How critical is the role of the opening batsman to the success of a cricket team? What should be his profile? Let me quote someone who should know:“Technique, patience… The ability to adapt to different conditions… The approach, after all, has to be different on a flat wicket as opposed to one where the wicket is doing quite a bit.
I personally feel the position should go to specialists…… Indeed, it’s the openers alone who set the tone for the innings… Take the shine off the new ball, protect the middle order. At the highest level, you must have both technique and temperament – in the right quantities…. Different players have different styles but, if you play straight you can’t go wrong. Besides, work hard – never try to cut corners – and enjoy yourself. If you see cricket as a chore, then, well, I don’t think you will go far.”
So said Graham Gooch, former England cricket captain and a formidable opening batsman with 8,900 Test runs, in an interview speaking about the qualities of an opening batsman. (The Telegraph, Calcutta, 10/Sept/2002).
Any person who has a minimal idea about the game of cricket knows the indispensable role played by a good opening batsman. Without a good opening score, the middle order gets exposed too quickly to the new ball. The middle order is thus forced to wear the hat that had not been made for him. If the opening batsman fails and goes out too quickly, the event forces a change in the whole game plan for the team think-tank and for those who are scheduled to follow. In the game of cricket the role and the contribution of the opener to the success of the team as a whole can hardly be over-emphasized.
Now, put a similar question to any placement consultant, HRD or personnel manager, or even a corporate strongman. Enquire from him about his perception of the role of the first CEO, the first COO, or the first unit head of any new initiative for that matter. I’d be quite surprised if you elicit from him anything similar to the passionate response that you are likely to receive from a lover of the game of cricket. Why the difference? Rather, why the comparison? Let me attempt to answer that.
I equate the role and responsibilities of an opening batsman in cricket to the first incumbent of any new initiative. Whatever be its size or structure, I strongly feel that the first Chief Executive, the first Chief Operating Officer, the first branch manager, the first leader – every captain or head of a new unit – is of critical importance to the future well-being and success of that unit and eventually of the organization. The first incumbent must be chosen with extreme care. That choice of the leader would set the tone for the rest of the team, and thus spell the difference between success and failure of the initiative in the long run.
Let us compare the cricketing and the organizational scenarios a little more closely. Before a new match (a Test or a one-day game) begins, and the team is selected, the nature of the pitch is always a matter of serious concern and speculation. So also is the nature of the opposition. Yet, no one can bet for sure as to how the pitch is going to behave – at the early stage or the later. The job of the opening pair, however, is to contend with the uncertainties, blunting the venom of every bit of arsenal that the opposition may throw at him during the initial stages of the game, unveiling and exposing the sting (or the lack of it) in the pitch or of the opposition, and setting the tone for the rest of the game. He actually lays the foundation on which the team’s future is built. He makes it easier for the middle order and those to follow to do their job well. However, the truth remains that no amount of preparation and forward planning can substitute for the role that an opening batsman must play on the real arena.
As in the game of cricket, a lot of planning usually goes into a project when a new initiative is launched. Yet, no one can bet for sure as to how the various players in the market will respond, and their impact on the success or failure of that initiative. One is not even sure as to whether all the planning and the preparation were the right ones till they are actually put to the test in the market place. Every assumption remains a speculation – or an uninformed guesswork at best – till tested in the field. Seeing the new venture through the initial period of uncertainties, tackling the teething troubles, resolving unforeseen issues and problems, can best be tackled only by someone special. “At the highest level, you must have both technique and temperament in the right quantities”, says Gooch. A wrong choice for the top job, therefore, will more often than not result in most of the things going wrong from inception. If, unfortunately, that happens, the rest will not matter.
To my mind, to give itself a fair chance to succeed, the entity must take great care to choose in its first skipper the person who has the right temperament and technique, and – this is equally important – in the right quantities. The correct mix between the two qualities must be ensured. The captain must then be left to choose the others who fit the right profile, and thus set up the core team.
This choice of key people will set the tone and the culture for the new initiative. The tone that he sets will endure over time, and be the key to the work culture, the value system and the ethical standards that will define the initiative, and by extension, impact the rest of the organization.
That brings me to the issue that, in my opinion, is ‘mission critical’. I cannot help but repeat what Graham Gooch said about the opening batsmen in the game of cricket. “Different players have different styles but, if you play straight you can’t go wrong. Besides, work hard – never try to cut corners…”.
When he uttered those words, I keep wondering whether he was referring to the game of cricket alone. Or whether he was recounting, for the benefit of every one of us, an enduring philosophy that went far beyond the game of cricket? You do not have to go very far to find the truth of what he said. Remember Enron, remember Worldcom, remember Arthur Anderson, or Bearings? How many people there played with a straight bat? How many of them tried to cut corners? How and to what extent, did their actions impacted their own organizations? Where are they today?
The work ethics and the value system once set, is generally not susceptible to any rapid changes. If the organization has picked the right kind of people initially, that would have sent a message down the line, and set the tone for the organization. Unless a major turn-around takes place, I believe that it is quite difficult for the ‘wrong’ kind of people to find a footing and to prosper. Because – the ‘tone’ of the organization has already been defined, etched, carved out and set by the opening batsmen. The right technique, the right temperament, a straight bat, and no cutting corners – in cricket or in life – and one can hardly go wrong!
By:
R.N. Bose
CEO of Institute of Banking Studies
No comments:
Post a Comment