Leadership Styles--Bureaucratic Leadership
Bureaucracy is something that is prevalent in every system irrespective of the fact that Organizations are open to creative participation, innovation and holistic ideating from their employees and stake holders. Sports is an arena which ideally should be bereft of bureaucracy but unfortunately we are prone to witnessing this in most of the administrative positions within Sports. It comes with an un-written logic of control. Cricket has not been spared either from this bane. "Yes" bane it is, while the Control areas can necessarily be rule bound and where the players need to follow everything strictly as per the rule book, unfortunately, bureaucracy has crept into the playing field too and due to which many a team ends up achieving too little than what they are otherwise capable of.
One startling example for Bureaucratic Leadership is Greg Chappel. A class act as far as the art of batsmanship is concerned, Greg Chappel is someone who can be part of various types of Leadership styles. It is probably for a single most important reason that Greg Chappel being a very strong personality capable of taking it head on with anyone due to a strong Aussie attitude, suave yet a street-fighter like Javed Miandad and one who would not let go of a situation come what may. Unlike the Autocratic style of leadership, the Bureaucratic style is not a positive approach. It is something followers desist and at the most opportune time can pull the rug. It is a style which needs to be always on the look-out behind the shoulders and does not allow creativity since everything is based on a rule book and little deviation would bring disaster.
Why would Greg Chappel be part of this post would be a question to most of the readers. Indian team was a willing witness of this style of leadership despite the fact that all was well under the stewardship of Saurav Ganguly. BCCI felt that Saurav was becoming too big for his boots, which typically happens when success begets success and it ends up taking an elevator to the head very fast. To rein in Saurav, who was having other ambitions inherent to his nature of not being a routine focused leader, BCCI had to take a stronger personality than Saurav. Greg Chappel was the right person according to them. A choice which they regretted when the Indian team started slowly dis-integrating and ended up not qualifying for the World Cup super 6 league. The biggest reason apparently for choosing Chappel was to continue the reign in the ODIs and push forth for the Number 1 team in the tests. Unfortunately for Saurav, Dravid (his successor) and to a large extent Sachin, Chappel's bureaucratic attitude sort of finished their individual positions. It was like Chappel came with an agenda which was neither going well with Saurav nor the right thing to happen for Team India.
Cricket is a game high on Money and related benefits such as endorsements etc., which needs a bureaucratic approach if the same has to be under control. Despite the controls exercised, there have been many a bitter situation related to the Match Fixing syndrome. However, when the control starts to engulf the playing area too, like what happened to the role of the Coach, then the end of the game is nearing. The Coach under no circumstances should play the role of an administrator since there is a significant mis-match and that will be a sure shot poison drug to finish the team. Bureaucratic leadership style is ineffective for teams and organizations that look for flexibility, creativity or innovation. Cricket is a game which requires all three qualities in most situations including the physical attributes of players to be in fine fettle at all times.
Bureaucratic leaders get their positions due to the fact that they can uphold rules and go by the book rather than their individual expertise or qualifications. Unfortunately, the Bureaucratic nature of Greg Chappel was more evident during his role as Coach of Indian Cricket whereas he would have got the position purely based on his ability to Lead the team, his ability as a quality technician and a great Cricketing brain. Very soon, teams under Bureaucratic leaders start getting a feeling of being let down and the resentment starts to set in. This unfortunately happened to the Indian Team.
One startling example for Bureaucratic Leadership is Greg Chappel. A class act as far as the art of batsmanship is concerned, Greg Chappel is someone who can be part of various types of Leadership styles. It is probably for a single most important reason that Greg Chappel being a very strong personality capable of taking it head on with anyone due to a strong Aussie attitude, suave yet a street-fighter like Javed Miandad and one who would not let go of a situation come what may. Unlike the Autocratic style of leadership, the Bureaucratic style is not a positive approach. It is something followers desist and at the most opportune time can pull the rug. It is a style which needs to be always on the look-out behind the shoulders and does not allow creativity since everything is based on a rule book and little deviation would bring disaster.
Why would Greg Chappel be part of this post would be a question to most of the readers. Indian team was a willing witness of this style of leadership despite the fact that all was well under the stewardship of Saurav Ganguly. BCCI felt that Saurav was becoming too big for his boots, which typically happens when success begets success and it ends up taking an elevator to the head very fast. To rein in Saurav, who was having other ambitions inherent to his nature of not being a routine focused leader, BCCI had to take a stronger personality than Saurav. Greg Chappel was the right person according to them. A choice which they regretted when the Indian team started slowly dis-integrating and ended up not qualifying for the World Cup super 6 league. The biggest reason apparently for choosing Chappel was to continue the reign in the ODIs and push forth for the Number 1 team in the tests. Unfortunately for Saurav, Dravid (his successor) and to a large extent Sachin, Chappel's bureaucratic attitude sort of finished their individual positions. It was like Chappel came with an agenda which was neither going well with Saurav nor the right thing to happen for Team India.
Cricket is a game high on Money and related benefits such as endorsements etc., which needs a bureaucratic approach if the same has to be under control. Despite the controls exercised, there have been many a bitter situation related to the Match Fixing syndrome. However, when the control starts to engulf the playing area too, like what happened to the role of the Coach, then the end of the game is nearing. The Coach under no circumstances should play the role of an administrator since there is a significant mis-match and that will be a sure shot poison drug to finish the team. Bureaucratic leadership style is ineffective for teams and organizations that look for flexibility, creativity or innovation. Cricket is a game which requires all three qualities in most situations including the physical attributes of players to be in fine fettle at all times.
Bureaucratic leaders get their positions due to the fact that they can uphold rules and go by the book rather than their individual expertise or qualifications. Unfortunately, the Bureaucratic nature of Greg Chappel was more evident during his role as Coach of Indian Cricket whereas he would have got the position purely based on his ability to Lead the team, his ability as a quality technician and a great Cricketing brain. Very soon, teams under Bureaucratic leaders start getting a feeling of being let down and the resentment starts to set in. This unfortunately happened to the Indian Team.
Comments
Post a Comment