management mythos

52
Management Mythos-Devdutt Pattanaik (The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who decodes the wisdom of mythology for modern times. [email protected] ) Where management meets religion and mythology According to the Puranas, when Brahma creates the world, the Goddess appears as Saraswati, embodiment of knowledge, serene and aloof, dressed in white, holding a lute and a book, riding a heron. When Vishnu sustains the world, the Goddess appears as Lakshmi, stunning and alluring, dressed in red, bedecked in jewels, holding a pot that pours out gold and grain, riding an elephant that rises from a lotus lake. When Shiva destroys the world by shutting his eyes to it, the Goddess becomes Shakti – alternating as the naked and bloodthirsty Kali, who danced on his still body, and as the demure and maternal Gauri, who made him open his eyes with her affection. Saraswati, Lakshmi and Shakti are the three forms of the Goddess. They embody knowledge, wealth and power. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the three forms of God who create, sustain and destroy. Now observe carefully. The Goddesses are associated with nouns: knowledge, wealth and power. The Gods are associated with verbs: creating, sustaining, destroying . Knowledge/wealth/power can be created/sustained /destroyed. Knowledge/wealth/power provides the capability to create /sustain/destroy. Action is with the Gods — the result of the action is the Goddess who in turn provokes more action. God is the subject; Goddess the object. Before we jump to outraged gender-based conclusions (“ the scriptures are patriarchal and that is why they portray God, hence men, as

Upload: avinash-dulhani

Post on 01-Dec-2014

111 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Management Mythos

Management Mythos-Devdutt Pattanaik (The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who decodes the wisdom of mythology for modern times. [email protected])

Where management meets religion and mythology

According to the Puranas, when Brahma creates the world, the Goddess appears as Saraswati, embodiment of knowledge, serene and aloof, dressed in white, holding a lute and a book, riding a heron. When Vishnu sustains the world, the Goddess appears as Lakshmi, stunning and alluring, dressed in red, bedecked in jewels, holding a pot that pours out gold and grain, riding an elephant that rises from a lotus lake.

When Shiva destroys the world by shutting his eyes to it, the Goddess becomes Shakti – alternating as the naked and bloodthirsty Kali, who danced on his still body, and as the demure and maternal Gauri, who made him open his eyes with her affection.

Saraswati, Lakshmi and Shakti are the three forms of the Goddess. They embody knowledge, wealth and power. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the three forms of God who create, sustain and destroy.

Now observe carefully. The Goddesses are associated with nouns: knowledge, wealth and power. The Gods are associated with verbs: creating, sustaining, destroying . Knowledge/wealth/power can be created/sustained /destroyed. Knowledge/wealth/power provides the capability to create /sustain/destroy. Action is with the Gods — the result of the action is the Goddess who in turn provokes more action.

God is the subject; Goddess the object. Before we jump to outraged gender-based conclusions (“ the scriptures are patriarchal and that is why they portray God, hence men, as active and Goddess, hence women, as passive” ), note that Gods and Goddesses are embodiments of nongender based concepts that seek to enlighten, enrich and empower. A leader, whether it is a man or a woman, is God — the organisation is the Goddess.

The reason why the world/organisation is visualised in female form is because just as a woman creates life inside her body, a world/organisation creates knowledge/wealth/power inside itself. Man creates life outside his body; therefore man is the best representation for the one who creates, sustains, destroys the life-giving organisation.

God and Goddess, leader and organisation , cannot exist without the other. Without either there is neither. He or she can only create, sustain or destroy . What is created, sustained or destroyed is knowledge , wealth and power, which in turn offers more

Page 2: Management Mythos

opportunities to create, sustain and destroy.

Typically, in the corporate world we assume that a leader exists to create wealth — he is Brahma creating Lakshmi. But a Brahma creating Lakshmi will fail, in the long run, because he is too busy creating to bother with sustenance.

We often find fly-by-night operators in the business world who find validation in making that quick buck. These are the Brahmas of the world, desperate to get rich quick, without thinking about sustainability.

A good leader is a Brahma who creates Saraswati — knowledge. Knowledge manifests as innovation and ideas and inspiration . That is why Saraswati holds not just books and memory beads but also the lute with which she makes music. Knowledge appearing as insight provokes a systemic transformation in people. A good leader is constantly seeking wisdom, within himself and others.

Once Chandragupta was very hungry. The moment rice was served, he put his hand right in the centre of the pile. His fingers got singed and he withdrew instantly. “Never from the centre, child,” said his guru, Chanakya. “Always from the sides where it is cooler.” Chandragupta realised his master was not telling him about rice alone. He was warning him against his planned attack on Pataliputra , the capital of the Nanda Empire. It was a well guarded fortress. Better to go from the sides, conquer the surrounding , less formidable territories and gradually move in on the centre of power.

This insight made Chandragupta a great general. He was able to overthrow the Nandas and become ruler of the Magadhan Empire. It was knowledge that made him king of a prosperous king. His hunger for wisdom made knowledge appear before him. By becoming Brahma, he discovered Saraswati and so was able to become Vishnu with Lakshmi manifesting as his crown and kingdom.

It is said that Vishnu keeps Saraswati on his tongue. This makes Lakshmi jealous. She rushes towards him and plants herself in his heart. Vishnu knows that the fickle Lakshmi will leave as soon as Saraswati leaves his tongue. Thus to sustain Lakshmi, he needs Saraswati. Good leaders know that to sustain their business they constantly need to inspire, motivate people and at the same time innovate new products and services that will delight the customer. Lakshmi will come into the company where Saraswati thrives.

Knowledge management systems, databases, research documents, patents are all tangible forms of Saraswati. A good leader focuses on them, rather than on account books. He ensures the Saraswati that is generated within the organisation stays within the organisation. In other words, by being Brahma who creates Saraswati he remains Vishnu who sustains Lakshmi.

With knowledge and wealth, comes power and arrogance . The belief that one is

Page 3: Management Mythos

invincible and capable of doing anything. When this happens, the organisation becomes naked and bloodthirsty – provoking the leader to act rashly and indiscriminately, indifferent to all rules of conduct, making him believe that he is above the law. In other words, the organisation becomes Kali. A good leader recognises this rapidly and becomes Shiva.

He has to destroy the rising ego and arrogance that blinds good judgement. He shuts his eyes and lies still, allowing the Goddess to dance on him but refusing to respond to her. Only then the Goddess becomes Gauri — dressed in green, she becomes maternal and affectionate , and with gentleness she requests Shiva to open his eyes and become Shankar, the benevolent, boon-bestowing , wise ascetic. Thus a good leader has to be fully sensitive to the corrupting influence of power — and try hard not to succumb to it.

Ultimately to establish a knowledge, wealth and power generating organisation, a leader has to be a teacher, a king and an ascetic all rolled into one. When the three Gods thrive inside, the three Goddess will thrive outside.

If Vishnu is the CEO, then his office is Vaikuntha, the ultimate paradise, a place where his every word is law and every wish a command. What cannot be resolved elsewhere can only be resolved in Vaikuntha. Naturally everybody wants to go to Vaikuntha. Outsiders, from vendors to consumers, even kings of other kingdoms, who wish to explore opportunities, make alliances, settle disputes and manage threats.

Insiders, from managers to executives to trainees, when they feel the king's courtiers are ill-equipped to resolve their problems or when they feel the ministers are not telling the king the truth. Vishnu welcomes all. At least he intends to.

A sage called Bhrigu once made a trip of the heavens to find out who is the greatest of all the Gods. Brahma was so busy creating the world that he did not bother to welcome Bhrigu. Shiva, with his eyes shut, was totally withdrawn and indifferent to Bhrigu's presence. Both were cursed by Bhrigu. Vishnu, busy managing the affairs of the world, at first did not notice Bhrigu but then apologized profusely, falling at his feet. For a visitor to Vaikuntha is God to God.

Indra, king of the Devas, once made the mistake of ignoring a visitor whose name was Durvasa. As a result he was cursed - Lakshmi was forced to leave his side. Indra's paradise, was stripped of its splendour. The trees did not blossom or bear fruit. Cows did not give milk. Gandharvas were unable to make music. A reminder of the consequences of ignoring a visitor. For it is the people who seek the king - be it outsiders or insiders - who make the kingdom valuable.

But even if he wishes otherwise, a leader just cannot make time for everybody. He, like the rest of us, has 24 hours in a day and that time has to be rationed well between his personal life and his public role. In Mughal times, the king had two courts: the Diwan-e-khas for his executive council through whom he managed the kingdom and a more general open Diwan-e-aam for the public, when everyone could meet him and where issues that his executive council could not resolve were addressed.

It was in these times that great value was given to the position of the doorkeeper. Seated in the gatehouse, at the entrance of the king's citadel, it was his job to limit

Page 4: Management Mythos

access of the king and filter out the undesirables. In time, these doorkeepers came to have a mythology of their own.

In a Shiva temple, for example, one is advised to acknowledge Nandi, the bull who sits before the deity, with a touch, or maybe an offering of flowers, and only then enter the main shrine. "Be in Nandi's good books," one is told, "Since he is always with Shiva, Shiva listens to whatever Nandi has to say."

Vishnu's Vaikuntha has two doorkeepers: Jaya and Vijaya. In art, they are visualized as looking exactly like Vishnu, perhaps to remind us that our impression of the CEO often emerges from our impression of his doorkeepers.

If one looks carefully though at the images of Jaya and Vijaya in a traditional Vaishnava temple such as the temple of Tirupati Balaji in Andhra Pradesh, one will notice that while they look like Vishnu, holding a conch-shell and a discus, and a mace, they usually do not hold a lotus. And they sport fangs like dogs or serpents. Thus the doorkeepers, while apparently like Vishnu, are not as welcoming - they are stern, keeping the unworthy out.

The story goes that once the four boysages known as the Sanat Kumars went to Vaikuntha to meet Vishnu. But they were stopped at the door by the Jaya and Vijaya on grounds that Vishnu was sleeping. The Sanat Kumars tried entering Vaikuntha three times and each time they were stopped on the same grounds. Since they looked like boys, the Sanat Kumars concluded that Jaya and Vijaya were not taking them seriously.

In fact they were convinced that the two were humouring the four of them. Annoyed, they cursed the doorkeepers that they would lose their exalted position and be reborn on earth as much hated demons known as Hiranayaksha and Hiranakashipu. The demon-like fangs of Jaya and Vijaya, say artisans, are a reminder of how scary they appeared to the boy-sages.

It is best that an aspiring leader keep in mind that he has many Jaya and Vijayas of his own - from the gatekeeper who lets in the cars to the receptionist in the lobby who shows in the guests to the secretary in the outer office who checks the appointments to the executive assistant who churns out all the key documents just before the meeting to the admin-boy who serves tea to guests.

Each one of them has the power to make an impression about the CEO depending on how they treat a visitor. An MNC may talk highly about respecting human values but a rude remark from the gatekeeper or a cold stare from the secretary and the impression about the CEO, however grand and generous he may be, crumbles instantly. These reactions can make or break the meeting that is to follow.

One CEO visiting another CEO was so annoyed because the gatekeeper insisted he get off his car and sign the muster book that he turned around and signed the deal with another company. Another visitor was forced to call the CEO himself when his driver got into an argument with the security at the gate. The CEO was unable to help because the security rules came from the US (it was an American MNC and incident took place shortly after 9/11) and he would be pulled up if he interfered in the matter.

We live in times of tightened security. Nothing is worse than entering a meeting room after feeling one has been violated. But with a little training security personnel can be taught how to do their job without disrespecting incoming people, howsoever brusque

Page 5: Management Mythos

they may seem.

In some offices, one is made to sit in a waiting room and wait till you are fetched by the person who one has come to meet. That is all very fine. But the room often does not have enough chairs or a water fountain or a toilet close-by. No pleasant images to see or interesting reading material on the table. This can be quite disconcerting - especially when the waiting is prolonged.

Matters become worse when the secretary raises her head and rudely asks, "Who are you?" There was a time when secretaries were trained to treat visitors as guests. A smile helped. Followed by clarifications of identity and purpose. Then being led to a seat or a meeting room, followed by a glass of water, (very important in a hot country like India especially). Much better than being pointed to the water cooler. It helps if tea or coffee is served - not in a disposable coffee cup but in crockery worthy of the leader's status.

