Down underdogs and servant leadership

I recently watched the docu-series Down Underdogs on Sony LIV. If you are a passionate follower of cricket, then this four-part docu-series is definitely worth a watch. Experts like Harsha Bhogle, Ayaz Memon and players from team India take you through their rollercoaster journey of Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2020-21. Down underdogs takes you through the debacle of the first test match to an extraordinary India's series win by a rag tag team (mostly players from the bench and no big names).

While reliving the test series what stood out for me was the captaincy of our Indian captain. Not Virat Kohli, but Ajinkya Rahane. What Ajinkya displayed as a captain in the the series, was according to me the perfect demonstration of servant leadership.

What is servant leadership, you may ask?

To put it simply, servant leadership is a decentralized and democratized way of leadership where the leader acts as a facilitator to help his team succeed which in turn attributes the success of the leader. The phrase 'servant leadership' was coined by Robert Greenleaf in an essay published back in 1970. Greenleaf defines servant leadership as "a non-traditional leadership philosophy, embedded in a set of behaviors and practices that place a primary emphasis on the well-being of those being served."

The key characteristics that make a good servant leader are:

• Leads from the front: Expect from the team what the leader expects and can do himself.
• Be a facilitator: Understand what hinders others from performing and remove the impediments for them to be effective.
• Always focus on true north: Know what your team goal is and keep steering the team towards the same.

Coming back to the docu-series, captain Rahane truly imbibes the characteristic of a good servant leader and shows how it is brought to action throughout the test series.

In the first test match at Adelaide, India gets into the match as the favorites. With a formidable team (at least on paper) fancying their chances of a series win outside India, especially in Australia after a long time. What happened instead was shocking to say the least. Indians witnessed an embarrassing performance by their team folding for mere thirty-six and losing a winnable match. All hopes crushed the team was written off by the fans. Adding to the pressures of the team was the decision by captain Kohli return home for the birth of his first child.

As the captain departs, the vice-captain is called in to take up the responsibility of a demoralized team. And there steps in or rather steps up vice-captain Ajinkya Rahane. A stark contrast to his predecessor, Ajinkya was a calm, low-key silent operator on filed. Unlike the loud, bombastic and in your face Virat Kohli. Ajinkya's style of leadership gave the team the space for introspection. He never overwhelmed the team with his presence, rather stepped out of their way to let the players do their own thing. He huddled the team to convey a message which most likely would be something like this I imagine. "Each one of you is an expert in what you do. I will not tell you how to do your job better. Rather tell me how I can help you do your job better".

Team India entered the second test trailing by a game. Rahane showed his intent and girt right when it was needed in the first innings by hitting a ton. This century by Ajinkya, created a solid base for the team to win the second test giving them hope of a revival.

The third test starts with both teams at par with one win to their name. Taking inspiration from their new captain resolute knock in the second test, Cheteshwar Pujara with a determined hundred and Jasprit Bumrah with his six wickets haul, won India her second win of the series. Now one up in the series, all India needed was a draw to secure a series win in Australia. Ajinkya stayed in the background to steer the team, never stealing anyone's thunder.

In the final test, when Australia put up a three hundred plus total in the last innings for India to chase. Ajinkya could easily have settled with a draw, the series was already in India's bag. But he led the chase from the front and set the tempo for his team to go for the win. I still remember his shot straight over long on for a six, that was as clear a message as it could get to, for the team to go for the win. With the rains playing a spoilt sport both teams had to settle for a draw.

Thanks to Sony LIV's Down underdogs, I didn’t just relive the exciting moments of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2020-21, but also was inspired to pen this article. Today, I touched upon the merits of servant leadership. I will reserve the flip side of this leadership philosophy for another day.

A story of convoluted goals

Executive staff of a large corporation settled down in the board room for a planning meeting for a major program that the company was about to kick start. The program they were about to embark on was quiet complex and had several sub-projects which required to be executed by multiple vendor teams in unison  for the overall success of the project.

As expected a smart executive at the meeting, possibly from one of the top MBA colleges, stepped up to flaunt his smarts. He brought up a area of concern which any diligent program/project manager would have brought up "This project is complex, high visibility too. It has lots of vendors involved. And to ensure we cross the finish line on the planned timelines, its important that none of the vendors slip on deadlines.". "Excellent point" said the CEO "We need to put a mechanism in place right from the start, so that there is a deterrence for vendors to slip.". The CEO even thumped the desk with his fist as he said the deterrence.

