The good bad boys

I am sure most of you would have followed the KP saga while it was unfolding. It concluded finally with KP , unfortunately, not being recalled to the English National Team.

In my opinion, there is no one who can love or hate KP wholeheartedly. One cannot but admire him when he nonchalantly switch hits the hapless spinner for a six . He could change the complexion of the match in the next few balls. At the same time, one also gets this 'Whats wrong with this guy?' feeling, when he throws his off-field tantrums, of which there are many. No matter what,  I'm sure, even Andrew Strauss does not turn the TV off while KP is batting.

Let me define the scope of this post. This is about good bad boys. Immensely talented people who are  ,due to which and also, difficult to handle. There are some people who are difficult to handle, but at the same time not supremely talented ( or who do not convert their God given talent into results). And there are people who are indeed talented, but are not difficult to handle.

I have neither shared the Indian cricket team's dressing room, nor do i claim to know its dynamics, but as an average cricket following desi, would I be too much off the mark if I say that Sreesanth belongs to the first category and Tendulkar belongs to the second?

This blog post is not about Sreesanth's and Tendulkar's, it is about KP's, the damn good bad boys.

Most of the teams have a KP in it, isn't it? They come in all shades. A manager who has not handled a KP has not seen it all. When it comes to managing a KP, it is always 'How long do I tolerate this fellow?' and 'How do I deliver at the same high levels without this guy in the team?' KP's test the patience levels of the manager and the team, but they also win the battle at the end of the day.

All managers have some measure of ínvestment' vs 'return'  when it comes to managing the KP. Investment may not only be in the form of money, for KP's do not work for money. I am talking about the time and the diplomatic efforts invested to handle the KP and to keep the team, which is tolerating a KP, together. In my experience, this is time taking and drives one to nuts.At some point in time, the manager feels that the return is lower than the investment and decides enough is enough and cuts the KP loose, which is what Andrew Strauss seems to have done.

I am myself a Kevin Pietersen fan, but as far as this decision went, I can only sympathize with Strauss. Most likely, if I were in his position, even I would have done what Strauss did. Whether it is the right decision or not is left to everyone's judgement.
But here's Makarand Waigankar offering his perspective.
This is one of the most balanced articles I have come across regarding KP ( and in general, on handling difficult team members).He feels that Strauss failed to keep his personal biases at bay while making this decision. ( Remember that KP, while playing under Strauss's captaincy has insulted him). I am not saying that Waigankar is right or wrong but just that his perspective needs some thought.

Now lets get slightly deeper into that part where I said the manager would have some measure of return on investment on the KP. As far as the relationship between the manager and the KP goes, there is always a tipping point, which invariably is some act of KP which bruises the ego of the manager, before which, in managers opinion, the KP's positives outweigh his negatives and after which, his negatives outweigh his positives. In Waigankar's words, the manager lets the personal biases affect the judgement.

It is very very difficult to  keep a cool head when you, as a leader, are insulted in front of the team mates that too by a KP, but the ability to keep one makes a good, a very good, if not a great,leader. A great leader somehow finds a way to channelize the KP's energy towards the winning cause.

With Ashes looming, and given the ominous form the Aussies are in and the pathetic form the English are in, they need KP more than ever. And KP too needs England more than ever.
English management ought have converted this need for each other into a win-win situation. Kevin has the potential to destroy the Aussies single handedly and given a chance he could win the ashes back for the English.

Speed reading

While reading Haimavathabhoovil  came across an interesting anecdote from Swami Vivekananda's life. I have not come across this incident in any other books.

Swami Vivekananda was staying in Germany as a guest of great philosopher Paul Duschen ( Could not get much info on him by googling ). During his stay, Paul mentioned to the Swami that he has been trying to read a German book for the last fifteen days but was unable to comprehend it. Hearing this, Swami borrowed the book from Paul and within 30 minutes returned it saying "I have read it". Needless to say, Paul was surprised. "Really?" he seems to have asked. To which Swamiji has replied "Yes. Not only have I read it, but also comprehended thoroughly".  An incredulous Paul asked some questions from the part he had read and Swami not only satisfactorily answered his questions but also cited the relevant sentences in German. "Paul, there are normal and abnormal ways of reading", Swami said to a bewildered Paul.

On reading this, various movie scenes came to my mind. Matrix series, in which the lead characters  acquire certain skills in 2 seconds ( actually loads the skills to their brains). Movies like Phenomenon, Transformers etc where the protagonists read esoteric books in 10 minutes or so. Well, those are just movies...back to Swami Vivekananda.

We all know that Swami Vivekananda was gifted with some extraordinary powers. This strength of reading something without really reading it,perhaps, was one of them. Further googling about Paul Duschen and Swami Vivekananda, I came across the following material, apparently from a book called "Short life of Swami Vivekananda".

"It so happened that I could completely understand an author without completely reading his book line by line. I could get the meaning by just reading the first and last lines of the paragraph. As this power developed, I found it unncessary to read even paragraphs. I could follow by just reading the first and last lines of the page. Further, when an author introduced discussion to explain some matter and it took him 4 or 5 or even more pages to clear the subject, I could gather the whole trend of the argument by just reading the first few lines."

