The debacle of the Indian cricket team in the West Indies has reminded me of the rise and fall of the energy company Enron. This is no doubt a stretched analogy and I do not want anyone to think that I believe Dravid and his team mates should be indicted by the courts for dashing public expectations as were the Enron management for deceiving their public shareholders. I only want to say that as I watched our cricketers crumble in the face of modest opposition, I thought of the deleterious implications of a poorly conceived incentive structure.

Both the cricketers and the Enron management were strongly incentivised to perform but both failed to do so and called into question their governance structures. Both were the cynosure of public attention but then fell precipitously into the public doghouse (hopefully in the case of the cricketers only for a short while). I draw upon these two different story lines to highlight the consequences of an incentive system gone askew.

The Indian cricket team was billed as the strongest team to go to the World Cup since Kapil Dev brought home the trophy. It was believed that the batting lineup had tested master blasters; and that Greg Chappell’s focus on process, rigour and discipline had welded a solid force. Yet, the team was humiliated.

As I watched the batsmen hand over the match to Sri Lanka several questions crossed my mind. Had the lure of advertisement income and sponsorships been an impediment to their training? Had their iconic status so seduced them that they were more concerned about sustaining hype than in ironing out the wrinkles in their game? Had the politics of selection driven a wedge between the individual players and undermined team spirit? Had the cricket board’s obvious interest in maximising revenues and the politics that gets introduced when money is involved, compromised the spirit of the game?

... contd.