I judged an
interesting competition today. There were two teams in the competition – one team had one player
and the other team had two. The one-man team had an average guy. In the team
of two players, there was one player who was outstanding but the other one was
a letdown. At the end, the winner was the average guy. If he had competed only with
the outstanding one, he would have surely lost. The weak link in the other team
acted to his advantage. This got me thinking – if you had to choose between
winning and taking chances then what would you choose?
The fact that
the weak player had the courage to try is commendable in itself. It is a noble
deed to support someone who wishes to improve. But, the question is: “At what
cost will the support be given?” Will it be at the cost of defeating your best
player? If you’re leading an organization and have a weak performer then how
many chances are you willing to take on that individual?
There is no
simple and single answer to this. While consideration to a team member is
important, competition cannot be ignored either. The best possible option would be to train the weak link and give him/her a number of chances to prove
his/her capability. If the performance still doesn’t improve then letting go can be contemplated. The question once again is: “How many chances to give?” As
organizations and as individuals, we can be supportive and considerate to a
certain level to our team members but should it be at the cost of jeopardizing
our own performance results? I guess it all depends on the answer to: "How important is winning?"
क्या दामी