Some people make certain things look so easy.

I started thinking about my own reading speed. Number of books I read every year is always less than the number of books I buy that same year. This has been the case for the last 20 years or so. Just imagine the number of un-read books in my shelf!.

I also felt that the speed of reading depends on the subject matter as well. A movie review or a match report could be read much faster than an article about income tax, theoretical physics etc ( atleast for me ). Perhaps it also depends on the power of concentration.

Anyways, I have decided to be aware of the speed at which I read when I read. Hopefully that increases the concentration as well the speed. And slowly reduce the un-read books in possession to zero.

Web is inundated with reading materials. More you read, more informed you are and, most likely, a better decision maker too. Reading, that too speed reading, is a key skill for leaders and managers.

Karna and Martin Crowe

 I recently came across two articles on two totally unrelated subjects – One written by former New Zealand cricket captain and legendary cricketer Martin Crowe and the other written by the legendary Malayalam literary critic Kuttikrishna Marar ( actually it is nothing but a chapter called “Karnapravesam” in his work called “Bharathaparyadanam” widely regarded as his best work).

Here are the relevant links for your reference and further googling.

Martin crowe article à http://www.espncricinfo.com/wctimeline/content/current/story/820725.html

Mararà http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuttikrishna_Marar

Why did I mention these two articles in the same paragraph? Because I found one common factor in these two and that is very relevant for leaders and teams.

In his article, Martin Crowe writes about the New Zealand’s famous pursuit of the (still elusive) Worldcup 1992. If you remember, it was Crowe who tried the “attack in the first 15 overs” as a strategy through Mark Greatbatch. Crowe also made significant contribution in terms of runs . In the semi final against Pakistan, while batting first Crowe scores 83 ball 91 against the likes of Imran and Akram and in the process sustains a minor hamstring injury. They also post a string total of 260+. So far so good.

Now Crowe , according to him, makes one big mistake – He decides to stay off the field and asks John Wright to lead the team on the field. It seems, it was Crowe and the coach who planned and decided upon a strategy to bowl at the Pakistan batsmen. Wright, inspite of being the vice-captain was totally unaware of the plan. So when leading the team, Wright implemented his bowling plans which obviously did not work since Pakistan went on to beat NZ ( remember the famous Inzi innings? )

Crowe writes that he was not totally unfit either and that he “could have” taken the field. But because he was confident, and in hindsight overconfident, of the total and because he was eager “preserve” himself for the finals, he chose not to take the field. In Crowe’s own words, “inorder to get myself across to the finals, I forgot to get the team across the semi-finals”. I felt those were very revealing comments from a great leader.

Now on to the Marar essay and our beloved soap-opera, the one and only Mahabharat.

In this essay title “Karna Pravesa”( meaning The Grant Entry of Karna ), Marar takes us through that portion of Mahabharat in which Karna makes his entry as an adult. ( This is the place where , as young kings, Pandavas and Kauravas exhibit their martial skills infront of the public. Karna makes his entry, challenges Arjuna, gets insulted by several due to his ancestry, that he is born to a chariot rider, and also finds a friend in Duryodhana who anoints him as the King of Anga Rajya ). Marar goes on to analyse, as he does in his other essays in Bharata Parayadana ,  what is it that the great saint Vyasa trying to convey to us in this particular scene? Marar has several things to say, please refer to the literary work, but I would stick only to his statement that is relevant to my article.

Marar analyses several factors that handicapped Karna as a warrior.  Instance like the one where he lost his congenital armour and ear-rings actually establishes the greatness of Karna. But one incident, Marar says, establishes Karna’s greatness more than any other incidents. It is nothing but the one in which he looses his most potent weapon Vyjayanti.

The story goes that Karna acquires a powerful weapon called Vyjayanthi and preserves it to use it against Arjuna during the Kurukshetra war. But before he gets an opportunity to do that, the mighty Khadotkacha, son of Bheema and Hidumbi, wreaks havoc in the Kaurava ranks. Kauravas urge Karna to stop Khadotkacha and Karna uses Vyjayanthi and kills the mighty son of Bheema and in the process preserves the Kaurava army to die another day. According to Marar, Karna realized that there is no point in preserving the Vyjayanthi so that he can win his personal war against Arjuna at the cost of his team, which is the Kaurava army.

He uses Vyjayanthi for greater good for the team, and in the process added another nail to his own coffin. According to Marar, this is the greatest deed done by Karna since he did it inspite of knowing the consequences.

Now I hope you got the connection. Martin Crowe put himself ahead of the team and Karna put the team ahead of himself. It does not matter that both teams in question, New Zealand and Kauravas, eventually lost. What matters is, how to act when, as leaders and team members, we come across dilemmas like these.

I am not comparing Crowe and Karna but just trying to take inspiration from an incident both have gone through. Sometimes, doing right things may not take to ultimate victory, but still as leaders one must have the courage and judgement to do the right thing. Perhaps, doing the right thing is the ultimate victory. Also, while chasing a huge target ( huge in terms  of revenue, deliverable, lines of code,runs etc), it is important to keep the head down and survive the day. Thinking about the final huge goal, sometimes, overawes us and we end up doing judgemental mistakes, which is exactly what Crowe did.