To Whomsoever This May Concern

Have been a part of many teams. Have realized that nothing is more important than mutual trust between the team members. As long as all stick together, no matter what comes, the sun always dawns after a long gloomy night. However, just when there appear cracks in the great wall of trust, all hell breaks loose.

Guess the same happened with the Great Indian Cricket Team under Ganguly. Mistrust, cross-talks, disrespect - all found their way in the wake of constant rebuking of Dada. This is not to say that Ganguly deserved to be a part of the team. But infights within the team just made matters worse.

Therefore, the first GOLDEN RULE of Organizations: TRUST, COME WHAT MAY!

Another thing that worries me the most, is of a team handling a social responsibility. Ok, the team took up the challenge, burnt midnight oil in a relentless pursuit to get where nobody had dared to go before. Ok, they took up the responsibility of people many times in number than their own strength. So, doesn't that mean that the team has to take decisions for the betterment of majority of people, even if they might have to cross swords with a small part of the same junta?
Isn't that the mandate they have earned? In that case, why is it that even a small blot can ruin the reputations of all team members, something that they have earned over the years, by never giving up? Why is it that a small step taken by the team, in the best interest of a larger mass, ends up backfiring? Just because a small class of people, or even a single person in some cases, was at loggerheads with them? Does the team have to ensure the best for a larger mass, or does it have to prevent the worst from happening for every "person" in that "people"?

I had always thought the goal of a team was defined in a positive sense. But certain recent happenings have put in enough doubts in my mind!

Have always believed in putting in the BEST efforts, for the BEST, come what may. So what if some rules had to be bent? Who created those rules in the first place? What was the basic objective of framing those set of rules? Wasn't it to ensure the BEST for the junta? It is fine when that BEST happens under the cover, and is not public knowledge. But why are questions raised on the "ethics" of the team as soon as those dealings are discovered? And that too, when team members had nothing to gain from those deals personally! All efforts going down the drain! A futile pursuit to give the best and ensure the best for the junta! Puts in enough doubts in my mind! Why the heck should I care about the people, if they don't care about the team? Just frame draconian rules and follow the RULE-BOOK, and ensure that the worst does not happen! That wont achieve any good, accepted. But that wont let anything bad happen either. Ha! No risk no reward!!

This again reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. The book is really great. Guess all the team members should follow the example set by John Galt, and quit. Let the leech elements in the junta do what they can without the "blood-filled" motivated members of the team. Why endure the pain of Hank Rearden? But no. All that matters in the end is Personal Satisfaction. We have done our best. So what if the people object? Let them do so. Atleast we know we have given our best. Atleast my "Karma" wont have any blemish. The others are just too insignificant. It is "me" that must matter to me.

GOLDEN RULE two for teams: BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU DO. Take all criticisms in your ride, and keep working to achieve the goals!

They said, " With great power comes great responsibility."
I say, " With great responsibility comes greater criticism. Play with it, and thou shalt succeed. Jump into it, and thy burns shalt not be cured."