This may all seem very colonial. In Pax Americana, these things may not matter. There may be no secretary or doorkeeper. You can simply walk into a CEO's office who just might be wearing shorts throwing a ball through hoops while discussing a billion dollar deal. But they do matter in India where Atithi Devoh Bhavah - a guest is like God. The way a visitor is treated tells one how a leader values his people.

The Sanat-kumars perhaps did not come by prior appointment. But Vishnu with his arms spread out perhaps gave the impression that everyone was welcome to Vaikuntha anytime. This instruction was perhaps not given to Jaya and Vijaya. Or perhaps the timing was all wrong. Vishnu was asleep or on a cosmic assignment, unavailable, and the doorkeepers were perhaps only doing their job when they said, "Come later," but viewed from the pointof-view of the boy-sages , they were being demonic.

The next time you visit your office - check out the Jaya and Vijayas who stand between you and your visitors and make sure they don't have fangs. On earth, in Kali-yuga, the curse of the boy-sages may fall not on the doorkeepers but directly on the leader within Vaikuntha.

Of the 18 days of the Kurukshetra battle described in the Mahabharta, nine days were indecisive. The Kauravas , with 11 armies, outnumbered the seven armies of the Pandavas. For the Pandavas, it was critical that Bhisma, the old but very able commander of the Kaurava forces, be killed.

So Krishna decided to make Shikhandi ride on his chariot alongside Arjun. Shikhandi was born with the body of a woman which later transformed into the body of a man. Bhisma believed that a creature such as this was a woman and so refused to raise his bow against her. The Kauravas protested her entry into the battlefield but the Pandavas saw Shikhandi as a man. Arjun had no qualms about using him/her a human shield, raising his bow at the invincible Bhisma and pinning him to the ground with hundreds of arrows.

Bhisma can be seen as a man who is paralysed by his own interpretation of a situation . But any situation can be seen in many different ways. Through alternate interpretation , it is possible to challenge anyone. Defeat is inevitable if one is unable to accommodate an alternate point of view. Had Bhisma accepted that Shikhandi was a man there was no way he could have been defeated.

Drona, the commander of the Kaurava army after Bhisma, was a ruthless killer, who

Page 6: Management Mythos

broke Pandava morale by killing Arjun's son Abhimanyu and even making his soldiers fight at night, against the rule of war. To defeat him, Krishna spread the rumour that Ashwatthama was dead. Ashwatthama happened to be the name of Drona's son and Drona was extremely attached to him.

Ashwattama was the reason for Drona's life. On hearing this rumour, his heart sank. Was his son dead? Yes, said all the Pandava warriors surrounding him. Yes, said Krishna. Drona turned to Yudhishtira, the most upright Pandava. Yudhishtira knew that the Ashwatthama being referred to was an elephant. Still he told Drona - either a man or an elephant, Ashwatthama is surely dead.

In the din of the battle, looking at the petrified face of Yudhistira, Drona was convinced that his son was dead and that Yudhishtira gave him the strange answer to break the terrible news gently. He lowered his weapons. Taking advantage of his this, the leader of the Pandava army raised his sword and beheaded Drona.

Drona can be seen as a man who is extremely attached to something personal . To break such a man down, that which he is attached to must be destroyed. Or at least he must be given the impression that it is destroyed. His obsession will cloud his judgement; he will not bother to delve deeper and check the facts. Many leaders have strong likes and dislikes and this can be used by corporate spin-doctors and gossip mongers to destroy relationships. Leaders have to be wary of this. They must check facts especially if the news relates to those who matter most to them. Otherwise, like Drona, they will end up beheaded.

Shalya who became commander of the Kaurava army on the last day, had, according to the Indonesian Mahabharata , a demon that came out of his ears every time he was attacked. This demon became stronger if the attack against Shalya became more intense. To defeat Shalya, Krishna suggested that Yudhishtira fight him, not with rage but with love. So Yudhishtira walked towards Shalya with great affection. The demon in Shlaya became so weak that it could not even come out of Shalya's ears. When Yudhishtira came close to Shalya, with no malice in his heart, Yudhishtira raised his spear and impaled the last leader of the Kauravas.

A powerful lesson here. There are people who become strong in confrontations . Such people must never be confronted. Their point must not be validated through arguments. The best way to invalidate them is to simply agree with them. This unnerves them. They come prepared to face all arguments and, in the absence of any, feel disempowered . Confused, they become vulnerable.

Hindu Gods are distinguished from each other by the symbols they carry. Shiva, the ascetic, for example, is identified by his trident and rattle drum. Brahma, the priest-teacher, is identified by his books, rosary and pot. Vishnu, the leader-king, is identified with four symbols: conch-shell trumpet or shankh, discus whirring around his index finger or chakra, a mace or gada and a lotus or padma.

Come to think of it a good leader also has only four tools to get his work done. His very own shankh, chakra, gada and padma . Only, one does not identify his tools using mythological vocabulary.

Vishnu's shankh or conchshell trumpet is blown to announce his presence on a battlefield. In Vedic times, this instrument was used by the commander to rally their troops. Warriors also used this to demonstrate their stamina before their enemies for

Page 7: Management Mythos

blowing a conch-shell trumpet was a measure of lung-power and mind control. Every warrior in the Mahabharat from Krishna to Arjun had his very own conch-shell.

The conch-shell can be viewed as an instrument of communication. The first rule of leadership is to be an effective communicator. Your team must know who you are, what your capabilities are, what your vision is and what you expect them to do, and why, and how this will help in achieving your final objective.

Your competition also needs to know that you are powerful and they must avoid confrontation . Unless you communicate , nobody is aware of your presence. 'Blowing your own trumpet' and getting your thoughts across is necessary if anything needs to get done.

Vishnu's chakra, which whirs round his index finger, is both a weapon as well as a symbol of life that Vishnu sustains . As a weapon, it strikes a target, trims the unwanted and undesirable elements like an electric saw and returns to Vishnu's finger like a boomerang. As a symbol of life, it indicates time (what goes around comes around in this life or the next) and space (the circular horizon of our worldview).

The chakra can be viewed as a symbol of review. A good leader's job does not end with communicating what he desires and what he expects from his team. He reviews their progress regularly by organising daily meetings, weekly meetings, monthly meetings. In these meetings, he checks what has been done and what has not been done. He ensures that the team has not drifted from the goal. He discovers what has worked and what has not.

He identifies new creative thoughts and anticipates possible hurdles. This he does again and again and again. Repetition is the key word. With each review, things get trimmed and the vision gets sharper and clearer so that a new horizon of possibilities emerge.

To keep your team on track, the traditional method is to use the system of reward and punishment discretly. Vishnu's carrot and stick approach of leadership is represented through his mace or gada and his lotus or padma. The mace is like a teacher's ruler, to punish those who do not do what they are supposed to do. The lotus rich with nectar and pollen, that attracts bees and butterflies, is for those who do what they are supposed to do and more.

The one he uses to strike down the rule/law/system breakers. The other he uses to reward the rule/law/system followers . Thus he keeps his team on the straight and narrow, ensuring they achieve what they set out to achieve together. The one ensures that errors are not repeated. The other ensures that best practices are always followed. Doorkeepers of Vaikuntha

The Jayas and Vijayas who stand between the CEO and the visitors to his office best not have fangs.

In some organisations, the four tools generate fear and anxiety. When this happens, both the goal and the tools have to be relooked at. Is the goal driven by reality or falsehood? Is it motivated by greed? Is the conch-shell trumpeting or the rotation of the wheel excessive? Is the mace too harsh or the lotus too stingy? In some organizations, the tools serve no purpose.

Page 8: Management Mythos

People continue to do what they are supposed to do, moving in different directions, with no alignment to each other. When this happens, the communication has to be relooked at. Has the message gone through correctly or is the message changing repeatedly confusing all or is there a message at all?

The message of ten contains only the goal - what must be achieved. The conch-shell , however, must also communicate how it must be achieved. The aim of the review is to focus on the how - if the prescribed methods are working or failing, the reasons for the success and failure. Often review meetings are not used for review what has been planned - they are used to generate new ideas and discard old ones.

New whats and new hows to replace old whats and old hows. Review meetings can generate new insights but it must never be at the cost of the planned agenda. New ideas must be parked, reviewed later and then communicated accordingly. Otherwise , the review loses its purpose and the conch-shell only produces cacophony, with things going in every direction.

If all is well, if the what and how are clear, and if short term results show that they are achievable, then the only way to reach the ultimate goal is to make things happen is by using reward and punishment to drive the team. Reward need not be monetary; it can be a kind word, recognition, acknowledgment. Punishment need not be a public humiliation or a cut in incentive; it can be a simple awareness of failure.

Good leaders typically reward the team in times of success but punish themselves in times of failure. By taking the ownership of failure, they generate a more powerful relationship with the organisation. Mahabharat tells the story of Kuru who used his own flesh as seed and his blood as water when drought struck his kingdom. This suffering for the sake of his people earned him the admiration of the gods who declared that those who die in Kuru's field and live as Kuru did would go to heaven.

Proof of optimal tool usage comes when Vishnu, the leader, creates Vaikuntha, an organisation which is stable and harmonious , where every individual thrives, where the team works in alignment, and where organisational goals are achieved to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

1. Does packaging matter more than content?

The sage Uttanka stood in the middle of the desert. He was suddenly thirsty. He remembered a promise made to him by Krishna long ago, "I will bring

you nectar of the gods whenever you genuinely yearn for it." That is what Uttanka genuinely wanted at that moment: nectar of the gods. He shut his eyes and wished for it. He opened his eyes expecting a smiling Krishna to stand there with a cup brimming with sparkling nectar. There was no Krishna. There was no one, just a vast sandy emptiness stretching to the horizon.

Uttanka was irritated. He shut his eyes once more and wished for nectar and remembered Krishna fervently. This time when he opened his eyes, he saw a beggar covered with filth holding a dirty stinking bowl in his hand. It contained water. "Drink," said the beggar, "You look thirsty." Uttanka turned away from him, repelled by his ugliness. The beggar went away.

Page 9: Management Mythos

Uttanka was now parched. In fury he yelled, "Keep your promise, Krishna." A voice boomed from the sky, "I did. I forced Indra to offer you a bowl of nectar. He just did. And you just refused." It dawned on Uttanaka that the filthy beggar who offered him a bowl of water was actually Indra offering him nectar. He had assumed how Indra should look. He had paid a price for his assumption.

There are many Uttanakas in the corporate world, men who believe packaging is an indicator of content. Prashant is one such Uttanka. He is the owner of a medium sized BPO. One of his young executives, Suhas, came up with a wonderful idea of shift rotation to improve performance and reduce attrition. Suhas was a young man of twenty-six who had spent five years in the BPO learning the ropes. He did not know English but that did not matter since the calls he serviced were for the local market. He was not even a graduate; he could not afford to go to college and needed to work. He was hired by the organisation because he came very cheap. But despite his background, Suhas was extremely sharp and sensitive. He recognised the problem that the BPO was facing and came up with a deceptively simple way of overcoming it.

Unfortunately, when Suhas presented the solution to Prashant, he found himself being dismissed. Prashant did not even hear him out because he assumed someone as young, poor and barely qualified as Suhas could not possibly solve his problems. A year later, Prashant hired a consultant. After six months of investigation, the solution that emerged was exactly what Suhas had come up with almost eighteen months earlier. Prashant kicked himself for not listening to Suhas as he signed the cheque for his very expensive consultant.

Sandeep, however, has accepted the existence of Uttankas in the market place. He has to deal with many governmental agencies. He knows that whenever he asks for an appointment, he will not get it. He will be shunted from one desk to another. Ministers and bureaucrats simply give him the run around. In frustration, he came up with a rather shallow idea. He hired Bob, a tall, blonde, big-built, bearded Australian, who was keen to gain some experience in third-world markets. Bob was given the designation of Chief Consumer Strategist. Every time Bob called the government agencies, he was given appointments. Sandeep knew it was because of his Australian drawl. Every time Bob entered the offices, along with Sandeep, he was taken straight to the minister or the senior bureaucrats, the very same people who never gave Sandeep the time of the day.

In wry amusement, Sandeep observed how everyone ignored the fact that Bob was too young to be a Chief anything. Bob gave a small speech after which Sandeep made the real pitch. Invariably, the deal would go through. Sandeep was very happy. One day, he told Bob, "They are so eager to impress the white guy that they are willing to sign on any paper. That makes you a very useful tool for my business." Bob did not feel bad at the racist jibe; he was learning an important lesson in marketing. For some people what matters more is the packaging, even at the cost of the content.

