The game of the Equilibrium

There are various theories about ‘the need of a balance’ as has been spoken and written about length in various contexts - about the ecological balance as a prerequisite for human survival, about the duality concept in quantum physics  and also about the balance of negative and positive forces as described in various spiritual and mythological scriptures of the world. All of these theories address a fundamental need of keeping an optimum mix of two diametrically opposite representations, which lie at the two ends of the spectrum. The moment you shift in either direction, i.e. focus on one and ignore the other, you disturb the equilibrium and you risk harsh consequences, and at times put your survival at stake…

The fundamentals of these theories was put to test by Delhi Daredevils team in their 2^nd qualifier match for IPL 2012 against Chennai Super Kings and the results were expectantly consistent and rather rude.

Cricket, irrespective of the format (i.e. Test, One Day or T20) is basically the game of bat and ball. You have eleven players and a set of rules to create the optimum balance between the bat and ball in order to do well in the sport. You miss this balance either way, and you are consigned to defeat and left to sulk in a dressing room, licking your wounds. In the match in question, Morne Morkel, the highest wicket taker of the tournament and a lethal weapon on the bouncy and otherwise stale Chennai track, was left out rather unceremoniously.  The reason quoted for this catastrophic judgement was that, with Irfan out due to injury you had to have another (so called) all rounder in the team without sacrificing a batsman. The replacement was identified in Andre Russel in this case and it meant that the Daredevils of Delhi had batting up to eight but was short of a quality bowler. They say that there is a thin line between being bold and being stupid and this dividing line is generally called ‘the result’. However, sometimes you do not need a ‘result’ to identify the difference. This was one such occasion… the rest, as they say is history.

The fundamentals of these theories are applicable universally in every sphere of our lives. Various sports streams, politics and corporate are no exception. However, unfortunately this theory is put to test constantly across the board. The applications in sports is easy to understand, for example it is easy to assess what will happen to a football team who have nine attackers and two defenders, or what will happen to a table tennis player who has the speed but no accuracy etc.

The theory also has an interesting way of proving itself in Corporate or a Business set up. There are basically three constituents of any business – The Shareholders, The Employees and The Customers. Intrinsically the interests of the shareholders and the customers at a very fundamental level are diametrically opposite. The shareholder interest is profit maximisation - so the best scenario for him is to create a product with least cost and sell it to a customer on a highest value; similarly a customer would be best off by buying a product which has the highest value for him at the lowest cost. If the shareholders and the customers are at the two opposite ends of the scale, then the employees are the fulcrum which provides the balance between the two and create value for both these constituents.

The position of this fulcrum (i.e. of the Employees in a corporate) is basically decided by the function in which the employee is working. For example, a sales rep will be closer to the customer and hence focussing more on the customer need and consequently lifting the Customers' side up and causing the Shareholders' side down. Similarly an employee in a control function, say in audit and compliance role, whose job essentially is to protect against any losses, is working more in the interest of the shareholder and often creating processes and controls which a customer may not like. A conflict between these two sets of employees is imminent and regular. This is not to say that both these employees are at the wrong place and both of them should be at the centre to provide the balance and avoid conflict all together. On the contrary they have to be at their respective places to provide a balance and strength that is required. Their conflicts and its resolution provides this balance which is essential for a corporate to function optimally. The moral of the story is that the optimal balance does not come alone by having the fulcrum in the centre. The balance and stability comes when the multiple fulcrums of equal strength are placed at various distance which allows for constructuve conflicts.

The situation is no different in the game of Cricket. A captain and team management in the game of cricket play their role in deciding the playing eleven. Quite clearly, the captains of Delhi Daredevils and the team management did not identify and place right fulcrums in their IPL 2012 final match with Chennai Super Kings in Chennai yesterday.

© Shailesh Nigam, Varun Khanna (for respective articles)