Imagine having to build a team of 150 professionals from scratch in a country where key infrastructure is still unfinished while the whole world is watching.
There are officials from every continent speaking dozens of languages, three separate organizing bodies with competing priorities and a construction site that was already set to become a world-class tennis venue. Welcome to the Olympic leadership.
When Soeren Friemel came to Rio de Janeiro in December 2015 for his pre-Olympic site visit as head of the tennis department, he discovered a sobering reality: “Everything could be improved.” The construction companies changed, the contacts were unclear and the schedule was unrelenting. But fourteen months later, the tennis competition was running flawlessly in front of a worldwide audience. The journey from that chaotic December day to Olympic success reveals universal leadership lessons about building international teams, dealing with complexity and protecting integrity under extreme pressure.
Building international teams when nothing goes according to plan
The scale of Olympic coordination is breathtaking. More than 700 officials from around the world applied for the 2016 Games in Rio. The selection process required narrowing this pool to 110 people – 50% Brazilian to leverage local knowledge, 50% international to bring diverse expertise. This was not about diversity as an abstract ideal; it was an operational necessity. Tennis events at the Olympics span two weeks of uninterrupted competition on multiple courts and require officials who understand not only the rules but also the cultural nuances that prevent conflict and build trust.
Each official selected represented more than just technical expertise. They needed language skills, cultural fluency and the ability to quickly integrate with colleagues they had never met. The coordination challenge went far beyond the games themselves. Soeren Friemel managed international travel logistics, coordinated accommodations in the vast Rios region, organized transportation to and from the Olympic Park, and created rosters that balanced workload and fairness. Some officials required detailed route planning assistance just to reach Brazil; others came with equipment problems or last-minute questions about Olympic protocols.
The complexity multiplied when managing competing stakeholder interests. The Olympic leadership operates at the intersection of three powerful institutions: the International Olympic Committee, the International Tennis Federation and local organizing committees. Everyone brings with them legitimate priorities that don’t always align naturally. The IOC thinks universally across all Olympic sports and applies standards developed for swimming or athletics. The ITF understands the tennis-specific requirements – that players spend full days at the venue and not just short competitive windows. Local organizers are confronting the realities on the ground in terms of infrastructure, security and public expectations.
These groups, each with different priorities and institutional cultures, required careful coordination to align their goals. Navigating this requires more than just project management skills. it requires diplomatic skills. They don’t just coordinate people – they translate between institutional worldviews, find compromises without sacrificing standards, and build consensus when time pressures make patience difficult.
The challenge of crisis management was just as demanding. The first site visit in December highlighted construction delays, evolving plans and uncertainty about when the facilities would be ready. Building a tennis facility near swimming facilities at Barra Olympic Park required coordination with multiple construction teams, understanding interdependencies, and maintaining quality standards when changing contractors mid-project. This led to the leadership principle: Don’t be discouraged by obstacles, but instead work harder to solve them.
Perhaps the most telling thing about Olympic leadership is the fact that the role is staffed 24/7. When you manage people from all time zones working in an unfamiliar environment, accessibility becomes second nature. “People can come to me at 1:30 a.m. or at 7:00 a.m. – my bus leaves at 7:30 a.m.” reflects the reality that building trust in high-pressure international teams requires being present when people need advice. The goal is not just to complete tasks; This creates systems that are robust enough to function even when you are not in the room. This resilience comes from relationships built through constant availability and demonstrated commitment.
Protecting integrity when national pride and pressure collide
Olympic tennis carries a unique pressure that sets it apart even from Grand Slam tournaments. Athletes don’t just compete for themselves, they represent entire nations. Fans in the stands wave national flags. Media coverage emphasizes the number of national medals. There is a subtle but real temptation to favor the host nation’s athletes or include bigger names who will generate more attention and revenue.
Systems to protect integrity are important here. Soeren Friemel emphasized that fairness must be structural and not dependent on the virtue of the individual. In Olympic tennis, several officials are used per game – at least eight in regular play. This redundancy is not inefficiency; It is intentional responsibility. When multiple officials independently observe the same game, it becomes more difficult to maintain a bias. When protocols are clear and applied consistently, preferential treatment becomes apparent.
The basic idea: “Whether it’s the number 1 in the world or another player – you can’t let yourself be influenced.” That sounds easy until you make a decision that disappoints an athlete carrying his nation’s hopes or enforce a rule that excludes a prominent name from medal contention. The principle becomes real only when it is applied under conditions that make deviation tempting.
A controversial but visionary Olympic decision concerned the IOC mandate for junior officials in Rio. Experience typically dominates the selection of officers, but the assignment forced a balance between experienced judgment and fresh perspectives. The short-term compromise was to accept less experience in some games. The long-term gain has been significant: officials trained at the Rio Olympics now compete in Grand Slams around the world, their Olympic experience accelerating development that might have taken years through traditional routes.
This reflects broader thinking about talent development in high-risk environments. Creating a culture of mentorship within teams, investing in the skills of the next generation even when experienced alternatives exist, and accepting that education sometimes requires real opportunity – these decisions compound over time. The Olympic investment in younger officials didn’t just benefit Rio; In the years that followed, it increased the quality of administration worldwide.
In moments when the stakes were high, these systems were repeatedly tested. The semifinal between Rafael Nadal and Juan Martín del Potro represented exactly the scenario in which bias could creep in – two beloved players, huge crowds and intense emotional investment from fans. Ensuring fairness required vigilance from all officials involved, clear communication of expectations, and assurance that the system would support correct but potentially unpopular decisions.
Players at this level often sought advice directly, from Murray to Williams and others navigating the unique Olympic environment. Managing these interactions required balancing accessibility with appropriate boundaries. Be helpful without being partial. Answering legitimate questions while maintaining a professional distance that protects objectivity.
The larger lesson goes beyond sports. Any leader who manages complex, multi-stakeholder environments faces similar challenges: maintaining integrity when pressure encourages compromise, building systems that make fairness structural rather than aspirational, and developing talent even when experience seems safer. The Olympic Office illustrates these challenges in a condensed, highly visible form.
The leadership that lasts
The Olympic office shows that the leadership under scrutiny is not fundamentally about technical knowledge – although that is essential. It’s about building diverse teams across cultural boundaries, managing stakeholder complexity without losing the institutional mission, and protecting integrity through systems, not just rhetoric. When Soeren Friemel finished his Olympic duties in Rio, he immediately began preparing officials for the US Open. The work never stops, but the principles remain constant.
For anyone leading in a high-pressure environment, whether in sports or business, these fundamentals mean: invest in people, build resilient systems and never compromise on fairness. His leadership approach, honed through decades of experience and informed by diverse insights, shows that the podium can change, but the standards cannot.