Another executive promptly said, "Lets incentivize early delivery and penalize the delay." "Good Idea!" said the CEO and continued "lets form an executive team to lead our team of vendor managers and lets come up with a detailed rules of the game.".

Soon after the kick off meeting, a taskforce was setup from amongst top minds in the company to oversee the vendor managers to draft the guidelines and calculate the quantum of incentives for vendors for early delivery and penalties for delays. After a couple of intense meetings, debates and discussions. It was determined by the committee that incentivizing the vendors too much would mean higher cost to company and also it might tempt vendors to do shoddy jobs, just to claim bonus for finishing ahead of time. The committee also settled on the fact, that exorbitant penalties should not be levied, or else vendors will shy away from bidding for the project in the first place. In the end a watered down structure of incentives and penalties was finalized.

A few months later, the management team, regrouped to take stock of the project. One by one all the managers responsible for their sub-projects came up and presented the progress of their projects. As with any large program, some projects were on target, while some weren't. Out of all the sub-project, there was a particular project that was clearly going to delay. The vendor employed for the project had already informed his inability to hire the right people for the job. He had communicated the expected delay to the company. The CEO quickly called upon his taskforce to take action.

The taskforce wrote a stern warning letter to the vendor. They warned him of invoking the penalties clause from the contract they had signed with him. The vendor managers called for a meeting to discuss with the vendor how they could possibly seek resolution on the impending issue and possibly avert delays.

The meeting between the taskforce and the vendor convened. Calling what transpired next a classic case of  the book smart versus street smart would be a cliché. What it was, was a perfect case study of negotiating to win.

The executives of the taskforce in there pinstriped power suites, with fancy degrees walk into the board room. While at one corner of the board room's table, sat the vendor. An older man in neat and unimposing attire. He had not been to college, but had earned his seat at the table, by working long and hard at his trade. He spoke with clarity and confidence.

Without beating around the bush, the vendor got straight to the point as the meeting started.  He explain clearly the reasons for delay. He accepted his inability to mitigate the issue and avoid delay. But he was sure and that all he now needed was an extension by a month to finish. The discussion dragged for sometime, because the taskforce got busy over analyzing this particular situation, rather focusing on the larger project goal. As they say too many cooks spoil the soup, it took for ever for the taskforce to determine what they really wanted to do in this case. 

What happened next was amazing. At the first mention of the word penalty, the vendor bent down to reach for his briefcase. He pulled out a cheque book. He calmly wrote a cheque for the amount of penalty. "Here! Now do I get a month" he said as he pushed the leaf towards the taskforce.

The tables were clearly turned on the taskforce. The taskforce was completely disarmed by the actions of the vendor. They had never fathomed that the vendor would pull out his cheque book on them. All the work the taskforce had put in, to prepare for the meeting was to device ways to make the vendor pay. But now that the vendor just offered them what they wanted up front, the taskforce didn't know how to react. The vendor was excused for a while as the taskforce deliberated on what to do next. Finally, everyone regrouped in the boardroom. The decision was communicated to the vendor. The penalty was revoked, the vendor was given an extension and a warning to finish on the next agreed date of delivery (which clearly felt more of a formality at this point).

Now with this anecdote one may sense my slight disdain for snooty executives in organizations and college degrees. But I assure you that I understand, appreciate and value formal education. And also, admit that not all executives are cast in the same mold as the ones depicted earlier. You may consider that I may have taken liberties to exaggerate the contrast between the executives in the taskforce and the vendor.

The point I am trying to drive with the above anecdote, is to have clear objectives and then going for it without a flinch. The taskforce was setup with a simple goal, but the executives convoluted the task to finally came up with a meek structure, that had no substance to meet the goal. No good reward for the vendors to finish job early nor a significant reprimand for the delays. To make matters worse, at the negotiation table the taskforce were indecisive. They swayed between being perceived as good or bad if the penalty was or was not imposed. Their nervousness would have been quiet evident.

On the other hand, the vendor was absolutely clear about he wanted, which was to keep the business with the company.  And to do that all he needed was an extra month and he was ready to pay for it if need be. In the end, what will be remembered, is that the vendor completed the job and not the specifics of how he did it. The opportunity cost of loosing the business was far more for the vendor than to pay a small penalty for the extra time. If required to pay a fine, he would make peace with the deal, by simply writing off the penalty as discount to customer. 

After all, less profit is always better than no profit!