Common sense suggests that when Ashley Giles dropped Ricky Ponting's skied shot to deep square leg in the 2nd Ashes Test his error cost England 107 runs. At the time, Ponting had scored only 35 but he reached 142 before he was eventually dismissed. This simple view of cause and effect, which privileges big events (such as dropped catches) and ignores the multitude of other seemingly incidental happenings, is typical of the way that we think about 'how things happen' in sport, in life and in organizations. It is, though, a case of crooked thinking.
If Giles had taken the catch, we can say for certain that Ponting's impressive total of test match runs would indeed have been reduced by 107. Beyond that, we can be certain of nothing. Clearly, at 78 for 4, Australia would have been 'under the cosh' and their innings might well have folded. The odds would certainly have favoured England. At the same time, a backs-to-the-wall Australia might have responded in a way that would have made Ponting's dismissal largely irrelevant. This latter scenario is less probable but equally possible as a potential outcome. We simply don't know what might have emerged if Giles had caught the ball rather than dropping it. The psychological 'damage' to England in reprieving the World's No. 1 batsman might also prove crucial.
Actually, though, there is something else that we can be sure about. That is, we can say with absolute certainty that none of the other scores would have turned out in the way that they did 'in practice'. None of the runs that followed the dropped catch would have been scored, and none of the other wickets would have fallen when they did. This is obvious when we think about it. Instead of bowling the next ball to Ponting, Hoggard would have been faced by Clarke. Field settings, balls bowled, strokes played, runs scored, players' states and overall atmosphere would all have been different from that moment onward.
Cricket matches are usually thought to turn on 'big' events, such as dropped catches, missed run outs, 'Not Out' decisions by umpires, spectacular boundaries and so on. And yet, the seemingly mundane ball-by-ball happenings can equally define the developing pattern of the game and shape its overall outcome. If, for example, Ponting had taken one run instead of two at any stage during his innings, everything thereafter would have happened differently. He might, as a result, have scored more than 142, since the ball which eventually dismissed him would never have been bowled. He might just as easily have lost his wicket for a much lower score. Some events will inevitably have a bigger impact on what emerges than others, based upon how these are perceived and the responses that they invoke. In cricket as in life, though, small changes can have large, unpredictable effects.
A particularly graphic example of our tendency to dismiss the impact of everyday happenings on events and outcomes is the speculation that has arisen as to whether or not Monty Panesar would have caught the ball, if he had beeen selected ahead of Giles who is ordinarily seen as the better fielder. Had Panesar been in the team, the whole dynamics of the game would have changed - for better or worse from England's perspective. Not only would Panesar not have been in a position to catch the ball, the stroke would not have arisen in the first place!
Cricket, like all other team games, is a complex process of relating, in which batsmen, bowlers, fielders, umpires (and even the crowd) relate in complex ways with each other. A batsman's response to a bowler's delivery - and the outcome that emerges from this - is determined by the complex interplay of such things as the batsman's perception, skill, temperament etc; the quality of the ball that is bowled; the placement, agility and skill of the fielders; the condition of the pitch and speed of the outfield; the perceived qualities of the other batsman; the view of the umpires; the state of play at that time; the pattern of play to date; and so on. The bowler's delivery is similarly affected by these same factors, including their anticipation of how the batsman might respond.
Organizations similarly are complex responsive processes of relating*, in which outcomes are shaped not only by the 'big', highly visible events of policy setting, strategy development and formal change implementation but also by the multitude of informal conversations and interactions that join these together and bring them into play. These everyday conversations can 'change the game'; and managers need to actively engage with them, if they are to have the greatest influence that they can on the performance of their organizations.
See Stacey's book, Complex Responsive Processes
Comments