Sporting fans everywhere are likely to be well aware of the ongoing saga involving Kevin Pietersen and the English Cricket Board (ECB). Even those who aren’t big fans or even remotely engaged with the sport are likely to have heard his name in the last two years, particularly over the past few days as the issue over his selection in the England team has come to a head. No one can deny KP’s ability with a bat – he’s undoubtedly one of the best English batsman around at the moment – but his potential return does raise a number of questions that can be related to HR and recruitment, not least, is it worth risking team spirit and culture for the sake of a top performer?
This particular issue is made all the more difficult by the fact that no one really seems to have a clear idea of what’s happened. The most commonly known version is that KP text criticism of his captain, the team’s tactics and his teammates to a rival player. When this was leaked, unsurprisingly, all hell broke loose. It could be argued that leaking vital information to the opposition is enough to be sacked and, in business, would probably be enough to warrant dismissal. However, can any organisation afford to lose their star talent for the sake of a disagreement over tactics?
Most professionals are likely to have encountered someone like KP at some point in their career and while their talent can’t be denied, these individuals can have a poisonous effect on company morale. This appears to be the reason he will not be selected. Andrew Strauss, the England cricket director, argued that his influence would prove too disruptive to allow him to play.The absence of significant support from within the team supports this view. However, commentators have argued that the England team is in dire straits and simply needs someone of his quality to lift them from the doldrums.
In many ways the sad thing is that the initial situation occurred in the first place. I have no idea what the team culture was like in the dressing-room at that time, but I can’t help feeling that if it was open, honest and encouraged debate then KP would have had an outlet for his frustration that would have reduced the chances of any subsequent texting.
However in my opinion, events have now reached such a stage that Strauss is absolutely correct. Culture is critical to organisational success – if a company is to be successful, it needs to have a healthy culture in place. Allowing an employee to bend or break the rules purely because they’re good at what they do can have serious consequences and could potentially affect staff attraction and retention, as well as performance. After all, no one wants to work alongside someone who’s disruptive and only out for themselves and it’s likely to leave many professionals feeling disengaged with their roles and therefore increasingly likely to leave. By ditching the disruptor, firms may also find that the performance of other employees improves as they feel more valued and supported in their working environment.
While many commentators think Strauss is cutting off his nose to spite his face, I’m taking the seemingly unpopular view that he was right to omit KP from the England team. No individual is worth the disruption that his selection would have caused and it’s better to replace one top performer than it is to recreate an organisation’s culture from scratch. To borrow another sporting example, one of the greatest football managers of all time – Sir Alex Ferguson – believes that a manager should “never, ever cede control” and should “get rid of an employee if they are creating discord, even if they are the best player in the world.” Ferguson regulary removed star performers who he felt were disruptive, Van Nistelroy and Beckham spring immediately to mind, and the team’s performance continued at the highest level. Andrew Strauss has followed his lead, it may not bear fruit this summer but we, Strauss and the ECB should be taking a longer term view.
Do you think firms should risk company culture for the sake of a star performer?
