NHRD April 2013.pdf - National HRD Network

he had challenged himself hard. It had
worked wonderfully for him and he now
put that knowledge into practice. And so
he challenged his players to go to another
level, urged them to be fitter and advocated
picking younger, fitter players into the
team. It led to two things. It produced two
centers of power and rather than driving
the players into finding a new peak, it made
them insecure. The challenge presented
was: here is a new crop of players, if you
don’t shape up, it will be time to ship out.
On the face of it, there seems little wrong
with that. It happens every day in corporate
life but it delivered an important lesson for
those dealing with highly gifted players.
Often, the uniquely gifted players have not
only a deep understanding of their own
game but also crave the freedom to do
things their way. It has worked for them
and they are happy with it. Such players,
who are often matchwinners, need a little
more space, a little more freedom. Often,
they are highly strung because they are so
competitive and their vision is different
from anyone else’s. They can do audacious
things because they define risk differently.
It was said of Sachin Tendulkar that he
played shots others couldn’t, or didn’t
think were safe, simply because he didn’t
see them as risky at all. He saw gaps in
the field where others saw fielders. He
could not be coached the same way as
anyone else and maybe it is important for
organizations that define fast track career
paths to understand the kind of people they
are dealing with and tailor programmes
that challenge them rather than constrict
their flair.
Chappell’s message wasn’t wrong. In
the context of the culture he was in, the
delivery was. And that can often happen,
that we dislike the messenger but, as a
result, we lose out on the message he/
she is trying to deliver. Chappell tried
to lead the change his way, maybe even
force it down people’s throats because
that is what worked for him. More lately,
England had a problem with a maverick,
the temperamental genius in Kevin
Pietersen. England’s coach, Andy Flower,
was a no-nonsense man, he spoke little and
demanded much which was exactly what
England didn’t have. He formed a very
good partnership with the captain Andrew
Strauss who was cut from the same cloth.
England demanded discipline of their
players and everyone had to fall in line.
But Pietersen was different. He came from
a background of rejection, had migrated
to another country to fulfil his cricketing
ambition, was maybe a touch insecure and
was extraordinarily driven to perform. He
was different from the others but he won
matches like few others could. When he
didn’t fall in line (and it is too long a story
to narrate here!), he was disciplined and
left out. When we spoke to him and asked
how he would like to be treated, he said
very simply, “Trust me”. He promised
to work very hard, train hard and be
completely match ready but couldn’t stand
the constant discipline. You see the likes
of Pietersen in every organization and it
raises an interesting issue on how to handle
them. There is obviously no one-size-fitsall
solution but often reaching out to such
people, making an effort to understand
them and giving them a bit of space works.
Interestingly, when a new captain came
along, his first action was to open a line
of communication with Pietersen. It was
no longer: discipline first, player second.
It was: I need him to win a test series now
how do I go about doing that.
There is also a very interesting case study
from Australia with their coach John
30
April | 2013 NHRD Network Journal