Work vs prospects

in your interest


Workers have an expectation that they will be rewarded for their efforts.

This is also an expectation of sportsmen who, as amateurs or professionals, have every reason to believe they will be rewarded on their performances.

It is the reward for good performance in any endeavour that is used to inspire and motivate the individual. This should rule out crediting mediocre and substandard performances.

It is however quite unfortunate that despite the best efforts of some employees, they find themselves on the wrong end of the “stick”. Despite their best efforts, some are not the recipients of a promotion, not nominated for any meritorious award, or are not a beneficiary of any productivity measure.

Some employees suffer the fate of not only being overlooked, but being the victims in a retrenchment or layoff programme. Worse yet, some may be relieved of their responsibility.

In reflecting on the fate suffered by many sportsmen, whether player, coach or manager, it is worrisome the way their services are terminated.

In some instances, it is believed that it is tied to the overall team performance, in which case the leader of the team shoulders the responsibility for the inconsistent or poor performance. It is not unreasonable that the individual’s personal performance should also be taken into account.

It is understandable that someone has to be held accountable, but it seems unwise that any action to remove a leader should be done with reference to what the individual was required to do, and whether it was achieved.

In the case of the removal of Darren Sammy as the captain of the West Indies cricket Test team, the action may be considered as preposterous if Sammy was charged with leading the rebuilding of a winning West Indies team, and the facts support that he was successful in realizing the expectation. For him to play this role, he had to be selected as a player, and would have not merited his position as captain, if his performances remained below par.

Clearly the latter would have jeopardized his efforts and that of the team in achieving the goal set. It begs the question, if he was a non-achiever whose apparent failure could have derailed the progress anticipated, why was it necessary to retain his services for such an extended period of time?

It can hardly be that favouritism was a consideration in this instance. It would seem that he was doing something right and therefore won the confidence of the selectors and the West Indies Cricket Board. It would appear from the on and off the field actions and reactions that the arrangement was working well between the team members and the management team.

The sudden dispensation of the captain raised a fundamental question. If the removal of the captain had anything to do with the overall team performance, then wouldn’t it not be the correct thing to do to remove both the captain and the coach?

It seems at odds that the total responsibility should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the captain in a team sport where the coach and team manager have a major say.

Cricket is said to be a game of glorious uncertainties, but this extends to life generally. It is often those who despite having given of their best and who are admired for their efforts are left to question themselves as to where they have gone wrong.
(Dennis De Peiza is labour management consultant to Regional Management Services Inc.  Visit  Send your comments to

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *