Performers vs Leaders: Cricket wisdom for the corporate pitch

Well in the middle of the cricket World Cup, as all of us are passionately gunning for the Men in Blue (followed by enjoying good cricket games), it gets me contemplating all the important lessons that the game of cricket or for that matter, any team sport teaches us. A solid victory by India over England today, btw, and congratulations to the team and fellow Indian fans across the world.

My favourite games, when I loved to watch and play regularly in school, college and early 20s were cricket and tennis. Tennis was all about your individual skill sets, temperament, anticipation, ability to exploit your opponent’s weaknesses, cover the court comprehensively, build the game to your advantage, keep your stamina up there, etc. Cricket has all this plus a very essential element – teamwork.

Among the numerous lessons you get on life and success in the world of sports, there is one very interesting point of discussion that I have contemplated often. It’s the curious correlation, or the possible lack of it, between being a great performer and a great leader.

Sachin Tendulkar is by all yardsticks, more than deserving of the title – ‘God of cricket’ – due to his tremendous skills, unparalleled achievements and impact on the game. He holds numerous records in international cricket, including being the leading run-scorer in both Test and One Day International (ODI) formats. He also holds the record for the most centuries in both forms of the game.

Interestingly, while many know Sachin for his batting, he was also a part-time bowler who contributed with the ball. And with a very respectable record as well. In ODIs, Tendulkar took 154 wickets in 463 matches. More importantly, he often bowled in the middle overs and provided crucial breakthroughs for the Indian team.

A legendary performer, complete team player and amazing human being, who was literally the fulcrum of the Indian cricket team for over two decades of a glorious career. And yet, there was one crucial frontier that even the God of cricket could not conquer – leadership.

To understand this, it’s worthwhile to compare the records of Tendulkar with his contemporary Sourav Ganguly – who is said to have led a remarkable transformation in the Indian team under his leadership of around 5 years. In fact fans would agree that he was responsible for India's ascent towards becoming the top notch global team we see today.

Ganguly was a very different kind of leader, known for his aggressive and fearless leadership style. He instilled a sense of self-belief and fighting spirit in the team, encouraging them to play aggressively and not be intimidated by stronger opponents. He also nurtured some exceptional young talents like Virender Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh, Harbhajan Singh, and Zaheer Khan. India’s performance under his leadership at the 2003 ODI World Cup remains memorable, despite a heart-breaking loss to Australia in the final.

Under Ganguly's captaincy, India achieved significant success in overseas Test matches. The team won historic series in countries like Australia and England, marking a turning point in India's performance away from home. He was known for fostering a sense of unity and camaraderie within the team. He promoted a team-first mentality and helped build a strong team bond, which was crucial for India's success.

Moreover, Ganguly set high standards for fitness, fielding, and professionalism within the team, leading from the front. He was also known for his charismatic and confident demeanor off the field. He handled media and administrative issues with poise, which helped create a positive image for Indian cricket.

According to this report , Tendulkar had a win ratio of 16% and 31.5% in Tests and ODIs respectively. On the other hand, Ganguly’s record was 42.85% and 54% respectively.

What explains this contrasting performance? In the words of cricket great Madan Lal, Tendulkar wasn’t a bad captain, but he was highly involved in his own performance; thereby finding it difficult to take care of the team. This was despite the fact that his cricketing sense made him the perfect choice for mentoring players in all departments of the game, and in various situations. On the other hand, Ganguly had excellent man management skills, could connect to players and also handle administrative aspects with relative ease.

Former Indian spinning legend Bishen Singh Bedi, who recently passed, said this about Tendulkar’s captaincy, “He was shy and withdrawn. His basic middle-class upbringing helped him in his batting but I feel it restricted his leadership qualities. Authoritative guidance was missing from his captaincy. However, I am not too surprised as Sir Garry Sobers was also a great player but not a great captain.”

Too good to lead?

Need I say that Tendulkar gave so much to Indian cricket, and who are we to judge him? Going past that obvious admission, the lesson that we need to draw for top management is that a great performer is not automatically a great leader. It can often get frustrating for business owners when they promote such performers to leadership positions on precisely such expectations.

This is the subject of a fascinating Forbes article by Aaron Levy of Forbes Coaches Council. He points out that top management makes another key mistake in such situations – leaves such performers to fend for their own once they are given the title. The result of such a transition without the necessary tools and skills, according to Aaron (and if I may add, clearly defined expectations) is a drop in performance, increased turnover and a lot of frustration.

Another very interesting point is the transition from being a doer to a leader. Aaron feels that such leaders continue to the work on their own, and end up being super doers rather than leaders. He also mentions three important red flags for leaders:

• Super doers face a drop in performance as they consistently try to get the best out of their teams. They overwork and face burnout as a result.
• Employees lack autonomy and competency – two critical drivers for performance.
• Interestingly, employees also can get risk averse under such a leader, afraid all the time of being caught wrong and judged.

So how do performers make the transition

I haven’t seen Sachin Tendulkar speak a lot about his captaincy stint, but it so happened that he willingly quit captaincy in around the year 2000, as he felt it was affecting his batting.

As a person who made the transition from a well acclaimed writer to a team leader in the earlier days of my career, I do tend to relate to this feeling too. Since my skills in this domain were recognized as my strength, I laboured hard to get better and better at it, and also bring out the best in my team.

That brought about the same kind of frustration that the above article talks about. In the drive to be perfect in your work, I think you miss one of the most important aspects of being a leader. That is to be a people’s person – to engage and interact with your team, set them goals and targets, plan their career progression, give them autonomy and also hold them accountable.

It is not that performers do not want to do that. Being performers, they want to do everything, but will end up realizing that despite their best efforts, the results can come up way below their expectations.

Some performers may find the leadership challenge too daunting and take the kind of decision Tendulkar made for his career. Then again, there will also be some who find it an exciting progression. However, management must sensitise them to the multifarious demands and challenges of leadership and the need to adapt their approach.

Now why does someone like Rohit Sharma seem to to do so well at present? He is both a top performer and a great leader. I am sure that being a great performer and a phenomenal leader are not necessarily contradictory. Perhaps we can analyse the current leadership scenario in cricket some other day. Let's keep the Men in Blue rolling for now (touchwood)!