2. Death by Mimicry

Jain documents say that in every era, there is a hero called Vasudeva who defeats a villain called Prati-Vasudeva . One such Vasudeva was Krishna

who defeated the villain Jarasandha. But the Bhagavat Purana says that Paundraka, king of Karusha, declared that Krishna was not the true Vasudeva ; it was he. So Paundraka wore a crown with a peacock feather, held a lotus flower in one hand and a conch-shell in another. Around his neck, he put a garland of forest flowers, the vana-mali . In his ears, he put earrings that were shaped like dolphins, the makarakundala .

Page 10: Management Mythos

He draped the bright yellow silk dhoti or the Pitambara . He even got his hair styled, so it was curly, just like Krishna’s . He insisted on eating rich creamy butter in each meal. He even played the flute in flowery meadows on moonlit nights and got queens and concubines to dance around him. “See,” he said, “I do everything he does. I am the true Vasudeva . Krishna is the false Vasudeva.” The people of Karusha, some gullible, some confused, some frightened, worshipped Paundraka with flowers and incense and sweets and lamps. Everyone wondered who was actually the true Vasudeva, since both looked so alike.

Paundraka’s courtiers pointed out to him that Krishna of Dwaraka had a Sudarshan Chakra, a wheel-shaped weapon that no other man has. “Oh that,” Paundraka retorted caustically, “He borrowed it from me. I must get it back from the impostor.” So a messenger was sent to inform Krishna to return the Sudarshan Chakra or face stern consequences . Krishna said, “Sure, let him come and get it.”

Irritated that Krishna did not come to return the Sudarshan Chakra himself, Paundraka set out to Dwaraka on his chariot decorated with a banner with the image of the eagle Garuda on it, reinforcing his identity as Vasudeva. When he reached the gates of Dwaraka, he shouted, “False Vasudeva, return the Sudarshan Chakra that rightfully belongs to me, the true Vasudeva.” Krishna said, “Here it is.” The Sudarshan Chakra that whirred around Krishna’s index finger flew towards Paundraka . Paundraka stretched out his hand to receive it. As the wheel alighted on his finger, he realised it was heavier than looked, so heavy that before he could call for help, he was crushed to a pulp under the great whirring wheel. That was the end of the man who pretended to be Vasudeva.

One often finds the corporate world teeming with false Vasudevas. They know to walk the walk and talk the talk, but simply don’t know what the talk is all about. They know how to dress, how to carry their laptops and their Blackberrys , what cars to drive, which clubs to join, where to be seen, with whom and how to use words like ‘value enhancement’ and ‘on the same page’ . In other words, they know the behaviour that projects them as ‘corporate leaders’ , but they have no clue as to what leadership actually means.

At an interview in a fast-growing firm, Vijaychandra selected a young man who showed all signs of having the talent and drive of a leader. The young man’s name was Jaipal. He came from the right universities, had the right credentials and the right testimonies. He dressed the right way, spoke with the right accent and used the right words. He even played golf! He was fit to head the new e-business division. Two years down the line however, despite all the magnificent power point presentations and excel sheets that impressed quite a few angel investors, the revenue was way below the mark. The market had just not responded. Jaipal knew how to talk business, but he did not know how to do business.

Vijaychandra decided to study what Jaipal had done in the past two years. Jaipal, he realised, had stayed in the right hotels and driven the right cars, but he had never really gone down to meet the vendors and the customers. He did not really immerse himself in the market research. For that he had hired help. He focused on ‘strategy’ but not on ‘tactics’ – he loved boardroom brainstorming but not shop floor sweat. His organisation structure was designed such that it kept him away from the frontline. He simply assumed that his team would know what to do in the market place.

He had never picked up the phone and heard the clients complain — he preferred the summary of conclusions provided by reputed analysts. He did not hear his sales people whine and groan, he preferred the echoes of the market presented by strategy consultants. Vijaychandra realised this was a false Vasudeva – all imitation , no

Page 11: Management Mythos

inspiration.

The false Vasudeva is always good at mimicry. And a good mime can fool an audience . But ultimately the audience has to pay when it is unable to distinguish mimicry from the real thing. Vijaychandra learnt this the hard way.

3. How organisations treat support staff is an indicator of leadership empathy

For eighteen days, the kauravas and the pandavas fought on the plains of Kurukshetra. Hundreds of soldiers were killed on either side. In the midst

of this massacre one hears a heart-warming tale.

Arjuna, the chief archer of the Pandava army, rode on a chariot pulled by four white horses. His charioteer was Krishna. At one point, in the middle of the war, Krishna said, “We have to stop Arjuna. The horses are tired. They need to rest and be refreshed. Shoot your arrow into the ground and bring out some water so that I can bathe and water the horses. Keep the enemy at bay with a volley of arrows while I do so.” Arjuna did as instructed.

He shot an arrow into the ground, released water and created a small pond where Krishna was able to tend to the horses. Standing on the chariot, Arjuna shot arrows and kept the enemies at bay while the horses rested. Refreshed, they were able to pull the chariot once again with renewed vigour.

The horses pulling Arjuna’s chariot did not ask to be refreshed. Krishna sensed their exhaustion and made resources available so that they could be comforted . Often we forget the ‘horses’ who help us navigate through our daily lives.

Horses are a crude metaphor for those who make our lives comfortable but who do not have much of a voice when it comes to their own comfort. In every office, especially in India, there are a whole host of people who keep the office running — the office boy, the canteen boy, the security guard, the drivers, the peons. This is the silent support staff. They take care of the ‘little things’ that enable us to achieve the ‘big things’ . A simple study of how organisations treat this silent support staff is an indicator of leadership empathy.

Randhir drives his boss to work every day negotiating through heavy highway traffic for over two hours each way. His boss, Mr. Chaudhary, is the partner of a large consulting firm, responsible for over nearly 50 high net worth clients. This means a lot of travel both in the city and outside.

This means early morning airport drops and late night airport pickups. This also means travelling from meetings from one end of the city to another and short trips to satellite cities.

Randhir is frustrated. His boss does not know that he lives in a shanty town an hour away from Mr. Chaudhary’s swanky apartment block. To travel to the place of work, he needs to take a bus or an auto. These are not easily available early morning and late night.

His travel allowance is too meagre to take care of this. When he raised this issue with Mr. Chaudhary, he was told, “This is what the company policy says you should be paid.” Randhir does not understand policy. He serves Mr. Chaudhary, not the company. But Mr. Chaudhary does not see it that way. Then there are Sundays when Mr.

Page 12: Management Mythos

Chaudhary visits his farmhouse with Mrs. Chaudhary and the little ones. No holidays for Randhir. “His family is in the village so why does he need a holiday?”

Often there is no parking space at places where Mr. Chaudhary has meetings . Often there are parking spaces but no amenities for drivers — a place to rest or a decent loo.

“You cannot eat in the car; I do not like the smell,” says Mr. Chaudhary, who also disables the music system when he leaves the car, “So that he does not waste the battery.” And when Mr. Chaudhary got a 40% bonus over and above his Rs 2 crore CTC, he very generously gave Randhir a 500 rupee hike. “I am being fair. That’s more than what the other drivers got. I don’t want to disrupt the driver market.”

Mr. Chaudhary’s empathy for Randhir is much less than Krishna’s empathy for his horses. And Randhir is no horse; he is a human being. He is one of the silent support staff without a voice. If he speaks, he will be silenced, or worse, replaced. If he shouts, the management will fear ‘rise of union thinking’ and shoot him down. He is but a line item in the balance sheet, often under “outsourced services” .

One wonders, does Randhir fall in the purview of management? He is neither part of the organisation nor the market. Is he the responsibility of the leader or the administration team? He is neither Arjuna nor Krishna.

Yes, the Kauravas have to be defeated. Yes, the Pandavas have to win. Strategies have to be thought of. Tactics have to be implemented. But surely not at the cost of the silent support staff. They are as much a part of the war as the warriors.

4. Do humans reorganise the rules of nature?

One day states the Bhagavat Puran, the earth-goddess took the form of a cow and went to Vishnu with tears in her eyes complaining how the kings of

the earth were exploiting her. Her udders were sore, squeezed by human greed. Vishnu promised to set things right and so descended on earth as Krishna.

In the Mahabharat, however, Krishna advises the Pandavs to set a forest aflame. This forest, Khandavprasth, is the share of property given to the Pandavs by their uncle when they demand their inheritance. As the trees burn, the animals and birds of the forest try to escape. Krishna instructs Arjun to circle the forest on his chariot and shoot down every escaping bird and beast down. Hundreds of animals are thus massacred . The rest roasted alive. The serpents beg the rain-god , Indra, to come to their rescue. But again, on Krishna’s advise, Arjun uses his arrows to create a canopy over the forest preventing the water from dousing the flames. None are spared except an Asura called Maya on condition that he build for the Pandavs on the gutted land a magnificent city called Indraprasth, which goes on to become the greatest city in the world.

On one hand, Vishnu promises to protect the earth from humans; on the other hand Krishna himself indulges in an activity that damages the earth. What is happening ?

These two stories draw attention to the nature of human civilisation and one unspoken aspect of leadership and organisation : the power of authority.

Nature is intrinsically wild – wanting to go in its own way. Nature’s order is created through the game of survival. Every creature is on its own. Through strength or cunning, every plant and animal can make their own space. Those who are unable to withstand the opposition or exploit the opportunity wither away and die. Nature is thus

Page 13: Management Mythos

generous on one hand, giving total freedom and all kinds of possibilities to the mighty and indifferent on the other, offering no help to the meek.

The human mind rejects this state of being . Humans have the power to reorganise the rules of nature so that life becomes more predictable and secure, and one can look beyond survival. When the Pandavas declare their intention to become king, they are essentially saying they are unwilling to accept the natural state of things. They wish to domesticate nature so that all creatures align to a set of rules — their rules. This means destruction of all other rules and laws.

Nature has two parts: the mind (internal nature) and the forest (external nature) — both need to be tamed. The king ensures that the mind of his people is disciplined and aligned to his way of thinking and performing through logic, reward, punishment and constant coaching. The trees and creepers of the forest are destroyed to make way for fields and orchards where only the seed chosen by the king is planted. All other plants that attempt to grow on the king’s land are declared weeds — to be pulled out and cast away. A culture is born where it is clear what is acceptable and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. The benchmark of such judgements is laid down by the king. From one point of view, a king and leader is doing a good thing. Creating resources and opportunities for his people by laying down the law but on the other hand he is curbing freedom or at least controlling it. A king has no choice but to tread this delicate line.

In the Mahabharata, during their exile in the forest, the sages tell the Pandavas the story of Ushinara, king of Shibi. One day, a dove came to the king and begged the king to grant him protection. When the king promised to protect him, a hawk, who was pursuing the dove, asked, “What will I eat then?” The king told the hawk to eat any other dove but this one. The hawk argued that was unfair – why should other doves be sacrificed so that the king could keep his promise to his dove. The king then requested the hawk to eat any other bird or beast. The hawk argued that was unfair – why should other birds and beasts be sacrificed so that the king could keep his promise to his dove. “Then eat me,” said the king, offering pieces of his flesh. These were placed on a balancing scale so that the hawk got flesh equal in measure to the dove’s weight. To the astonishment of the king, the dove was so heavy that he had to give up almost all the flesh of his body.

Typically, the story is narrated to extol the virtues of the king Ushinara’s kindness and sacrifice. But there is an underlying wisdom in this story. In nature, hawks eat doves. By introducing the human virtue of kindness into the natural law, the king could not make both the hawk and the dove happy. Either the dove had to die or the hawk had to go starving. Since neither was acceptable, the king had to die. If kings have to thrive then someone will benefit and someone will suffer. The king’s authority cannot make everyone happy — either the animals will thrive or the city will be built. This tough lesson is taught to the Pandavas when the forest of Khandavaprastha is burnt to make way for Indraprastha .

That being said, the scriptures repeatedly tell the story of Vena, a king who so excessively plundered the earth, that the sages were forced to kill him using a blade of grass that they transformed into a potent missile using magical mantras. Then the king’s corpse was churned. All negative aspects of the king was cast away and a purer, more noble king, Prithu was created. The gods declared Prithu the new king by giving him a bow. The earth, still reeling under the impact of Vena’s reign, refused to let the seeds sprout and the plants flower and bear fruit. Taking the form of a cow she ran away and Prithu chased her on his chariot, his new bow in hand. “If you kill me, all life will end,” said the earth-cow . Prithu then lowered his bow and begged the earth to feed his subjects. He promised to be a king who treats the earth as a cowherd treats a cow. He will love her, protect her, nurture her. In exchange she will provide milk and dung that will be the food and fuel of human civilisation. She will be Go-mata , the cow mother, and he will be Go-pala , the cow keeper.

