English Football has 5 leagues starting from Premier League to Championship, League 1, 2 and Conference. Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Holland - all have leagues too, where different clubs compete. For the better part of the year, clubs compete in their respective leagues for the honor of being the League winner. The League winner (or Top 3 depending on the country you compete in) goes on to the Champions League. Players belong to clubs and are paid massive salaries by their clubs. These clubs have physical presence and very loyal city based following. Sometimes, the following of clubs such as ManU, Real Madrin, Barcelona and Milan transcend their cities or countries.
Players also turn up to play for their country. These occasions are few and far between. Every 2 years, there is a big tournament - either a World Cup or a Continental Cup (European Championship, Copa America etc). Once or twice a year, countries play an International game and sometimes they play friendlies as practice matches for these big tournaments.
Why can't Mumbai Indians, Kings XI Punjab, NSW, Bushrangers, Trinidad & Tobago become the equivalent of ManU, Real Madrid and Barca? They can have teams for the Test, One Day and T20 formats.
Why can't there be a Premier League in each country a la EPL, Serie A, Primera Liga & Bundesliga? Why can't there be other secondary league with a very clear ascendancy mechanism for clubs to higher leagues?
Why can't the primary support and following be for the club? Why can't countries play less no. of times among each other? Maybe even restrict this to a World Test Cup, World 50 over Cup and World T20 Cup?
Why does IPL need to have a window? Infact, international matches and World Cups (or Continental Cups such as Asia Cup, Commonwealth Cup etc) should have a window! Every 4 years.
Wouldn't having these clubs as the primary building block of cricket facilitate talent development better? Wouldn't it force all these clubs to become more rooted in the cities they claim to represent? In fact they could then invest in stadiums, training facilities, academies, scouts, trainers etc and become real clubs then the once-a-year 60 day circus they currently are.
Why can't cricket be more like soccer?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Leadership
Leadership is a funny thing. There are tons of books written on the topic and still it remains an enigma. I'm trying my hand at making sense of the beast.
In very simple terms, a Leader is responsible for developing a vision of what's possible, gathering a bunch of people towards realising that vision, keeping them motivated through the journey, making course corrections wherever necessary and watching the progress till the vision is achieved. In fact, the vision is rarely achieved because it is a moving target, but more on that later!
In theory this sounds simple. However, there are differences in how people do each of the above, thereby creating different Leadership styles. I feel it is as important to understand why these differences arise as it is to categorize the differences themselves.
In my pov, there are three main factors that determine a person's Leadership style - Character, Situation, People.
Character is the intrinsic core of a person. It is an amalgamation of a person's ego, his self-perception, his degree of security, esteem and assurance. It directly manifests in a person's behavior. Some Leaders are therefore very authoritarian, others are more receptive. Some think position grants them the right to violate others' dignity, others steer from making this assumption. Some like a following, others a healthy debate. Some like to talk, others like to listen. But character only dictates the starting point. And often Leaders veer far away from the starting point depending on the situation and people involved.
Some situations lend themselves to more Transformative behaviors. Others need more transactional stuff. A crisis, for example, would need all hands on the deck. A steady state business on the other hand, would mean the Leader can 'let go' and focus elsewhere.
Ditto for people. Some people inspire confidence in a Leader to 'let go'. Others send signals that spark panic. Leaders respond differently to different people. If they know what to expect, they don't typically ask. If they know that promises made are usually kept, they won't peer over your shoulder. If they know that they'll get the bad news as fast as the good news, they won't second guess. In that sense, a Leader is as good as the person or team he is leading.
All being said, Leadership is a contract between the Leader and the Led. This contract depends to a larget extent on the kind of person that the Leader is (therefore pray that you are not stuck with an insecure person who derives his self-worth through others' affirmation). However, it also varies with the situation and can be influenced by the person who is being led.
This thought is very empowering. It transfers the Locus of Control to the 'Led'. It says that while you can't choose your Leader, you can choose his Leadership style for him!
In very simple terms, a Leader is responsible for developing a vision of what's possible, gathering a bunch of people towards realising that vision, keeping them motivated through the journey, making course corrections wherever necessary and watching the progress till the vision is achieved. In fact, the vision is rarely achieved because it is a moving target, but more on that later!
In theory this sounds simple. However, there are differences in how people do each of the above, thereby creating different Leadership styles. I feel it is as important to understand why these differences arise as it is to categorize the differences themselves.
In my pov, there are three main factors that determine a person's Leadership style - Character, Situation, People.
Character is the intrinsic core of a person. It is an amalgamation of a person's ego, his self-perception, his degree of security, esteem and assurance. It directly manifests in a person's behavior. Some Leaders are therefore very authoritarian, others are more receptive. Some think position grants them the right to violate others' dignity, others steer from making this assumption. Some like a following, others a healthy debate. Some like to talk, others like to listen. But character only dictates the starting point. And often Leaders veer far away from the starting point depending on the situation and people involved.
Some situations lend themselves to more Transformative behaviors. Others need more transactional stuff. A crisis, for example, would need all hands on the deck. A steady state business on the other hand, would mean the Leader can 'let go' and focus elsewhere.
Ditto for people. Some people inspire confidence in a Leader to 'let go'. Others send signals that spark panic. Leaders respond differently to different people. If they know what to expect, they don't typically ask. If they know that promises made are usually kept, they won't peer over your shoulder. If they know that they'll get the bad news as fast as the good news, they won't second guess. In that sense, a Leader is as good as the person or team he is leading.
All being said, Leadership is a contract between the Leader and the Led. This contract depends to a larget extent on the kind of person that the Leader is (therefore pray that you are not stuck with an insecure person who derives his self-worth through others' affirmation). However, it also varies with the situation and can be influenced by the person who is being led.
This thought is very empowering. It transfers the Locus of Control to the 'Led'. It says that while you can't choose your Leader, you can choose his Leadership style for him!
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
The Problem with autonomy
Recently, I have met a fair amount of people who want 'autonomy' in their work. I don't understand it. Autonomy, I believe has to be commanded, not demanded.
Whoever you are......you're answerable to someone. If no one else, at least your wife!
Rather than asking someone to leave you alone, isn't it better to make a follow-up unnecessary?! If you don't want to have someone give advice to you, ask for suggestions ahead of time. If you don't want people interfering, give them a heads up.
The best way I have found of keeping your managers from interfering in your business is to set the right expectations and exceed those expectations. That's not all, continuously keep them informed of the progress because some managers are impatient and they assume the worst if they are not told otherwise. And in case you realise that you are going to miss the commitment made, it is better to share the bad news early than your manager hearing it from someone else.
Lastly, having a reason for your failure is not as important as having a Plan B. The reason will get you past a tough discussion but the alternative plan will get you the results. Where you focus, pretty much determines how far you'll go.
Whoever you are......you're answerable to someone. If no one else, at least your wife!
Rather than asking someone to leave you alone, isn't it better to make a follow-up unnecessary?! If you don't want to have someone give advice to you, ask for suggestions ahead of time. If you don't want people interfering, give them a heads up.
The best way I have found of keeping your managers from interfering in your business is to set the right expectations and exceed those expectations. That's not all, continuously keep them informed of the progress because some managers are impatient and they assume the worst if they are not told otherwise. And in case you realise that you are going to miss the commitment made, it is better to share the bad news early than your manager hearing it from someone else.
Lastly, having a reason for your failure is not as important as having a Plan B. The reason will get you past a tough discussion but the alternative plan will get you the results. Where you focus, pretty much determines how far you'll go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)