The key F1 management call Ferrari must make to avoid more defeat

“It takes years to create a safe environment. If you're a high-performance organisation there is automatic stress, and it's human nature to try to identify who is at fault - because it helps release pressure. It's easier to say, 'it's your fault!'. Acknowledging that psychology works on you is the first step towards changing.

“But when you've been with each other for a while, you understand the personalities and you're capable of being brutally honest with each other, and transparent, and that creates an environment where people will say 'I made a mistake'. But again, this is something that takes many years and needs proof.

“If you have an environment based on 'hire and fire', because somebody needs to be blamed, you're never going to be able to create that [trust]. It is an exercise that never ends, because the tough moments will always come back.”

Those are the words of Mercedes boss Toto Wolff a few years ago, reflecting on the core management style that he has used to devastating effect at Brackley to turn the German manufacturer into a dominant force in Formula 1. But while they explain a lot about how Mercedes was able to eradicate a blame culture and maintain its form for so long, they are equally perfectly fitting for the situation Ferrari finds itself in right now.

PLUS: How Wolff transformed Mercedes

Where, off the back of some difficulties and turbulent times throughout 2022, the preference has been to shoot first and get a new boss in, rather than circle the wagons and try to resolve the issues at play from within.

Mattia Binotto’s decision to resign from his team principal role after feeling he no longer had the trust of Ferrari chairman John Elkann and CEO Benedetto Vigna has left Ferrari in the incredible situation of now needing to go find a replacement boss during the critical winter car build time.

It’s a world away from Wolff’s approach of developing the right culture within organisations, and bringing on the next generation of talent, to ensure that the future is well prepared for and that a team never risks being exposed if a key individual departed.

While Wolff and Binotto did not always see eye to eye, and relations got extremely strained in the wake of the 2019 engine controversy, the pair actually shared some management style aspects. And in particular, it was trust in the staff below him and the structures in place, that resonated when Binotto spoke earlier this year in an interview about how he managed operations at Maranello.

While Binotto and Wolff did clash at times, they also shared some management traits

Photo by: Carl Bingham / Motorsport Images

“I think I'm not brutal, but I'm strict,” he told this writer. “And people around me know that I can be very strict. But I think more than that, I'm trying always to empower them, and give them all what's required to do their job, and I trust the people around. I trust them.

“I'm not the one that will go in the detail of every single element. I more focus on myself, making sure that, as I said before, they have got whatever is required to the job.

“I know how important is the mood in the team, I know how important is the mental approach and the culture. We are working a lot on it inside of the team, trying to change our culture compared to what it was, and what we believe is the right attitude and behaviours to put in place. I can see that the team is somehow very united and I think that you can get that through transparency.”

But whereas Wolff’s trust and belief in his organisation, and staunch defence when things went wrong, were always viewed as one of his key strengths, for Binotto they were sometimes cited by his critics as a core weakness.

Where Wolff’s situation diverged the most with Binotto was in how they operated below their own managers. Wolff is a team shareholder and has always been left alone to run the F1 operation by Mercedes’ top brass, but at Ferrari its car company has always meddled with the grand prix operation

In particular, his refusal to be hugely outspoken about the strategy errors that cost Charles Leclerc victories at Monaco and Silverstone, and take action in firing people, was seized upon as a sign of him lacking the killer attitude that it is claimed is needed to win in F1.

But team bosses aren’t there to appease the public in their cries for blood; they need to act purely in the best interests of the team itself. And sometimes that means actually giving support to staff members who have made mistakes, and addressing the factors that caused the errors in the first place.

The Monaco strategy blunder, for example, was not about the head of strategy getting it wrong so needing to be fired. It was all about him having been fed the wrong information: which was a systems fault. That is what Ferrari addressed afterwards – because a strategist’s calls are only as good as the data they are being fed. Sacking the head of strategy, and doing nothing about revising the systems, would have left Ferrari in a much worse situation.

There is also a fine balancing act between team bosses laying down their authority over decisions they think are right, and having the core strength to sit back and let those they have designated the responsibility to get on with it.

Binotto often looked to fix problems from within rather than a hire and fire approach

Photo by: Erik Junius

A few years ago, when Mercedes strategist James Vowles came under fire for an error after Wolff had intervened in a call at the 2018 Russian GP, reflections afterwards prompted a rethink. Wolff said he analysed what happened, and the consequences of him stepping in, and took the deliberate choice that if staff are employed as experts, then they are the ones who should be listened to and trusted. No longer would be stamp his authority when it wasn’t asked for.

At the time he cited reading up about the events that triggered the 2010 Polish Air Force crash at Smolensk that killed 96 people, including the president of Poland, as teaching him a lot about chains of command.

“It was two very, very experienced fighter pilots that were flying the plane, and they aborted two of the landing attempts because the fog was too thick and there wasn't an automatic landing system at the airport,” Wolff said.

“When they were thinking about what to do, the head of the air force came into the cockpit and says, 'we are landing.' He overruled the two pilots because he's higher up the hierarchy. And they landed, executing his order, and killed people. They knew better.

“So when our plane flies in qualifying and in the race, James flies the airplane and all I can do is comment and give him feedback and input but ultimately it's his decision what to do. He's in command at that moment even though from my ranking I'm higher up. But I will not interfere. It is his call in the end."

Where, perhaps, Wolff’s situation and that of Binotto diverged the most was in how they operated below their own managers. For while Wolff is a team shareholder and has always successfully been left alone to run the F1 operation by Mercedes’ top brass, at Ferrari its car company has always meddled with the grand prix operation.

Former Ferrari boss Jean Todt was perhaps the best example in modern times of successfully keeping the Scuderia as isolated as possible from this interference, with then chairman Luca di Montezemolo happy for things to run that way.

But since then the influence of Sergio Marchionne, Louis Camilleri, John Elkann and now Benedetto Vigna have all played their part in delivering headwinds or tailwinds for Maranello. And it was ultimately the actions of Elkann and Vigna, and their lack of faith in Binotto, that triggered this week’s events.

As they now look to the future, and work out who will take on the role as Binotto’s successor, they could do much worse than take a step back and analyse what Wolff has done at Mercedes. It would perhaps make them realise that it’s not just about the kind of boss they put in charge of the F1 team.

Much more important than that, it’s how they are going to treat him and let him get on with the job, so that trust in a safe environment is allowed to flourish, rather than getting crushed under the weight of unrealistic expectation.

Ferrari faces an intriguing winter of change

Photo by: Simon Galloway / Motorsport Images