an individual – but a significant part of rewards should be linked to team performance to drive the right behaviours.

Some classic research on this theme is recounted in McKinsey and Company’s “War for Talent” text. Here’s a personal favourite story from that source on the science of teamwork and on performance assessment.

Given the thin line of experience in the mining sector, this literal war story perhaps holds lessons for us all.

In World War II, the Battle of Britain began in the summer of 1940, when German pilots attacked England’s south from the skies, clearing the way for an invasion of Britain.

England was caught unprepared; the Royal Air Force (RAF) did not have enough aircraft. Even worse, the country did not have anywhere near enough pilots. To win, the British knew they would have to shoot down the German planes at a rate of at least two to one.

To help turn the tide, the RAF broke its ranks of about 900 pilots into what they called A-class squadrons, B-class squadrons and C-class squadrons.

The A-class squadrons contained the best flyers – pilots who knew how to command a flight, nurture fledgling pilots (developing the next generation A-Team) and get their formations safely home. These pilots were drilled on the fast-changing tactics of the enemy and given permission to go for the most distant targets.

The B-squadrons were less skilled in the air, but the RAF commanders continually encouraged and trained them. Despite the shortage of A-class fliers, the RAF always mixed some A-fliers in with the B-class squadrons to serve as leaders and role models.

The C-class squadrons, on the other hand, were held on the ground as much as possible. Despite the need for more fliers, the RAF realised that mixing C-fliers into the furious attacks of the battle might kill as many of their own pilots as the Germans did.

Within months the use of mentoring, and the mixing of A and B players in particular, had developed a highly skilled fighting force, and by November 1940 the pilots – none of whom was over the age of 23 – had thrown back the German Luftwaffe.

It was Winston Churchill who uttered those most famous words, “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed, by so many, to so few”

War for Talent* recommends that companies adopt the discipline of differentiating their workforce to achieve what might at first appear to be impossible outcomes in terms of work performance.

Differentiation requires a willingness to acknowledge that among the many committed hard workers, some will inevitably contribute more in terms of performance to the company than others.

In differentiating remember that you are not passing judgement, you are merely assessing performance.

Critics of differentiation argue that it promotes separation and can actually undermine, rather than encourage, teamwork. The key mitigating action here is that all of the performance rewards should not be based on individual achievement.

You could, for instance, base some (or all) of a manager’s variable pay on team performance. You may also choose not to tell people what their current assessment is.

In my own time at McKinsey, I was undoubtedly a B-player for a long period; and a C-player too. The same holds true of Strictly Boardroom’s periods on minesites, and indeed in the boardroom – after all, not everyone can be ‘best on ground’ every week.

That’s it for this week – and lest I forget, the performance of the CRU copper team has made your scribe proud this year. After trailing budget all year, the guys (and that label includes all the girls too) made their numbers with an excellent come-from-behind performance.

As for great sporting achievements, however, those days are in the past, at least for contact sports. But as a former rugby team-mate recently observed, with every passing year, we all remember being far better players than we ever actually were.

Allan Trench is Adjunct Professor of Mine Management & Mineral Economics, Western Australian School of Mines and is a Non-Executive Director of Pioneer Nickel, Navigator Resources and Enterprise Metals. He leads the copper analysis team at the CRU group (allan.trench@crugroup.com).

* The War for Talent – E Michaels, H. Hadfield-Jones & B Axelrod. 2001. Harvard Business School Press. 200pp.