Equal Balance

- Pallavi Jha

During a brainstorming session with a telecom major, it was highlighted that the eastern region was experiencing mild turbulence and rising resignations over the past two quarters. The top three managers of the region were high performers and were hired only a year ago. Though the revenues were somewhat in tune with the targets, team harmony was being affected. It was not loud, but evident. There was a consistency to it. Exit interviews were fine-tuned to ascertain the reasons, if any.

Apparently, the discussions centred around the personalities and aspirations of the trio— they were proven star performers, yet could not keep the morale of the team in sync with the performance.

Conventional wisdom advocates that one should always be in pursuit of superstars—those who can put the average performer to shame by excelling at their jobs. On the face of it, it may seem like a safe bet to assume that a team of ten peak performers will outdo a unit of five first-rate achievers and five mediocre ones. However, ground reports suggest that it would be unwise to always perceive this as a thumb rule.

In a series of experiments at Columbia University, researchers established a relationship between individual talent and team performance in sports by analysing the density of professional athletes in baseball, basketball, and football.

The results varied by sport. More the talent, the merrier it was for baseball. Performance elevated when more elite players were pumped into a team. However, when stuffed with the elite, basketball and soccer patterns revealed otherwise. Though initially the performance peaked, it soon hit a plateau—reflecting symptoms of decline.