“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe. “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Wednesday 12 December 2012
There are no shortcuts
Pritish Nandy in The Times of India
When people run short of ideas, they reach out for other things.
There’s money, the first crutch of all fools. For all those who lack self esteem, the first argument is: If I had enough money, I could have done it. This is untrue. Money can make nothing happen unless you will it. And you can will nothing without a precise premise, a strategy or game plan that you have clearly thought through. In short, an idea. Without the idea, without the intellectual or emotional muscle that goes with that idea, any idle dream based only on the availability of money is always doomed. That’s why angel investors do due diligence. Not only of the idea to invest in but also of the person who will deliver it. Does he or she have the grit, gumption, dedication and leadership? Or the persistence to see the idea through its initial days when all that can go wrong always does, following Murphy’s Law?
The other crutch, very popular in India, is connections. Most people think they can achieve anything if only they had a godfather to see them through. The truth is, much as we may like to believe the opposite, few success stories of modern India have anything to do with godfathers. Except in politics and business, where it has been a tradition to mentor heirs from within the family. So it’s tough to break in. It’s far simpler to go out and make your own road. To do that, the first important step is to stop looking for godfathers. Mentor yourself. The rich uncle will always come to you once you have demonstrated your ability to deliver on your own promise. But if you hang around him hoping he will give you the first break, be sure that he will soon start avoiding you.
The third crutch is fate. We believe so much in it that we spend the best years of our life chasing those who pretend they can predict it. Fortune telling is big business out here and there’s a large contingent of charlatans who make their money telling us how we must live our life, what coloured stones to wear, which God to pray to, and on what days we ought to fast. The same person who is vegetarian five days a week to appease a certain God is also ready to slaughter a hapless animal to please another God on another occasion. We would rather go with what others tell us to do than follow our own heart. We are not ready to think through our own solutions. We need intermediaries to advise us on how to live, how to invest, how to seduce luck. Curiously, the richer people become, the more they depend on fake gurus and fraudulent fortune tellers.
The fourth crutch is new: Technology. We have suddenly found technology as a placebo for everything. Doctors have forgotten how to diagnose. So everyone goes for every stupid test. Robotic surgery is replacing human skill and ingenuity. You can’t make good movies. Go for 3D. Dazzle everyone with SFX and sheer wizardry. Demand a 250 million dollar budget when the greatest films in the world have been made for a pittance. (Pather Panchali was made for Rs 150,000 and Bicycle Thief, $133,000!) We have become so stupid that we can’t even make imaginative porn. So Hugh Hefner now uses 3D to make his centrespread girls look sexy whereas a fully clad Garbo once had the whole world salivating every time she turned around and Mae West, at 83, could get any young man into her pad with a single come hither line.
The purpose of technology, we often forget, is not to replace human ingenuity but to support it. We don’t need a computer to write like Shakespeare. We need to create new Shakespeares. The future lies in technology that can support our skills, not supplant them. Avatar is not the future of movies. Marge Simpson is not the future of sexuality even though she was on the Playboy centrespread. Ever seen Madhubala wet in the rain? Now try it. Rediscover the unforgettable power of sexuality.
Wednesday 15 February 2012
Captaincy
|
|||
Related Links
Saad Shafqat : The new, cautious face of Pakistan cricket
Players/Officials:
Misbah-ul-Haq
| Andrew Strauss
|
Ed Smith in Cricinfo 15/02/2012
A few years ago, I played in a charity match with an Australian
cricketer. He was captain for the day and casually told the fielders to
just "spread out". As we walked off at the end, after a laidback game,
he said (at least half-seriously): "How can Tugga [Steve Waugh] get paid
so much extra money just for doing that?"
The view that captaincy is easy - perhaps even irrelevant - is not
uncommon. Professional sport is a macho culture that prefers to deal in
physical realities rather than abstract concepts. That bowler is quick,
that batsman is powerful, that fielder is fast - as skills, they are all
easy to admire. Leadership, in contrast, is an elusive thing to
identify. That captain is shrewd, that one is subtle, that one
encourages the players around him to be themselves - sportsmen are not
trained to recognise or celebrate those gifts.