Thus Prithu realises the bow was given to him by the gods not to hunt the earth down or to domesticate her and strip her of her wildness but to learn the importance of balance. A bow is useless if the string is too loose; it will break if the string is too tight. Likewise, a king has to balance — his desire to control and domesticate nature with the wisdom to let nature be and thrive freely. A good king knows when to stop: how much of the forest should be

Page 14: Management Mythos

burnt and how much should not. How much alignment he should seek and how much freedom he must give.

5. Creating generosity, while moving up the ladder

One day, a king named Bhoj was passing near a field outside his city. There he observed something very peculiar. As he and his soldiers approached

the field, the farmer of the field screamed and shouted, “Stay away, stay away, you and your horses will destroy the crops. Don’t you have any pity on poor people such as me?” Surprised by the behaviour of the cantankerous farmer, Bhoj moved away.

But as soon as he turned his back, the farmer changed his tune to say, “Where are you going, my king? Please come to my field, let me water your horses and feed your soldiers . Surely you will not say no to the hospitality of this humble farmer?”

Not wanting to hurt the farmer, though amused by his turnaround, Bhoj once again moved towards the field. Again the farmer shouted, “Hey, go away. Your horses and your soldiers are damaging what is left of my crop. You wicked king, go away.” Bhoj once again turned away. Again the farmer changed his tune, “Hey, why are you turning away? Come back. You are my guests. Let me have the honour of serving you.”

Bhoj wondered what was happening. This happened a few more times. Bhoj observed the farmer carefully. He noticed that whenever the farmer was rude, he was standing on the ground. But whenever he was hospitable, he was standing on top of a mound in the middle of the field. Bhoj realised that the farmer’s split personality had something to do with the mound. He immediately ordered his soldiers to dig the mound in the centre of the field. Naturally, the farmer did not like this and began protesting. But Bhoj paid scant attention to him.

Within the mound, the soliders found a wonderful golden throne. As Bhoj was about to sit on it, the throne spoke up, “This is the throne of Vikramaditya, the great. Sit on it only if you are as generous and wise as he was. If not, you will meet your death on the throne.” The throne then proceeds to tell Bhoj thirty-two stories of Vikramaditya, each extolling a virtue of kingship, the most important virtue being generosity. Thus through these stories, Bhoj learnt what it takes to be a good king.

The “32 tales of Vikramaditya’s throne” is part of Indian folklore. They are often inappropriately referred to as children’s stories, but in fact they were never meant to entertain children ; they were meant to shape the mind of future leaders.

And so very few people notice the most interesting part of this story —what does the king’s throne do the farmer? It makes him generous. The farmer is insecure and selfish when on the ground. As soon as he is on top of the mound, he becomes generous. On the ground, he is the common man. On top of the mound, he is what a king should be.

The second part of the story is equally interesting . The throne does not let Bhoj sit on it. “Are you as worthy and generous as Vikramaditya ?” it asks through its many stories. So we are left wondering — does the throne transform a man into a king, hence generous, or must a man first transform into a generous soul and thus become worthy of the throne?

Either way, generosity seems to the hallmark of kingship, hence leadership, at least in Indian folklore. Animals do not give. They can only take. Through strength and cunning, they take food and shelter, in order to survive. Humans however can give food and shelter enabling others not only to survive but also to thrive. Thus generosity is most peculiar to humans; and the one who displays it most magnificently, is recognised as king. A king or leader is ‘creator of opportunities’.

Page 15: Management Mythos

6. Leadership by fear: Tried and tested method

In ancient India, the throne on which kings sat was known as the singh-asan, the lion-seat. The patron goddess of kings, Durga, also rode lions.

Images of lions adorned the gates of royal palaces and could be seen atop pillars.

One such image adorns our national emblem. The close association of lions with royalty had a reason. Everyone knew that the lion was the king of the jungle, the greatest predator, on top of the food chain, with no natural enemy. But that was not what a king was supposed to be.

Lions are the ultimate alpha male. A lion lays claim over a pride of lionesses by fighting off other males. The battle is fierce. The winner takes it all. The losers are left without mates. There is no sharing. When a lion takes over a pride it kills all the cubs fathered by the previous alpha male.

Thus he ensures that only his gene pool survives. Having taken over a pride he rests, leaving all the hunting to the lionesses. When the lionesses hunt prey, they make way and allow the lion to eat his fill before they feed themselves. Thus in a pride, the lionesses do all the work while the lion enjoys the fruits of their labour.

They hunt, he eats. They bear his cubs and take care of the young, but it is the lion that decides if a young cub should live or die. He is the absolute master and they are his slaves.

For many people, lions are the perfect symbol of leadership. Followers should be like lionesses, afraid of and subservient to the lion. When the leader takes over he wipes out all traces of the predecessor. The leader does no work, nor does he help or guide.

All he does he relax and stake claim to the fruits of the labour of the followers. This is the case in the warehouse at Bhiwandi where Shekhawat is in charge. He sits all day in his office and expects his team to deliver. If they don't, he denies them wages or delays their bonuses. Everybody fears Shekhawat.

There are rumours that he uses violence to intimidate his people. He does not like being criticised. And if anyone complains about him to the management, they risk losing their job, or worse. But the management allows Shekhawat to function. They feel only he can manage the rather tough lot at the warehouse.

Before Shekhawat, they had sent Pande to manage the warehouse. Pande was a gentleman who tried to motivate the men with words and tried to get everyone to follow the policies. But the labourers were a rowdy bunch. They simply ignored Pande and threatened to form a union when he tried to act tough.

Pande had to be replaced. Shekhawat was brought in. He used brute force to get the workers at the warehouse in order. They quivered in his presence. Like lionesses, they did what he told them to do. This made the management happy. But they are also

afraid. Shekhawat knows his power and is slowly becoming a law onto himself.

There are rumours that he demands bribes from vendors before allowing their goods to be unloaded from trucks. No one is sure, but no one is willing to check. The fear the roar of Shekhawat.

Leadership by fear may not be part of management books, but it is a tried and tested method. Feudalism is essentially leadership by fear. Today explicit violence may be considered illegal and uncivilised, but implicit violence is still practised, and extremely popular. The most popular non-violent fear-inducing tool is the threat of sacking people.

This is especially visible when the markets are down and jobs are scarce. When a manager says, "My way or the high way," it is a lion growling. One often hears managers moaning that young people today are not afraid and in

Page 16: Management Mythos

fact threaten to quit when threatened with sacking, indicating their desire to be lions.

But in ancient India, the king was expected to sit on a lion, not be a lion. His patron goddess, Durga, rode a lion, meaning she domesticated the king of the jungle. The message here is about human beings having the ability to overpower and outgrow the animal urge to dominate and frighten others into submission.

The king was not expected to treat his people like animals who needed to be controlled by fear or force. To treat people like lionesses and to behave like a lion is to an act of de-humanisation. A king was expected to help his subjects discover their humanity. Humans are the only animals who can empathise.

The king was therefore expected to provoke his people into empathy, and in the process unlock their own hidden potential. To be the lion is to be the leader who frightens. To sit on the lion-throne was to be a leader who inspires.

7. From chaos to order

Around 1500 BCE (Before Common Era, formerly known as BC or Before Christ), about the time the Rig Veda was reaching its final form in India, a tale

was being told in Mesopotamia, the fertile plains watered by the Tigris and Euphrates, now modern Iraq. It was the tale known as Enuma Elis, or the Creation Myth of Babylon. It is believed that this story had a powerful impact on Greek myths as well as the Jewish Bible or Tanakh, eventually influencing what we is now commonly known as Western thought.

The story speaks of how the world, as we know it, came into being. It involved a great war in which Marduk led the ‘new gods’ to defeat the ‘old gods’ who were led by Tiamat. Tiamat is described as a monster. She was also the great mother of all gods; in her body resided all her children.

All was well until the children made so much noise that the old gods demanded the destruction of the new gods. The first time this happened, Tiamat warned her children. The second time this happened, Tiamat, ordered her consort to destroy the new gods. The new gods rallied around Marduk who, after a furious fight, defeated Tiamat and her consort and all the old gods who sided with them.

From the body of Tiamat, Marduk created the earth below and the sky above. Tiamat’s tears became the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. The blood of her consort was mixed with the red earth and from this was created humankind. As the spawn of the old gods, humanity was forced to serve the new gods forever. Failure to serve the new gods led to floods and storms.

In this narrative, the old gods are associated with complacency and chaos. The new gods are associated with action and order. This story informs human behaviour when a new management takes over from the old management, usually after a violent struggle, either a boardroom brawl or a takeover. Either it can be new generation taking over from the old generation, or it can be a new management brought in by the new majority shareholders. Though the stated objective is to maintain harmony and respect the old ways, the reality is a ruthless change, with the new guard holding the old guard in disdain. Marduk comes with his resplendent army, Tiamat old body provides shelter to the new world order, and the children born of her consort’s blood are forced to submit.

All this is objectively explained using excel sheets and power point presentation. A new vision is drawn up, and a new organisation structure is galvanised to achieve the new objectives and goals. And since the old ways did not deliver, the old reporting structures, old processes and old measurements are discarded in favour of new ones. However, rational these actions may be, they fuel fear and insecurity. Egos are hurt. People leave the organisation and those who stay behind mourn the passing of the golden age. The new gods mock the old ways, reminding all of the terrible state of affairs, the pathetic growth rate and the lacklustre balance sheets. Those who start working with the old gods are branded as traitors. And the new gods face many dilemmas – do they reward loyalty or talent, place talented members of the old management over the not-so-talented members of their team?

Page 17: Management Mythos

Dileep is part of a consulting firm. He has overseen many mergers and acquisitions. Post an M&A, always feels that he has entered a war zone. There are the conquerors and the conquered. There is arrogance on one side and fear on the other. What is most bewildering is how these emotions are ignored.

Dileep remembers this post-merger workshop he was asked to conduct to identify a suitable sales reporting system for the new entity. The workshop was conducted using all tools of modern management – forms had to be filled, SWOT analysis had to be done, scores had to be given, so that the final outcome would be objective, stripped of bias, hence acceptable to all. But the workshop was anything but objective. Yes, members of both organisations were forced to sit together but during coffee breaks the two tribes stayed away from each other. Dileep overheard people saying, “Be smart. Just celebrate the reporting system that the new CEO likes. And you know which one that is.” Beneath the veneer of objectivity, emotions were determining the choice of the sales reporting system. Marduk’s system won. Tiamat’s system was broken down.

8. Organisations have stopped hearing the customer

Around a thousand years ago, stories of the most passionate devotees of Shiva were compiled in the Tamil work Periya Puranam. One of the stories is

that of Thinnan, more popularly known as Kannappa

Thinnan was a hunter. Every evening he would cook the best part of the animal he had hunted, wrap it in leaves, and carry it in his hands to a Shiva temple located on the edge of the forest. On the way, he would collect flowers for Shiva; having no basket he would just fix them in his hair. He would also collect water from the mountain streams for Shiva; having no pot he would carry it in his mouth.

On reaching the Shiva temple, he would spit the water out onto the image of Shiva, then shake his head vigorously so that the flowers fell on the deity and finally feed the image the cooked meat, taking care to debone it with his own hands. This would happen every day at dusk.

At dawn, the temple priest would arrive . He would be horrified to see the mess in the shrine – meat and bones and dried flowers. He would wash the temple, chant the hymns, light the lamps, burn incense, and then perform the rituals as recommended in the liturgical manuals . We do not know the name of this priest, but Thinnan is remembered even today as Kanappa, the great Nayanar saint, who was most dear to Shiva.

The priest was part of an institution. He followed the method that was prescribed by the institution. He aligned to the systems and processes perfectly. He ate what he was expected to eat and dressed as he was expected to dress and conducted himself as was expected of him.

All the priests in all the Tamil lands who followed the liturgical manuals were perhaps just like him. They created a sense of consistency across the land. Their names and identities did not matter; what mattered was the institution they propped up by aligning to the rules. They ensured continuity of tradition. But they did not fire the imagination of the people.

