The Hindu Business Line : Leadership lessons from cricket

Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi and Sourav Ganguly have generally been acknowledged as the two best captains Indian cricket has had. I have often wondered what it is about these two captains that sets them apart. After all, the teams they led had pretty much the same players as those of their immediate predecessor or successor. Yet, the results were very different. There must, therefore, be something that can be learnt from studying their leadership style which can be applied to the world of professional business management.

My study of their leadership style has been hindered by two constraints. One, I have never met either man and so my knowledge is gleaned from newspapers, Web sites and cricket books; I have therefore formed my impressions second hand. The second constraint is that media coverage was not as extensive in Pataudi’s era, so I know far less about his style than about Ganguly’s.

My study indicates that many aspects of their style tallies with what we learn in textbooks about leadership. There are one or two surprises, however, and I have put those down too. I should point out that the points here are not meant to be a complete list of good leadership traits; they are only traits that I have observed in these two captains.

Meritocracy

One thing which seems certain about these two captains is the complete absence of parochial loyalties. It did not matter to these two people where a player hailed from. All that mattered was that the player could deliver. It is not hard to imagine that this attitude helped in two ways:

It made the players feel secure that their performance mattered more than extraneous considerations

It ensured that non-deserving cricketers did not make it into the team through state/zone politics and hence the quality of the team was not compromised

Imran Khan displayed the same trait and even dropped his close relative Majid Khan from the team. It is also not hard to imagine that such a meritocracy should be the aim of every business entity and that it will lead to a higher standard of performance from employees and managers.

An eye for talent

One of the most important traits shared by both former captains is their eye for talent. When he saw M. S. Dhoni play in some domestic match, Ganguly is reported to have said: “I have to make this boy play for India.” I have read that Pataudi saw Gundappa Viswanath play the Buchi Babu Memorial Tournament and was so impressed that he asked the selectors to keep an eye on him. Ganguly’s eye for talent has thrown up enough stalwarts for us to accept this as one of his special skills — Dhoni, Harbhajan Singh, Virender Sehwag, among others.

Nurturing talent

The two captains did not stop with identifying the talent. Both had a knack for removing the fear of failure from the minds of these young players. When Sehwag was asked to open the innings in test matches, he was worried that failure would mean being dropped. Ganguly told him that failure as an opener would not see him dropped, but would only see him reverted to the middle order; his place in the team would be safe. There can be no doubt that the confidence arising from such an assurance played a part in Sehwag’s scores as an opener in the 2002-2005 period. Likewise, Pataudi took Viswanath with him to a friend’s place to relax and cheer him up after his first innings duck on debut. The century that followed in the second innings cemented Viswanath’s place.

Ganguly’s ability to make his young players believe in themselves was the main factor in the team overcoming its dependence on Sachin Tendulkar. And once other members started contributing handsomely, victories followed as a natural consequence. The way Arjuna Ranatunga backed Muttiah Muralitharan is, of course, the most famous example of how a captain can play a nurturing role in the development of an exceptional youngster. The relevance of these two lessons to business management is clear enough not to need elucidation.

Insistence on continued performance

Neither captain seemed to have a problem with balancing the need to encourage a talented youngster with the need to include a better performer or to demand better standards from the youngster. Ganguly backed Akash Chopra through the tour to Australia, but midway through the Pakistan tour that followed, he dropped him to accommodate Yuvraj Singh in the team. In the series that followed, Yuvraj in turn, was dropped owing to poor performances.

This reminds me a bit about what I have read about Unilever’s fast track programme. The executives who get into this can never let their standards drop as their performance is closely watched each year to see whether they should remain in the fast track or not.

Managers will need to work on the principle that talent will get you noticed and picked up, but sustained performance is the key to being continuously encouraged.

Indifference to criticism

It seems both captains did not spend much time worrying about whether their actions and decisions met with general approval or not. They did what they thought was right for the team and lived with the consequences of that.