But the evidence is overwhelming: leadership matters. Look at the
turnaround in Pakistan cricket. Two years ago I was at Lord's on the
Saturday before the News of the World published their scoop about
spot-fixing. Pakistan were not merely losing, they were broken. When
Salman Butt was bowled, he initially stood his ground, as though he was
waiting for some outside intervention that allowed him to have another
go. When Mohammad Yousuf was caught on the boundary, hooking, he too
stood still in disbelief. It was sad to watch.
Now, under the captaincy of 37-year-old Misbah-ul-Haq,
Pakistan are revived and victorious - and able to beat the world's top
Test team 3-0. It is a powerful riposte to the critics who argue that no
one should be selected as captain if he isn't an automatic choice as a
player. In fact, the best team is simply the 11 players who produce the
most effective cricket. If the presence of a good captain improves the
team by a greater margin than the advantage gained by picking a slightly
superior player, then it is obviously rational to select the superior
captain. The best XI is the most effective team: end of story.
The next question is much harder to answer: what makes a good captain?
It is easy to fall back on familiar clichés: "the natural captain", "the
leader of men", "the alpha male". But it is striking how many effective
captains do not fit that mould. Take Andrew Strauss.
When Strauss was appointed England captain in 2008, several English
cricket legends criticised the appointment because he "wasn't a natural
captain". What did they mean? They meant that Strauss is unshowy and
undemonstrative on the field. Off the field, he is not the biggest,
loudest man at the bar. Tactically he doesn't go in for flashy,
"original" field-placement. In press conferences he avoids controversy.
In short, he is isn't Mr Obvious or Mr Born to Lead. Strauss - we now
know - has gone on to win two Ashes series as captain.
The whole business of captaincy is misunderstood. It tends to be thought
of as a list of qualities, a set of boxes to tick - as though a good
captain has to be x, y and z. In fact, all captains are different.
Perhaps the only essential characteristic for any captain is the one
that cannot be taught or emulated: he must be himself.
Instead, pundits look for qualities they recognise in themselves and
assume that's what makes a good leader. When I was appointed captain of
Middlesex, a senior figure at the club asked me what "kind of captain" I
was going to be, as though I had a list of adjectives up my sleeve.
When I asked what he meant, he said, "You know, are you going to be a
strong captain?" I replied that I'd have to be seriously stupid if I
announced at the outset that I wanted to be a weak captain.
We have captaincy in the wrong box. We should not think of captaincy -
or leadership in general - as a characteristic or even a quality.
Instead, it is an effect. If the captain has a positive effect on
the group then he is leading effectively. That doesn't sound like much.
But it is, of course, mighty difficult.
Off-field stability, good management and strong relationships at the heart of the team are infinitely more important than moving silly mid-off half a yard to the left | |||
Captains are always being judged, but most of the analysis focuses on
largely irrelevant side issues. During the deciding Test against
Australia at The Oval in 2009 - it turned out to be the very day that
the Ashes turned in England's favour - I bumped into a former England
player who has become a leading voice in the media. "What a stupid
mistake of Strauss', not using the heavy roller!" he began. "Schoolboy
error! You just can't make mistakes like that!" I was surprised at the
vehemence of the reaction. Despite many years as an opening batsman, it
was often unclear to me when to use the heavy roller, or indeed if the
decision was worthy of much analysis or energy.
Many "talking points" about captaincy are complete red herrings. Should
he have a third man? Why is gully standing so deep? These
"controversies" are often just convenient distractions to fill the
airwaves and newspaper columns. Yes, very occasionally an inspired field
placing can strangle a batsman, or a shrewd bowling change can lead to a
wicket. But much more often we read far too much into surface
decision-making, and radically underestimate the underlying foundations
that lead to success: off-field stability, good management and strong
relationships at the heart of the team. They are infinitely more
important than moving silly mid-off half a yard to the left.
Captaincy is both overrated and underrated. It is overrated because
people expect too much of it in the short term. Very few losing teams
can be galvanised by a single stirring team-talk. "Gee them up!" is the
commonest (and stupidest) advice given to captains.
But captaincy is underestimated over the long term. Losing teams often
think that they should change the captain every five minutes "until the
right person emerges". Quite the opposite happens: the latest captain
merely takes over an unsteady ship. In contrast, successful teams
quickly forget their debt to their captain, imagining that they would be
just as good - or better - if they axed him. When you're winning, it's
easy to underestimate the culture that helped you to win.
When it comes to leadership, cricket teams should remember a line from
Bob Dylan: "No matter what you think about, you just won't be able to do
without it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)