Thinnan by contrast was a maverick. He did not know the rules or the liturgical manuals. He simply connected to divinity with devotion in a direct way. From the priest’s point of view, he was doing everything wrong. Meat as an offering! And flowers already stuck in one’s hair! Water from the mouth! Imagine! And yet the scriptures insist that Thinnan is a great Nayanar meaning ‘one who shows the way’.

What mattered was his belief, not his behaviour. The behaviour may have been inappropriate but it was a genuine manifestation of the belief, hence mattered more than behaviour born through ritual alignment.

Page 18: Management Mythos

When Raghuraj found that there was no electricity in his building society, he decided to call the helpline. There he encountered the dreaded IVR (Interactive Voice Reponse). He was asked to choose the language. Then he was asked to enter his consumer

number in the phone.

This was difficult as it was the middle of the night and there was no light. He had to light a candle and with great difficulty feed in the consumer number. He was then asked to choose from a list of standard complaints. He did. He was finally directed to the customer servicing executive.

“Hello, sir,” said the executive, “Good morning, I mean, good evening, how may I help you?” Raghuraj told him that there was no electricity in his building society. “Before we get to that,” said the executive, “May I have some details?” An impatient and exasperated Raghuraj had no choice but to follow the line of questioning. His full name followed by his, his address, his locality . He wondered if that was not supposed to automatically pop up when he followed IVR directions.

“I don’t know about that, sir. But I will pass on your comments to my supervisor,” came the pat response. “So when will the lights come back? What is wrong? What is happening?” Raghuraj asked angrily. The customer service executive said in a calm voice, aware that any irritation would be recorded by the call centre tapes, “Your complaint has been recorded. Power will be restored shortly. We thank you for using your services.” and then put down the phone.

So here we have a ‘temple priest’ in the customer servicing executive. Despite his fancy title, he is not expected to serve the client. He is expected by his institute to simply follow the processes, impersonally and professionally. Everything was orchestrated – the pitch of his voice, the words he spoke, the pace of the questioning. Everything was measured.

There was no one inch of individuality allowed . The organisation celebrated his obedience, not his sensitivity or passion. What mattered was his efficiency. By doing so, he will contribute to the customer servicing process. If he breaks the rules, he will be punished. If he tries to go out of the way or out of the box, he will be seen as a trouble maker. The company will not allow a Thinnan in their midst – he is disruptive, subversive, unpredictable , however passionate.

The customer may be God, but many companies are increasingly creating a system to discourage Thinnans. So long as the electricity is restored, how does it matter who answered the call, the IVR or the temple priest? And so we have organisations that have stopped hearing the customer, except through market research agencies, who also follow processes.

The human touch is frowned upon. Does that get us the best of people or does the imagination of the management limit the possibilities ? Perhaps it is time to get the bhakti revolution into the corporate world – look at passion and intelligence along with alignment and obedience. Otherwise we will never find the innovative Nayanars. ‘those who show us the way’.

9. Material growth through intellectual growth

In Hinduism, killing a Brahmin is considered the greatest sin. And yet, most astonishingly, God keeps killing Brahmins. Shiva beheads Brahma. Ram

kills Ravan. Krishna encourages the beheading of Drona. Why so?

The word Brahmin comes from the root 'Brh' which means 'to grow'. The Brahmin was the noble teacher, he who facilitated growth - provided the direction, the path, the intellectual wherewithal that enabled people to grow. But growth in Hinduism refers to all round growth - material growth (Lakshmi), intellectual growth (Saraswati) and emotional growth (Durga/Shakti). Growth refers not just to one's own growth but to the growth of others too.

Page 19: Management Mythos

Intellectual growth manifests in increased sensitivity to people around us and to patterns in the world around us. Emotional growth manifests in an increased sense of security that makes us pay more attention to the development of those around us. Material growth cannot happen without emotional growth; emotional growth cannot happen without intellectual growth. Wealth generation and wealth distribution demand intellectual and emotional growth. Brahmins, the intellectuals, were therefore critical for the growth of society, as a whole.

Neither Brahma, Ravan nor Drona demonstrate these traits. When Brahma created the world, the world took the form of a woman. He got attracted to this woman of his own creation and wanted to possess her. So he chased her, determined to possess her. In disgust, Shiva took the form of Bhairava and beheaded him, which is why Shiva is called Kapalika, the skull-bearer.

Ravan, son of a Rishi, kicked his brother Kuber out of Lanka to become its king and then went on to abduct wives of other men for his pleasure. Drona, also son of a Rishi, taught martial arts to the Pandavas and the Kauravas and as fee asked his students to give him one half of Drupada's kingdom, so that he could settle a score with an old enemy. All three are more interested in their own material growth. Brahma wanted to control his creation, Ravan wanted to dominate the world and Drona wanted to settle a score. They did not seem to be interested in facilitating the growth of others, which was the Brahmin's vocation. Perhaps that is why they were beheaded.

Vinit, who runs a successful spare parts company, has grown from a small Rs 1 crore outfit to a Rs 30 crore outfit in five years. He created this company, nurtured it, and now is a highly admired small scale entrepreneur. "But I am not happy," he says, "I have more money than before. But I am constantly worried about attrition and competition and client servicing. I am afraid all that I have built will collapse." Vinit's personal wealth has increased, so has the value of his company. There is growth in the number of clients, the earning per client, in the number of employees and their respective earnings. Vinit should be happy, but he is not. He feels his head will explode.

Vinit needs to relook at his vision statement put down years ago after he left his high paying corporate job in Memphis, USA and returned to India.

It had nothing to do with profits. It was all about creating world class spare parts locally at a fraction of the price. His aim was to be surrounded by simple engineers who were grounded in reality.

He wanted an organisation with the warmth of a small organisation, not the coldness of a large corporation. Somewhere along the line, he forgot all about the intellectual and emotional growth that would facilitate this. It was all about material growth. Perhaps the reason for this is that intellectual growth cannot be measured, nor can material growth. In fact measuring intellect and emotions results in de-growth. So the head and heart was ignored in the pursuit of the wallet. This has resulted in a Vinit who is less sensitive than he was when he started out, and less secure. His empathy levels are at an all time low. The Brahmin has been corrupted. Time to behead him.

Brahma, though creator, is not worshipped in India. When Shiva beheads Brahma, Brahma loses his fifth head and is left with four. He is, in effect, cut down to size, shaken out of his madness, to step back and reflect on his enchantment with Lakshmi. In reflection lies realisation of Saraswati and Durga. Only when there is all round growth will Brahma, and the Brahmin, be worthy once again of adoration.

10. What Goes Unsaid: Listening to employee grievances

Krishna had a childhood friend called Sudama. While Krishna grew up to be a great warrior and lord of the city of Dwaraka, Sudama remained a poor

priest. Desperate for some help, Sudama paid Krishna a visit in Dwaraka.

But on reaching there he felt too embarrassed to ask for anything. He simply gave his friend a packet of puffed rice, which was all he could afford, and claimed he just wanted to see his old friend. Krishna sensed his friend's need and silently ensured that when Sudama returned home he found, much to his delight and surprise, his house

Page 20: Management Mythos

overflowing with wealth.

The same Krishna had another friend called Arjuna, who had to fight a great war against his cousins. Just before the fight, he lost his nerve. The thought of killing his own relatives, however justified, horrified him. He did not know what to do. It was here that Krishna sang the song now known as the Bhagavad Gita. The words of the song addressed Arjuna's core issues, cleared his mind, clarified his doubts, enabled him to raise his bow and fight the enemy with conviction.

Neither Sudama nor Arjuna were explicit about what they wanted. But Krishna sensed what they needed. This sensitivity is something leaders must possess. A retired army Colonel joined as the admin manager of a cosmetics company. He had lived a cushioned life in the army, not realising the expense of some of the perks he received. And so when he joined civilian life he was quite satisfied with the salary he was offered by the company until he had to pay for some of the things he took for granted in the army. He realised his salary was not enough to support his lifestyle.

He also realised that had he been aware of these expenses he could have negotiated a more appropriate salary. But he had missed the boat. Too proud to ask for more, he kept quiet. The owner of the cosmetics company, however, sensed something was amiss. He noticed that the Colonel took the company bus instead of his car several times a week. A few inquiries and he figured out what was happening. Very discreetly, the Finance Department was told to make changes in the Colonel's salary structure. The smile returned on the Colonel's face. Just like Sudama's.

More importantly, Krishna knew what to give to whom — wealth to Sudama and wisdom to Arjuna. Imagine what would have happened if he sang the Bhagavad Gita to Sudama! Or gave wealth to Arjuna!

When people enter a leader's room, they come expecting to receive something. And leaders have to be sensitive enough to figure out what exactly they are seeking and respond accordingly. It is not always what they are asking.

When Mukul entered his CEO's room to check if the presentation to be made before the board was in order, the CEO, Rajnikant, went through the presentation and said it was okay. Mukul left the room unsatisfied. He knew it was in order, but he wanted something else from his boss, a few words of validation and even praise to soothe his nerves. He was terrified of the presentation.

He feared that if things went wrong his reputation would be ruined. He wanted Rajnikant to comfort him, but was too embarrassed to state it. He wanted to know if Rajnikant would support him if things went wrong. He wanted the feeling of support, not a curt “It is okay.”

Sensitivity to what people want is not something that can be taught in business schools. It has to be developed. It is an implicit expectation from leaders. Rajnikant expects everyone to state their needs in a checklist, preferably an Excel sheet. Modern businesses often talk about transparency and stating what one needs very clearly. But humans are usually not transparent. It is embarrassing for people to openly admit that they have financial issues. It is awkward, even beneath one's dignity, for a senior director to admit that he is nervous. What is apparent is usually not the truth. What leaders need to focus on is what lies beneath the apparent.

11. Every organisation needs people with foresight

Greek mythology speaks of two brothers who were appointed benefactors of humankind by the Olympian gods. Their names were Epimetheus and Prometheus.

Epimetheus means hindsight. Prometheus means foresight.

Epimetheus was given a bag of positive traits by Zeus. “Give it to humanity,” said Zeus. Epimetheus made his way from Olympus down to the land of humans. On the way, he met plants and animals. Every plant and every animal

Page 21: Management Mythos

he encountered asked him for a gift.

So Epimetheus, without thinking, granted them a positive trait from the bag given to him by Zeus. Every plant and every animal thanked him, and Epimetheus felt good about himself. Finally he encountered humans, and to his surprise, he realised the bag of positive traits was empty. He had nothing to give humanity – he had not realised the consequences of his actions, because he lacked foresight.

To undo the damage, Prometheus gave humanity the gift of fire. Man became the only creature that could control fire. This knowledge made man more superior than all animals and plants. Zeus did not like this. He punished Prometheus brutally, tied him to a rock and declared that every day a vulture would eat his liver and every night his liver would regenerate. Thus he would suffer every day for the rest of eternity.

Zeus then gave Epimetheus a box. “Give it to the first human you see. Tell them not to open the box.” Epimetheus, once again, without thinking gave the box to the first human he encountered. It was a woman called Pandora. But Pandora, like all humans, was curious, a trait that had developed in humans ever since they were able to control fire. She opened the box.

Out flew all the ills of the world – decay, destruction, disease, despair. She shut the lid quickly but by then the damage was done. All that remained in the box was hope and luck, ideas that would sustain humanity through its trials and tribulations.

Every organisation has a Prometheus and an Epimetheus. Prometheus is he who thinks before a deed is done while Epimetheus is he who thinks after the deed is done. Prometheus focuses on the future. Epimetheus focuses on the past. Prometheus is a visionary, unafraid of the unknown.

Epimetheus is an implementer, comfortable with the known. Everybody makes fun of a Prometheus, punishes him as Zeus did. Epimetheus is dependable; he brings gifts for all that creates a false sense of comfort, and does not prepare you for surprises and accidents.

When Rajiv presented his vision and business plan to his investors, he realised they were making fun of him. His ideas seemed to strange and bizarre. They said, “Give us proof of concept.” They said, “Can you tell us exactly how much will be the return on investment.” Rajiv tried his best to answer the questions but his idea was a radical idea. No one had done this before. It was a new product. He would have to create a market for it.

He had sensed people’s need for it. The need was not explicit. It was a hidden need, waiting to be tapped. Rajiv is a Prometheus – he can see what

no one else can see. The investors before him are Epimetheus – they trust only what has already been seen.

