Leadership Styles--Laissez Faire Leadership
One of the most intriguing Leadership behaviour is to just let things drift. Some of the most successful leaders have found this quality to be supportive to their overall big picture and sometimes they intentionally allow things to drift so that they can control under the resultant chaos.
"Leave it be" is the English translation of french term Laissez Faire. Many times we find politicians use this policy so that they can work around the chaotic situation and try to control. However, in sports, it is extremely fatal to let things be or let them drift, since drift is what it will ultimately end up with. Sunil Gavaskar had used this method to ensure that the team does not lose when India were playing a second string West Indies team in 1978. To support Gavaskar's plan the opposition leader Alvin Kallicharan played the same game and the series ended with 5 drawn tests and 1 test win for India on a demon of a wicket in Chennai. Sunny's method was to post Huge totals and let the match drift without taking much control with aggression. But there was a definite purpose in Sunny's tactics and he was successful. He was in total control and hence it was something that can be a side of his Laissez Faire style while by and large Sunil Gavaskar was an autocratic leader.
Laissez Faire style was propagated in Indian Cricket to a large extent by one of India's most successful Captains Mohammed Azharuddin. Readers would find this post contrary to what is being projected. "Yes", despite the success of Azharuddin in many tests, his tendency to let things drift were the cause of India's many a loss in Tests and ODI cricket.
To be realistic, Azharuddin was in total control of only 3 players in his team. Anil Kumble, Venkatapathy Raju and Rajesh Chouhan and that was in the 1993 series against England when India Brown-washed the pommies. Despite future wins against Aussies, Sri Lanka and the West Indians his control was not really evident. However, his inherent attitude to let people do what they do best was both the reason for his success as well as his failure.
Leaders who allow their people to work on their own are Laissez Faire Leaders. However, this may sound positive. The negative side is that this type of Leadership style manifests in all those leaders who do not have control on their people as well as on their individual work. That is precisely what happened to Azharuddin who had a very bad period in 1996 post the World Cup and was sacked from captaincy. He got embroiled in many controversies albeit personal and sort of lost his personal charm of a great Cricketer.
Laissez Faire Leaders provide full freedom to their people and allow them to work on their own and set their own deadlines. Generally, they provide quality in puts when required but by and large don't unnecessarily get involved. People tend to believe they are aloof to their cause and allow things to drift when ideally they should be in total control. This type of leadership style is most successful when the team consists of members who are individually skilled, experienced and self-starters. Azharuddin too had quite a team under him. Kapil Dev, Ravi Shastri, Srikkanth, Navjot Siddhu, Srinath and Anil Kumble apart from Sachin Tendulkar were all individually great cricketers and it would not be easy for many captains to control these greats.
Teams of Laissez Faire Leaders are either top class performers with utmost job satisfaction and high productivity OR absolute failures when confronted with lesser knowledge, skills and lower motivation levels. That sums the success and failure of Mohammed Azharuddin as a leader.
"Leave it be" is the English translation of french term Laissez Faire. Many times we find politicians use this policy so that they can work around the chaotic situation and try to control. However, in sports, it is extremely fatal to let things be or let them drift, since drift is what it will ultimately end up with. Sunil Gavaskar had used this method to ensure that the team does not lose when India were playing a second string West Indies team in 1978. To support Gavaskar's plan the opposition leader Alvin Kallicharan played the same game and the series ended with 5 drawn tests and 1 test win for India on a demon of a wicket in Chennai. Sunny's method was to post Huge totals and let the match drift without taking much control with aggression. But there was a definite purpose in Sunny's tactics and he was successful. He was in total control and hence it was something that can be a side of his Laissez Faire style while by and large Sunil Gavaskar was an autocratic leader.
Laissez Faire style was propagated in Indian Cricket to a large extent by one of India's most successful Captains Mohammed Azharuddin. Readers would find this post contrary to what is being projected. "Yes", despite the success of Azharuddin in many tests, his tendency to let things drift were the cause of India's many a loss in Tests and ODI cricket.
To be realistic, Azharuddin was in total control of only 3 players in his team. Anil Kumble, Venkatapathy Raju and Rajesh Chouhan and that was in the 1993 series against England when India Brown-washed the pommies. Despite future wins against Aussies, Sri Lanka and the West Indians his control was not really evident. However, his inherent attitude to let people do what they do best was both the reason for his success as well as his failure.
Leaders who allow their people to work on their own are Laissez Faire Leaders. However, this may sound positive. The negative side is that this type of Leadership style manifests in all those leaders who do not have control on their people as well as on their individual work. That is precisely what happened to Azharuddin who had a very bad period in 1996 post the World Cup and was sacked from captaincy. He got embroiled in many controversies albeit personal and sort of lost his personal charm of a great Cricketer.
Laissez Faire Leaders provide full freedom to their people and allow them to work on their own and set their own deadlines. Generally, they provide quality in puts when required but by and large don't unnecessarily get involved. People tend to believe they are aloof to their cause and allow things to drift when ideally they should be in total control. This type of leadership style is most successful when the team consists of members who are individually skilled, experienced and self-starters. Azharuddin too had quite a team under him. Kapil Dev, Ravi Shastri, Srikkanth, Navjot Siddhu, Srinath and Anil Kumble apart from Sachin Tendulkar were all individually great cricketers and it would not be easy for many captains to control these greats.
Teams of Laissez Faire Leaders are either top class performers with utmost job satisfaction and high productivity OR absolute failures when confronted with lesser knowledge, skills and lower motivation levels. That sums the success and failure of Mohammed Azharuddin as a leader.
Comments
Post a Comment