The Captain's Run: What it takes to lead the All Blacks, by Gregor Paul, HarperCollins Publishers.
Leadership studies are not new. Military and political history is full of them – all telling of the varied experiences of their subjects in their fields and offering examples of what contributed to an overall outcome.
Increasingly, and not surprisingly given their dominance of the world rugby scene, and even as one of the great sports teams of the world, the All Blacks have become the focus of in-depth scrutiny and analysis.
That is built around their consistent dominance of rugby – All Blacks teams are never far from the top of any ranking list, and their win percentage through history marks them as one of the most successful sports teams in the world.
Everyone has their view on why that is, but as has been demonstrated by the nation of five million in its response to the Government's pandemic plan, a nation united, no matter its size, can be a powerful force.
New Zealand's rugby, although it might have its odd internal squabble – what family doesn't? – is often similarly united in matters rugby, certainly more than most of its opponents.
Among the attributes identified by scholars and fans alike, there are many of a more personal philosophy, whereby specific attitudes are identified as contributing to the overall outcome. Whether that be the relatively modern concept of coaching direction, something that only really took hold under Fred Allen in the mid-1960s, or the more modern legacy-led approach of players understanding all that has gone before them.
But inescapable as a consistent measure in success is leadership, and it is from that angle that writer Gregor Paul has looked at the contributions captains have made to the All Blacks' success.
An observer of the New Zealand game for around 20 of the 25 years it has been professional, Paul has the almost unique opportunity of having seen how the leadership model has evolved. This has been through the Taine Randall, Todd Blackadder, Reuben Thorne, Richie McCaw, Kieran Read and, most recently, Sam Cane eras.
While memory tends to hover towards the most recent events, much of the base of modern captaincy has evolved, further back, through some inconsistent seasons, heightened by the 'failure' of the 2007 Rugby World Cup.
In one example, Paul highlights the one-per cent factor as the difference between success and loss.
While the battle for physical domination is often the precursor of success, it is not always an assured outcome. Tight Tests could still swing on one moment of brilliance, he said.
"Players such as Christian Cullen, Jonah Lomu and Beauden Barrett possess incredible individual skills that can produce tries from anywhere. It can be deadlocked and then a fertile imagination combined with agility, acceleration and power sees one team break free."
At the same time, Paul argued, it was sometimes not possible to understand what swung a Test one way or the other.
"…it may be that victory is built on a series of good, but seemingly small, decisions or accurate plays. It might just be that all the component parts of the captain's influence – his worth ethic, his reputation, his ability, his decision-making, and all-round command and respect in which he is held – combine to ensure that one team benefits from tiny percentage advantages that lead to them winning. In the biggest games, the Tests that really matter, it is often a one per cent difference that separates the two teams," he said.
What then, it might be asked, is the point of a study of leadership, if it can be determined by such small factors.
It is because, arriving at that understanding of the fine-line factor is crucial to understanding the nature, fickle or otherwise, of success.
As Paul said, "The best captains have found a way, be it through the force of personality, good judgement or good luck, to ensure that the one per cent difference swings in their favour. That's essentially what separates great leaders from good leaders – the ability to somehow wield enough influence to tilt the balance of fate."
Randall said from his career, and watching subsequently, he appreciated the fine line between winning and losing and said, "…careers change on that one per cent. If can come down to one little piece of experience and you just know if we were a bit more experienced, you'd be calm, you'd convey calmness and you'd get a different result."
Circumstances can also affect how leaders are perceived. They could be the leader of impressive teams at the right time. Captains like Graham Mourie, David Kirk, Sean Fitzpatrick and Wayne Shelford could all fall into that category, so too could Brian Lochore and Wilson Whineray. Or they could be Colin Meads handed leadership at a time of significant personnel change in 1971 and having to deal with a first series loss to the British & Irish Lions.
But it each case in the former category, they had elements that contributed to their leadership make-up. Mourie's first Test as captain against France in 1977 was a tough loss, marked by a radical match plan for redemption in the second Test. Kirk had to cope with off-field disharmony resulting from his opting out of the Cavaliers tour of 1986, and his leadership of the Baby Blacks. Fitzpatrick had to develop in the wake of change invoked by new coach Laurie Mains, and three years of settling into a new plan. Shelford could reflect on the years of struggle for recognition before getting his chance.
Lochore and Whineray's experiences were different, more the result of the old school amateurism days where Test places were earned after frustrations of non-selection on long tours in Lochore's case, or the experience of a lost series to South Africa in 1960 for Whineray.
The experiences are many and varied, too many to include in a review, but outlined succinctly in book format.
Leadership is a rich field where no one style fits all. That is what makes it so compelling as a study. There are so many lessons to be learned and, often, so much hardship along the way.
It is not inappropriate to end with a military analogy.
It is a fact that much of New Zealand's rich military history is founded on failure. Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Greece, Crete, Sidi Rezegh.
But out of those failures grew the fighting machine that saw esteemed British historian Sir John Keegan rate the New Zealand soldier as the troop of the 20th Century.
The same applies to rugby. Failure has been a greater teacher than success. And probably no finer example than McCaw after Cardiff in 2007 exists in All Blacks rugby.
Paul has produced a compelling thesis on rugby's leadership. It should serve as an emphatic reminder to observers that leadership is not achieved by accident.