An Epimetheus cannot innovate. He cannot come up with a new idea. He cannot imagine. He relies on memory. The case-study method followed in business schools is a creation of Epimetheus; wisdom from hindsight. It is difficult to extrapolate knowledge of the past into the future because the situation in the future is unknown, unpredictable, uncertain and unlike the situation of the past. All that an Epimetheus can do is do what was done before but only better, and no one does it better than him.

A Prometheus is a disruptor of the status quo. He brings fire and changes humanity for all time. He is therefore also a troublemaker, one who has to be restrained, for not all his experiments work. An investor may trust Rajiv but there is no guarantee that the business will succeed. Along with vision and hard-work, Rajiv will need heaps of hope and a bit of luck.

12. Cycle of life: Play wise, play fool to achieve your goal

Page 22: Management Mythos

There once lived a great mathematician in a village outside Ujjain. He was often called by the local king to advice on matters related to the

economy. His reputation had spread as far as Taxila in the North and Kanchi in the South. So it hurt him very much when the village headman told him, "You may be a great mathematician who advises the king on economic matters but your son does not know the value of gold or silver."

The mathematician called his son and asked, "What is more valuable - gold or silver?" "Gold," said the son. "That is correct. Why is it then that the village headman makes fun of you, claims you do not know the value of gold or silver? He teases me every day. He mocks me before other village elders as a father who neglects his son. This hurts me. I feel everyone in the village is laughing behind my back because you do not know what is more valuable, gold or silver. Explain this to me, son."

So the son of the mathematician told his father the reason why the village headman carried this impression. "Every day on my way to school, the village headman calls me to his house. There, in front of all village elders, he holds out a silver coin in one hand and a gold coin in other. He asks me to pick up the more valuable coin. I pick the silver coin. He laughs, the elders jeer, everyone makes fun of me. And then I go to school. This happens every day. That is why they tell you I do not know the value of gold or silver."

The father was confused. His son knew the value of gold and silver, and yet when asked to choose between a gold coin and silver coin always picked the silver coin. "Why don't you pick up the gold coin?" he asked. In response, the son took the father to his room and showed him a box. In the box were at least a hundred silver coins. Turning to his father, the mathematician's son said, "The day I pick up the gold coin the game will stop. They will stop having fun and I will stop making money."

Sometimes in life, we have to play the fool because our seniors and our peers, and sometimes even our juniors like it. That does not mean we lose in the game of life. It just means allowing others to win in one arena of the game, while we win in the other arena of the game. We have to choose which arena matters to us and which arenas do not.

Shailesh, a portfolio manager in a wealth management company, has to endure hours of humiliation with his client. The client will keep telling Shailesh that he is a loser because he works for another company and that

he does not have his own business. His client then shows off his wealth and mocks the advise Shailesh gives him.

Often Shailesh feels like lashing out and telling the client to mind his own business. He wants to tell the client that everyone has his own criteria of success and that amongst portfolio managers he is one of the best. But he remains silent. He endures the jokes of his client. This makes the client feel good about himself. It boosts his ego. Allows him to feel he is smarter than others. And when the client feels good about himself, he gives Shailesh more business and more clients.

Shailesh has figured out that if he wants to win the arena of portfolio management, he has to allow the client of his to win the arena of emotions. So long as the client feels he is smarter than Shailesh and can crack jokes about Shailesh, he will remain Shailesh's client. The day Shailesh puts him in his place, the game will stop and the relationship will come to an end.

At the root is the human desire to feel significant. To feel significant, one often has to demonstrate one is superior to others. This leads to people bragging and putting others down. Often this is an emotional need, one that can be quite annoying to onlookers but critical to the one indulging in it. Recognizing this need allows us to endure many an insufferable boss or client. Used well, this endurance does bring dividends.

Page 23: Management Mythos

13. Curse of kingship: It is the boss who created 'yes man'

Chandragupta Maurya once complained that he was always surrounded by liars and sycophants. How he wished to have honest people around him. His

teacher, Chanakya, laughed and said, “It’s the curse of kingship. A king has a sword in his hand and everyone who stands around him is acutely aware of the sword. No one knows how it will swing? So to save themselves they end up lying and flattering the king. It is the fear of a king’s moods and opinions that shapes the behaviour in court. Yes, you hate the liars and the sycophants, but who created them? You, only you, by simply being the king.”

Thomas, an investment banker, was preparing for his presentation late into the night. His wife asked, “Why are you worried? Are things looking up or down?” Thomas replied, “The market is looking up and the company has nothing to worry about. I am worried about how to present it to my boss so that he does not think less of me.

He is constantly judging me. If you present a growth rate more than what he feels, he will mark you as a dreamer. If you present a growth rate that is less than what he feels, he will mark you as unimaginative. Either way one is doomed. One is always defensive in front of him and has to always strategise what one has to say.”

That very night, Thomas’ boss, Cyril, was telling his wife, “People in front of me tell me what I want to hear. I want to hear the truth, what they actually feel about the market, their jobs, our work. But it never happens.” Cyril does not even realise tha he is influencing the scene before him. He is, inadvertently , the puppet master. He is the observer creating the observation.

In an apparently logical and rational world, we forget how the behaviour of people in power influence the behaviour of people reporting to them. We can make grand statements that we allow juniors to dissent but the juniors know that dissent rarely makes them popular. It takes a rare breed of people to be able to separate the issue from the person. Often the critic is a marked man. The marks appear in the appraisal.

It is the king who created the ‘yes man’ in court; it is the boss who created the ‘yes man’ in the corporate world. We look down upon the ‘yes man’ – but his actions stem from fear. He is afraid that if he actually says the truth, his head will be chopped off. So he tailors his dialogue such that it pleases the boss.

A good leader has to be sensitive to the power he holds over his followers. How do they reflect his behaviour? How he is, in a way, responsible for the way they behave? If they agree with him all the time, it is more often than not an indicator that he does not like dissent.

If they disagree with him all the time, it does not mean that they actually disagree with him; it can be that they have found he appreciates disagreement and so by disagreeing with him, they are simply trying to win his approval. He has to be able to create an atmosphere where the issue is being addressed and it is not the boss who is being managed.

Perhaps that is the reason one often hears legends of Akbar and Birbal venturing out secretly in the city dressed as commoners to find out what was really happening; the Mughal Emperor clearly did not trust official reports. He knew they were influenced by fear of the king’s sword.

Even the gods often approach devotees in disguise. In the Maa Santoshi Vrat Katha, the goddess takes the form of an ugly, old, diseased woman to check if the piety shown by her devotees is genuine or not. Even the gods know that the expressions and declarations made in the temple are not to be trusted.

14. Success and failure are instruments of root cause

Page 24: Management Mythos

Pariskhit, king of Hastinapur, died of snakebite. His son, Janamejaya, was very angry. "Why don't you invest in a great ritual known as Sarpa-Sattra

by which you can kill all the snakes in the world? The world will be rid of these venomous snakes once and for all," said Uttanaka, a sage. Janamejaya took the sage's advise and gave Uttanaka all the wealth he needed to perform this terrible ritual. Soon all the snakes of the earth were being dragged into a sacrificial flame and burnt to death. Janamejaya felt powerful; he was going to be the destroyer of all the snakes in the world. Unknown to him, he was but a pawn in Uttanaka's own agenda. Uttanka hated the snakes as they had stolen a jewel that he wanted to give his guru as tuition fees. He wanted to destroy all snakes for this crime but while he possessed the knowledge of the ritual that could destroy snakes, he did not have the wherewithal to conduct such a ritual. He took advantage of Janamejaya's tragedy to fund his own private war.

Astika, nephew of Vasuki, king of the snakes, convinced Janamejaya to stop the terrible ritual that was killing all the snakes. He returned home feeling very triumphant. "I am the savior of the snakes," he told everyone he met. His uncle Vasuki smiled and said, "Yes, you contributed to the rescue but you were merely an instrument." He then told Astika a story. When the Sarpa Sattra was about to commence, Sarama, the mother of dogs and her puppies were wandering around the sacrificial precinct. Janamejaya's brothers felt that the puppies had licked the milk meant for the ritual and so threw stones at them. The puppies yelped and ran to their mother and pleaded their innocence. Sarama cursed Janamejaya, "Since your brothers hit my innocent children, this ritual of yours will be interrupted. It will not achieve its goal." "That is why," said Vasuki, "the Sarpa Sattra was never concluded. Your intervention was merely the means by which Sarama's curse realised itself."

Both these stories from the Mahabharata concern themselves with causality. In the first story, Janamejaya thinks he is the killer of snakes and in the second story Astika thinks he is the saviour of snakes. Both are wrong. In the former tale, Uttanaka is the real force and Janamejaya is the instrument. In the latter tale, Sarama is the real force; Astika is but an instrument.

In the corporate world, everyone is constantly trying to understand what the cause behind a success or failure is. If we find the cause, we hope to replicate it. Was it simply market conditions? Was it a person who made the difference? Was it a new process? Often success and failure is wrongly attributed to people, when in fact they are merely instruments of the root cause.

The CEO of a multinational firm's Indian arm took full credit for the sudden rise of sales of air conditioners during his term of office. The real reason was two-fold. That year had seen a heat wave never before experienced in India. And that very same year banks came up with excellent EMIs for household goods, a scheme that never existed before but was met with great response from the consumer. The CEO was just at the right place at the right time.

In another case, a CEO was sacked when the sales of a new drug did not reach the predicted meteoric rise. The market had actually responded favourably but the error was in the plan itself. The plan had inflated numbers because the former CEO realised

that if the numbers were not inflated in the plan, the drug would not be introduced in India by the multinational parent. So a lie that got the drug into India, made the former CEO a hero but it became the cause of the current CEO's downfall. The current CEO had actually done a brilliant job considering ground reality but when his numbers were compared to the plan, he came out as a failure.

An event occurs because of a number of factors - external factors that are not in our control as well as a variety of internal factors that may or may not be under our control. But everyone is under pressure to attribute causality to all events. Unless one attributes causality how does one take credit? The appraisal system demands that every event have a cause and every action has an outcome. Modern institutional thinking is uncomfortable with events that cannot be explained. We demand certainty. We reject uncertainty. We would like to believe that we are making the moves of the strategic chess board. But sometimes, success is not because of us, rather despite us.

Page 25: Management Mythos

15. Subjectivity in measurement creates chaos and problems

In the Hindu mythic world, the Devas live in the sky, the Manavas or humans live on the earth, and the Asuras live under the ground. In the

19thcentury, English scholars equated Devas with gods of Greek mythology and so the enemy of the Devas, the Asuras came to be described as the ‘demons’.

Unfortunately, there is nothing demonic about most Asuras, at least not in the Biblical sense of the term. Some European translators used other words like ‘giants’ and ‘Titans’ and even ‘old gods’ to refer to Asuras, but these did not capture the what the Asuras were. This is what happens when one uses Greek or Biblical templates to explain Hindu mythic structures. As a result, even today, in modern comic books, Bali, or Mahabali, the great king of Asuras, is described as the demon-king, though mercifully they avoid depicting him with horns, which incidentally is a Persian visual metaphor for demons introduced by Mughal court painters.

Mahabhali was so great a king that he rose up from the subterranean realm of the Asuras, and went on to become became master of the three worlds — those above, those below and all that lay in between, displacing even Indra, king of the Devas.

This created chaos in the cosmos and the sages begged Vishnu, preserver of the universe, to intervene and restore order. Mahabali was impossible to defeat at war. The only way to defeat him was by cunning. Mahabali was known for his charitable nature, which is why he was much loved and difficult to overthrow. So Vishnu approached him in the form of a dwarf and asked Mahabali three paces of land, “enough for me to sleep on.” “Take it,” said Mahabali, without a second thought. Vishnu immediately turned into a giant. With one step, he claimed the sky, and gave it back to the Devas. With the second, he claimed the earth. With the third, he shoved Mahabali back to the realm under the ground where all Asuras belong.

The story draws attention to the notion of measurements. Vishnu asks for three paces of land. Mahabali gave it, without checking who would measure the paces. He assumed it was the dwarf, when in reality it was taken by a giant. Often when signing contracts, we assume measurements but when the time comes to settle, we are in for a surprise.

A classic example is when one buys a house — 1000 square feet means very different things to a buyer and a builder. One has terms like carpet area, built-up area, super built-up area, words that are so difficult for the common man to comprehend that in the end, the vast apartment of one’s imagination ends up becoming a tiny flat in reality, or should we say realty.

