Man-of-the-match and zero sum game

July 29th, 2008 | by A T M |

In a cricket match, they award man-of-the-match for that key player who made the difference. Rewarding just one player, inspires other men in the team, instead of letting them down, to try hard and win that title in coming matches.

Let me try draw parallels to a corporate setting. In a software project team of 10, with a composition of three categories of people :

Type-1 # Performers             -   Say 2

Type-2 # OK OK Performers    -    5

Type-3 # Poor performers      -    3

If you recognise and reward just Type-1 performers, the 5 ok ok Type-2’s are let down (don’t forget they form the majority), demotivated and they slid towards category three type. Their productivity dips. But let’s assume this dip is somehow covered up by those overworked top performers of Type-1.  Net result, the team  performs at the same level as it was earlier.

Question 1: Why reward in the first place, if the output of the overall team is not improved and remains the same ?

Question 2: Well…if you still insist that there should be a  tradition of recognition, there must be a cleverer way to recognise. A recognition which does not demotivate the OK OK Type-2 set of people.

Is there a much fairer way of recognition, where even OK OK type-2’s are also pleased ?

Related posts

  • No related posts.

  1. 6 Responses to “Man-of-the-match and zero sum game”

  2. By kk on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    In cricket you know every second of the players play and you are convinced the he deserves it.

  3. By admin on Aug 1, 2008 | Reply

    May be you are right, In Cricket there are more eyes around and more judges, on and off the TV, to convince that the winner deserves. And in corporate setting it is just your manager, who could be disillusioned ?

    Point is how you treat Type-2’s. They are good many in number,their combined contribution is still significant, but they go unnoticed and unrewarded.

  4. By Avik on Aug 3, 2008 | Reply

    To continue the analogy with cricket, let me point out that cricket is a statistician’s dream-come-true. One look at the scorecard tells who is the best (most of the time), so less chance of controversy. Not the same with work. How do you differentiate? It’s a lot more subjective in nature and most of the times the-above-average-employee thinks s/he is way-above-average which is not same. And there is problem with fitting people into bands. What about who is not just ok-ok but better than that, but at the same time not ‘the performer’ also… tough choice…

  5. By A T M on Aug 4, 2008 | Reply

    Score board, yea, is a good measure. How about introducing similar score card system for every tasks and activities in corporates. We score singles, fours and sixers and the score board ticks. End of the year, there is no dispute.

  6. By Adarsh on Aug 5, 2008 | Reply

    For the Question 1) why should we reward..

    The man of the match award money is actually shared within the team.. But, in corporate, if all the bonus that the team gets shared evenly, then the performers will stop performing thinking that their efforts get them just like the other guys.. the poor guys remain poor as they know they make money anyways..End result.. Team goes down the drain..

    Now for the question 2) how to motivate the OKOK types.

    for that you need a long stick, which is well covered with mirchi powder on one end and the other end should be help by the manager

  7. By A T M on Aug 10, 2008 | Reply

    Funny and Practical Adarsh. You fit to be a manager now.

Post a Comment