Ganguly has spoken in an interview about how he had advised Rahul Dravid not to worry about what people wrote about him. Ganguly seemed to accept that criticism went with the job and never lost sleep over it.

Leaders need to develop a thick skin. It is a lonely job and brickbats and bouquets have to be treated alike.

The leader who seeks approval is unlikely to take the tough decisions that are sometimes necessary.

No personal insecurity

I am actually amazed that I have never come across any article that has commented on this aspect. Neither Pataudi nor Ganguly was anywhere near being the best player in the team and neither of them seemed even slightly bothered by this. Both had such confidence in their standing as a `leaders' that they could rejoice in their teammates' ability to outshine them with the bat. At the same time, neither was exactly a passenger either. Except towards the end of their tenures, both were clearly good enough to be in the team.

Interestingly, this is true of Clive Lloyd as well (he captained Vivian Richards and Alvin Kallicharran). Imran Khan was happy to come on as first change bowler in the final few years of his career. All these captains disproved the old cricket adage of "Select the best batsman as the captain."

Clearly, these successful captains have been equally comfortable with two roles - as performers and as the enabler of others' performance. How obvious and yet how difficult! How many managers can be said to be truly comfortable when a subordinate proves to be better than them at the core line function?

I have also observed one or two other traits which have clearly contributed to these captains' success, but which I am unable to relate to conventional management teaching.

Preference for match-winners

Both captains were strident and unapologetic in their preference for potential match-winners over steady performers. In the late 1960s, Pataudi's team had two highly attacking bowlers in E. A. S. Prasanna and Bishen Singh Bedi and one restrictive bowler in S. Venkataraghavan. Venkat was used sparingly, almost as a change bowler while the other two got extended spells.

When Ganguly was captain, the potential match winners Yuvraj, Harbhajan and Sehwag were preferred over their more staid counterparts like Mohammed Kaif, Sanjay Bangar and even Anil Kumble; Dravid was the sole exception.

Inspired, match-turning decisions

Ganguly and Pataudi each took one inspired decision that has gone into Indian cricketing folklore. In Ganguly's case, it was the move to promote V. V. S. Laxman to one-drop in the test against Australia at Eden Gardens in 2001 (his score: 281, if it needs mentioning). In Pataudi's case, it was an even bigger gamble. With the West Indies cruising towards victory in 1975 - also at Eden Gardens - the crowd was stunned into silence when Pataudi handed the ball to the erratic Chandrasekhar, but was soon cheering Chandra on to a match-winning spell.

My hypothesis is that both traits - the preference for match-winners and the knack for taking decisions that appear inspired - stemmed from a core philosophy that it is better to go for victory (and chance losing in the process) than to aim for safety. Mark Taylor articulated this best when he asked "Why would you play five days for a draw?"

Perhaps, the best leadership is provided by those who are prepared to risk failure in search of victory? My `safety-first' nature finds it hard to accept this as a leadership trait; I suspect organisations would rather first eliminate the possibility of disaster and only then dream of spectacular success.

Problems with authority

Neither man took kindly to authoritarian bosses. I seem to remember reading that Pataudi had several differences of opinion with the then chairman of the Selection Committee and Ganguly didn't exactly see eye-to-eye with Greg Chappell, as we all know.

Is this a trait common to good leaders? Does strength of personality go hand-in-hand with a strong desire for complete independence? And is that desirable? I can see that this may be desirable in a crisis such as the conditions under which Ganguly took charge (huge defeats against Australia and South Africa, match-fixing scandal, et al) but once the crisis is past, do leaders need to be accommodative of checks and balances? I don't know the answer, but there must be enough published work on `wartime leaders' as opposed to `peacetime leaders', wherein the answer must lie.

Let me leave this largely exploratory study here. It is not, as I said earlier, meant to be complete. I know that I have left out some principles and some examples. For instance, I have left out Steve Waugh's habit of leading by personal example and sheer intensity. But hopefully, the points mentioned here will help us to lead our teams better.

(The writer is the CEO of Kaybase Consulting.)