Another example is when one gets gifts valued at Rs 10,000. The cost of the gift, on bulk purchase, would be 30% or less of the MRP. The one who receives the gift is made to believe that the value is Rs 10,000 while the one who gives the gift knows the cost is

Rs 3000. The beneficiary is happy so long as he does not know the measuring scale of the benefactor.

Sandeep was the owner of a firm that distributes mutual funds and insurance. He promised new agents a 3% bonus, if they sold an old slow-moving instrument to reach a particular target. Rajesh did reach the target and went to claim his bonus. He expected cash or cheque. Instead he was given a new fast-moving product, XYZ. “The margin of XYZ is 3% more than the standard rate. Just cross-sell this product to clients who bought ABC and make your money,” said Sandeep. Rajesh could do nothing but nod his head. He had been paid 3% but not quite the way he assumed it. Like Mahabali, he did feel rather crushed.

Subjectivity in measurement creates chaos and problems. The Asuras are enemies of the Devas, but they are also worshipped: The rise and return of Mahabali is associated with harvest festivals in India such as Onam of Kerala and Diwali in the North. But the only way the European translators could ‘measure’ the enemy of the gods was by

Page 26: Management Mythos

calling them ‘demons’. What is often convenient for a few need not be correct or comprehensible for the rest. But we end up submitting to it.

16. RAAS L I LA CAN BE THE VI S I ON STATEM ENT FOR BETTER WORK P LACE

In the beginning, there was nature, wild and untamed. In the forest, animals are always afraid, afraid they might not find food and starve to

death, and afraid that they may become food and be killed. Thus death lurks in every corner.

Humans alone, thanks to the larger brain, are animals that can imagine a place where one does not have to struggle to survive, where one is not afraid of a predator. This is why, from the Bible, comes a thought to describe the Kingdom of God, “The lion shall lay with the lamb.”

This imagery is found in Hindu scriptures too, where in the hermitages of sages, one finds the goat safe in the company of tigers. This is heaven, a place where one feels secure; a place without a ‘rat race’; a place that is not a ‘dog eat dog world’.

Popular phrases indicate how people perceive the corporate world. It is equated with the jungle. Like animals, executives feel they have to compete in order to survive and thrive. In the markets, everything seems fair. Since violence is not considered an acceptable code of conduct, except by gangsters, the corporate world feeds on cunning. The more cunning, the higher up you seem to get in the food chain. No one likes being here. Everyone yearns for a piece of heaven.

In the Bhagavat Puran, heaven is visualised as the Raas Lila. In the Raas Lila, Krishna plays the flute and the milkmaids dance around him. But the scene takes place at night, outside the village, in the forest. The forest evokes fear. Night evokes fear.

The milkmaids are away from the security of the village and family, and yet they feel safe and secure. They sing and dance around Krishna, who is neither their brother nor son nor husband. Neither law nor custom binds them. No one is obliged to be here. There is no duty or responsibility that binds them around Krishna. They do so of their own free will. They do not feel threatened. They do not feel under pressure. There is perfect harmony.

Everyone forms a circle, equidistant from Krishna; there is no jealousy and envy. Each one feels that Krishna is giving them complete attention. In fact, the moment they feel possessive about Krishna or believe he should love them more than others, Krishna disappears, the forest re-appears, bringing with it darkness and the fear.

Raas Lila perhaps represents what people would like the ideal organisation to be like. Every employee feels safe and secure. Everyone feels they are fully appreciated. Everyone is giving their best. No one is jealous or territorial. There is warmth and affection all around. No one feels exploited. There is perfect harmony. For this to happen, the boss must be Krishna.

The gap between the fantasy of Raas Lila and the reality of the workplace is huge. Ikram hates going to office every day. It is torture. He is the senior vice president but he feels he is underpaid and exploited. He hates his boss and feels his team is useless.

He feels powerless.

Arvind is Ikram’s subordinate and feels Ikram has a cushy job, with no real responsibilities, and that all the work is actually done by the rest of the team, himself included. It is Arvind who feels underpaid and exploited. Ikram’s boss Richard also feels underpaid and exploited by his bosses. He feels Ikram has got it easy; he does not stand in the firing line before the directors who, in his opinion, are a bunch of mercenaries.

Richard can attempt to be a Krishna to Ikram. Ikram can attempt to be a Krishna to Arvind. But no one is trying. All

Page 27: Management Mythos

three of them imagine themselves to be quivering frightened milkmaids waiting for the music of the flute. They don’t realise that each one of them is capable of playing the flute.

Every human being is at once milkmaid and Krishna, yearning for the music and capable of producing the music. Krishna can be seen a theoretical construct, a goalpost embodying infinity that can inspire us. We can attempt to walk in that direction.

The first step is recognising that we have the flute and everyone around us is eager for music. Being human, our tunes may not be perfect, but it is the thought that counts, a thought that is sorely missing in Ikram, Richard and even Arvind.

In the Raas Lila, Krishna makes music not for his pleasure but for the upliftment of the milkmaids. Through the sound of the flute Krishna is communicating his affection. Through it comes the assurance of security. It is an invitation to a world where one can do their best.

The promise is fulfilled in the middle of the forest. Around Krishna, the menace of the night fades away. Others may not play the flute for us. But we can play the flute for others. Raas Lila can be our vision statement. Eventually, we will get there.

17. Desire to feel significant is the root cause of most conflicts

Lakshmi is the goddess of wealth who holds in her hand a pot. Pots are not natural; they are man made. The presence of pots indicates the presence

of humanity. The pot holds a special place in human imagination because a pot changes humanity’s relationship with nature. Once water moves from a water body into a pot, it stops being everyone’s water. It now belongs to the person who owns the pot. Water in a pot has an owner. The pot enables humans to turn natural resources into personal property.

Property is a human idea, an artificial construction, not a natural phenomenon. Animals do not own nature. Animals have territory that they defend with brute force. But when another animal lays claim to its territory and it is unable to fight back, there is no court where an animal can go to appeal. There are no courts in nature; no law except might is right, survival of the fittest. Animals need territory in order to survive – to get access to food. Animals do not create territory for self-actualisation. Herein is the difference between animal and humans, territory and property, water in the river and water in a pot, food in a tree and food in a basket. Humans need property not just to survive; humans need property in order to feel significant.

All living organisms die. Only humans introspect about death and wonder then about the point of life. Property gives humans a reason to live and it allows humans to defy mortality. “I may die, but my pot will outlive me.” Thus property gives human life a meaning; it validates existence.

When one says, that the purpose of the organisation is to generate wealth – we are not simply referring to the human need to survive, we are referring to the human need for significance. There is enough wealth around to pull people out of poverty but there is never enough wealth to make people feel significant. For the human desire to feel significant is infinite. And this is the source of most conflicts.

Nagarjuna P. Raja built a hotel in a small town. The hotel was highly successful. It generated a lot of wealth. Now, he has appointed a manager to run the hotel so that he can achieve his lifelong dream of retiring in peace and enjoying his wealth, and not bother with its generation.

Page 28: Management Mythos

Unfortunately, every time he visits the hotel he finds something wrong. The manager, he feels, is not doing his job. This leads to arguments. The manager is exasperated. He tries to explain to Mr. Raja that he must be allowed to take a call to run the show but Mr. Raja keeps interfering. This is a classic conflict between the proprietor and the professional. Arguments are often logical but the cause of the conflict has nothing to do with logic; it is emotional.

What the manager and Mr. Raja do not realise is that the hotel is Mr. Raja’s pot. It is not only merely the source of money, it is about Mr. Raja’s

sense of significance. When seems like a fight between Mr. Raja and the manager over the best way to manage the hotel, is actually Mr. Raja’s fight for his significance. If he remains indifferent to the running of the hotel, he feels invalidated. But in interfering with the hotel, he invalidates the manager. And so the two fight as two animals fight over territory. Only here they are not fighting for survival. They are fighting for significance.

While animals are clear why they are fighting, humans are not. The desire to feel significant is never a stated goal. It is an unconscious need. The hotel defines Mr. Raja’s image of himself. It justifies his existence on earth, makes him feel he has done something with his life. Letting it into the hands of a manager seems logical, but he needs to remind himself, and the manager, constantly that it is his, and only his, pot. So long as this desire for significance is not acknowledged, the fight between Mr. Raja and the manager will never end

18. Future fate of organisation depends on brilliance of Ashtavakras

Rishi Ashtavakra was called Ashtavakra because his body was deformed and twisted in eight areas. He was cursed by his own father, Kahoda. While he

was in his mother's womb, he had overheard his father converse with his mother on the nature of Vedic truths as expressed in various Vedic hymns.

Even before he was born, he had understood the secrets of Vedic hymns so well that one day, from his mother's womb, he spoke and corrected his father. "Perhaps," he said, "the same hymn can be interpreted in this way, father." Rather than being appreciative of his son, the father was annoyed. "May this over-smart child of mine be born deformed with eight twists in his body," said the father.

Kahoda went to the court of king Janaka to participate in a public debate. The condition of the debate was that the loser had to die. Kahoda, who thought greatly of his wisdom, participated in the competition but he lost the debate to a sage called Bandi and was forced to kill himself. When Ashtavakra grew up and learnt about the fate of his father, he decided to participate in the same public debate in Janaka's court.

He won the competition and Bandi was forced to bring Ashtavakra's father back to life. Thus Ashtavakra not only avenged his father's humiliation, he also brought his father back to life. Janaka commented that Kahoda was lucky to have a son as brilliant as Ashtavakra. To this Ashtavakra said, "While you, Janaka, appreciate my wisdom, that very same wisdom had made my father insecure."

This ancient story draws attention to the envy of the father for his son, or the envy of a teacher for his student. Kahoda is the boss, the coach, the mentor, who nurtures talent under him. Ashtavakra represents that unusually bright student one sometimes gets to coach or mentor. It takes a lot of self-assurance for a mentor to admit that the student is better than him. By the law of averages, such brilliant students are few and far between and when they make themselves known they usually face great hostility from those around them and especially the mentor. Few mentors can handle a student who is better than them.

Manohar is a senior partner in a law firm. He has nurtured many young attorneys under him. But he nurtures only

Page 29: Management Mythos

those who are inferior to him. As a result his team is full of rather mediocre lawyers who look to him for direction. He is the sun; the rest are the planets, reflecting his glory. The moment Manohar sees real talent, he feels threatened and kicks them out of his team, often without even a good reference. As a result, over the years, he has lost out on the best people who could have made his practice the best in town.

Manohar is like Kahoda, threatened by his own son, Ashtavakra. By contrast, Jacob, who also has a law practice in the same city believes in attracting talent. He believes one must hire people who are better and bigger than oneself otherwise one will end up with a company of dwarves. He knows he is not the best and believes there are better talents out there. He wants to provide a 'womb' where such talent can be nurtured, for the benefit of his own firm, and if they leave his firm, for the benefit of the industry.

Jacob is like Janaka. The best minds come to his court and thrive. In a world of corporations, when a junior can overtake his senior, coaches and mentors are often threatened by team members. The result is an organisation which is full of many more Kahodas than Janakas, to the detriment of Ashtavakra. Organisations have to constantly ensure that leaders are more like Janakas and less like Kahoda because the future fate of the organisation depends on the brilliance of Ashtavakras

19. Fortune-chasers & Fortune-magnets

In Hinduism, there are gods and there is God. The gods are called Devas while God is Bhagavan. Indra is king of the Devas while Vishnu is Bhagavan.

Indra is never worshipped, but Vishnu is.

Indra lives in Amravati, a realm above the skies. Here he has Kamadhenu, a wish-fulfilling cow, Kalaptaru, a wish-fulfilling tree, Chintamani, a wish-fulfilling gem, and Akshaya-patra, a pot overflowing with gold and grain. All these wonders are at Indra's disposal. He does not have to work for a day - all he has to do is wish for what he wants and it appears before him. He has the perfect life. No wonder humans describe Amravati as swarga or paradise, a place to go after death by accumulating enough merit during life.

Despite being blessed with such wonders, Indra is a very insecure god. All his stories, even those retold in the most tacky mythological television serials, revolve around his shaking throne. Indra is constantly terrified of losing his exalted position. He is threatened by kings and sages and demons. When he sees kings perform a yagna, he steals their royal and sacred horses and disrupts their ritual. When he finds sages meditating, he sends nymphs to seduce them. And when he sees asuras becoming too powerful, he turns to God and ensures their defeat.

By contrast, Vishnu is described as being very secure. He is so secure that he gurgles joyfully like a baby even while floating on a Banyan leaf cradled by the waves of a stormy ocean. Perhaps that is why he is God. Perhaps that is why he is worshipped.

The fundamental difference Indra and Vishnu is that Indra chases Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and fortune, and she, in keeping with her nature, slips away from his hand like water from a clenched wrist. By contrast, Vishnu does not chase Lakshmi. Lakshmi chases him. She clings to his feet. Indra chases fortune. Vishnu is the fortune magnet.

What is it that makes Vishnu different from Indra? To answer this question, one has to hear a story. Once Krishna asked the Pandavas and the Kauravas, "What do you want? Me or my army?" The Pandavas said they wanted Krishna while the Kauravas wanted Krishna's army. The Pandavas wanted who Krishna was while the Kauravas wanted what Krishna had.

Every human being has two parts - what he is and what he has. Vishnu focuses on his devotees while Indra focuses on his wealth and threats to his wealth. Vishnu's gaze is on people while Indra's gaze is what people bring to the table.

Page 30: Management Mythos

Rajsingh's computer education academy trains young people to be hardware technicians. His turnover is 50 crores. This happens when 10,000 students are trained. He expects to make 75 crores next year. Sales were good last year but he has a problem. He is unable to find good placements for those who passed out. The market says the quality of education is bad, students are sub-standard.

Rajsingh fears that if he puts more focus on quality of education, which means increase in duration of training, his costs will increase and

bottom-line will be adversely affected . He does not want to do that. His head of sales head is finding it difficult to meet targets as the buzz in the market is that the education offered by the academy is not value for money; students , past and present, whisper angrily to potential candidates that they will earn less than what is projected in the advertisements .

Rajsingh is a classical Indra. His focus is on the financial goal, the Lakshmi of 75 crores. He forgets that this translates into 15,000 employable youths. He is more interested in the student's share of wallet rather than the student's employability. He focuses on what people have (fees), and not what people are (not employable). Making 15,000 students employable is the same thing as 75 crores. Both targets are measurable, but the latter is dehumanised as it is monitised. Making 15,000 students employable is a noble mission. Yet words like nobility discomfort Rajsingh. He feels a good businessman is one who makes money. He believes that students are just a means, not the end. The balance sheet for him is the goal of enterprise, not the outcome of enterprise. Not surprisingly, like Indra, his brand equity is poor and the market does not worship him.

To become Vishnu, all he has to do is pay attention to his value proposition, genuinely make students employable. For that he has to sincerely look at the training gap - simple things like the language of instruction and the ratio of theory and practice. The flow of wealth into his organisation will not be affected; if anything it will improve. Until he admits a flaw in his gaze, he will continue to chase the elusive and whimsical Lakshmi but Lakshmi will never chase him.

20. HOW TO COM M U NI CATE TACTFU LLY WI TH YOU R BOSS

The Bible tells the tale of the prophet Nathan who sought justice from his king David for a poor man who had been wronged by a rich man. Rather than

taking one from his own flocks to feed a traveller, the rich man claimed the one lamb that the poor neighbour dearly loved. David was understandably upset when he heard the complaint. He decreed that the rich man should die. No sooner did he take this decision than Nathan revealed that the rich man in his story was none other than David, a king with many wives. The poor neighbour was the Hittite Uriah with whose only wife, Bathsheba, the king had had an adulterous affair. By using the parable, Nathan had tricked the king into judging himself. He had made the king realise his own hypocrisy: quick to judge others but not himself.

Why didn’t Nathan simply tell the king that his actions were wrong? Would the king have heard him? Maybe he would have denied the crime, or simply made excuses for it. Despite being a representative of God, the prophet was wary of the king’s ego and anger. And so he used the Trojan horse method to address the sensitive issue.

The ability to communicate with a king with deference and dexterity is known in Sanskrit as sabha-chaturya , which literally translated means ‘tactfulness-in-court’. It is a trait that ministers and courtiers had to possess if they wished to survive in court and get their jobs done. It is a trait that people who work with leaders must possess. It is a trait that even leaders need to possess if they wish to lead.

The foundation for this skill lies in the observation that people are uncomfortable with the truth, especially when it shows them in a bad light or has consequences that could affect them adversely. When confronted with it, they react negatively – with rage or denial. They may get defensive or simply reject the submission. So the work does not get done. One needs strategic communication. One needs sabha-chaturya .

Page 31: Management Mythos

Rathodji mastered the art of sabha-chaturya long ago. He knew his boss, Mr. Khilachand, was a brilliant man with a rags-to-riches story. He also knew his boss had an ego the size of the mountain. He refused to accept or admit a mistake. In fact if a mistake was pointed out, he would do everything in his power to justify it. Mr. Khilachand was very fond of a distant cousin. So when a candidate presented himself before Mr. Khilachand with a recommendation from that cousin, he was, without much consideration , appointed manager in one of the many oil depots he owned.

The candidate was a good for nothing. He did no work, causing a great deal of problems in the smooth running of operations. But no one dared tell this to Mr. Khilachand. To do so would imply that Mr. Khilachand was a fool to appoint a candidate purely on recommendation without checking credentials. And Mr. Khilachand did not appreciate being taken for a fool. In a rage, just to prove he was right — and everyone else who thought he was a fool was wrong, he would simply sack the guy who complained and give the candidate a raise and maybe even a promotion. It was irrational, but that’s the way he was. Rathodji knew this and so when the problem was presented to him, he pondered long and hard on how to give Mr. Khilachand the message without upsetting him and making matters worse.

The next day Mr. Khilachand and Rathodji had a long session gossiping about Mr. Khilachand’s archrival, Mr. Mathias. Rathodji told Mr. Khilachand

how Mr. Mathias had foolishly selected a candidate on his sister’s recommendation and how the workers under the candidate were grumbling and planning to leave that firm and join their firm. Just before leaving , Rathodji gave Mr. Khilachand a file containing the new figures on operational efficiency.

The next day, Mr. Khilachand commented, “I feel it is time to get the new candidate to work in the head office. What do you think?” Rathodji agreed. Sabha-chaturya had worked its magic. The message had been passed. No feathers were ruffled. The dignity of all parties was maintained. A profitable decision was made and all was well.

21. Human beings often become territorial

In hindu mythology the god associated with fear is called the Bhairava. Bhaya means fear. Bhairava is a form of Shiva, the ascetic. This form of

Shiva is associated with a dog. Why is a dog associated with the god of fear? Is it because a barking dog baring his teeth as he protects his master’s territory is fearsome ? Or is it something else?

A dog is a needy animal. It is constantly afraid and insecure. It constantly seeks his master’s attention and validation. This need of validation from the master manifests in extreme loyalty. A dog is highly territorial; even the master is territory. He can get extremely upset and angry if he finds his master is paying attention to other people. If there are other dogs in the house, a pecking order is established so that the alpha male gets the first right to adore the master and eat the food that is placed before them.

The human mind is very much like a dog. We mark our emotional and intellectual territories and derive meaning from them. The provider of this territory – the boss – is much adored. Any threats to these emotional and intellectual territories unsettle us. We wag our tail when the boss celebrates us, thereby reinforcing our territorial hold over him. We whine when he chides us, thereby threatening our territorial hold over him. We do everything in our power to maintain the certainty and familiarity offered by our emotional and intellectual territories. We do our best to retain the meanings that familiar contexts give us. Any shift in context, any change in territory, frightens us, annoys us and we respond like dogs, growling and barking and biting. In other words, we are afraid. Through territory we try to overcome this fear. Yet territory ends up becoming the source of our greatest fears. It becomes like a dog’s bone. We cling to it tenaciously and fight over it tooth and nail. Bhairava draws attention to this dog within us as he rides on it. The dog within us is born of fear, the fear of invalidation and insignificance. He encourages us to overpower it. But that’s not easy.

Page 32: Management Mythos

Ratnam, for example, was not even aware of the dog within him. A successful lawyer, his territory was defined by the clients he had, his cabin at work overlooking the sea and the BMW he had recently been given. He never shared his clients, he would not let go of his work and he felt most satisfied as he sunk into the plush seats of his BMW. He believed he had arrived in life, but in fact, his position was as precarious as ever. At a primal level, he constantly feared losing it all and clung to it tenaciously.

When the organisational restructuring took place, and he was asked to share his clients with others , he refused to do so. When forced, he did not share vital details. It was extremely aggravating when he was told to let go of his cabin. In the new structure, he was not entitled to a cabin. Everyone except the CEO would be sitting in an open office . This was apparently the modern way to do things. And there were questions about the BMW. The company did not want to bear the expenses. Ratnam started whining and barking. He felt powerless. He was understandably upset.

Ratnam’s boss, Satish, the CEO, has an intuitive understanding of the dogs within all humans. He knows how people derive validation and significance from their jobs and their perks. He is aware of his own need for territories. Only, since he is the CEO, he very clearly wanted to be the alpha male. The restructuring was his way to shake the territories of the entire team. To make them whine and bark into submission before him. He identified all their bones and was now pulling them away. Dangerous dogs have been systematically declawed. Everyone had to cower before him. He had to be the undisputed top dog.

The use of fear to establish and run an organisation is a popular method. In fact, many people believe this is the only way to get people to align to the organisational values and processes. It is popularly called the ‘carrot and stick approach’ . It is how a dog is house broken. It feeds on human insecurity. By giving jobs to people, defining whom they report to, and who report to them, organisations are actually giving meaning to people by placing them within a very structured framework. And by giving them meaning, they also stir the dog within them. Rational business processes and organisational structures refuse to acknowledge this very deep human need for territory and meaning.

Give a person a salary but no job description, don’t define who he reports to and whom he should report to, take away his KRA and the KPI, and you will have a person who will become highly restless and anxious and it is a question of time before he leaves the organisation. In fact, this method of giving people cabins without jobs or jobs called ‘special projects’ is a time-tested method that is adopted by many alpha males to get rid of senior people in the system. It is ironical that when organisations were first established, they were meant to provide livelihood and take away fear. Over time, while they did provide livelihood , they ended up accentuating fear. In modern times, we do not call it fear – we call it stress.

22. An organisation needs a mix of dreamers & implementers

In Indian folklore, there are four characters. There is Shekchilli, Gangu Teli, Mitt Ka Madhav (some say Gobar ka Ganesh) and Raja Bhoj. These four

characters most aptly describe the kind of people we have in our organisation.

Shekchilli is a dreamer. One day he gets a pot of milk from his master. He dreams of turning the milk into curds, churning it for butter and selling it, making some money and using that money to buy more milk and making more butter. And in time making and selling so much butter that he would not have to work. As he dreams of the possibilities, he stumbles and falls on the road. The pot of milk in his hand breaks and out pours all the milk into the ground.

Gangu Teli does not dream at all. He likes to implement things. He calls himself a ‘realist’ and focuses on practical things like doing the task and measuring its effectiveness and efficiency. That’s what the world should be doing. He has a disdain for dreamers. His name Teli suggests that he is an oil presser. Just as an oil presser uses force to push oil out of oilseeds, Gangu Teli uses pressure to get work out of his team. Carrots, he says, are dreams; sticks, he

Page 33: Management Mythos

insists , are reality.

The story goes that when the wall of the king’s mountain-fort kept co lapsing, the astrolog recommended the sacr fice of a woman and her newborn to appease the gods the mountain. The only person whose wife and child were available for sacrifice – either voluntarily or under pressure, we will never know — was Gangu Teli. He is the frontlinse warrior; he knows. When times are bad, he will be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. The buck stops with him as he stands in the market. He is therefore most valued in the immediate term. Since he knows that, he often suffers from an inflated self-importance .

Mitti ka Madhav (also known by some as Gobar ka Ganesh) is neither a dreamer like Shekchilli nor an implementer like Gangu Teli. He is what you want him to be. On his own, he is neither. He is a reactive member of the team, doing whatever pleases you, with no mind or opinion of his own.

And finally, there is Raja Bhoj, the ideal leader, a dreamer as well as implementer. If a 2x2 matrix of dreamers and implementers is created, then Raja Bhoj sits in the top right hand box while Mitti ka Madhav sits on the bottom left hand box. Raja Bhoj knows when it is time to dream and when it is time to implement.

When the recession hit, Mr. Pyne realised, to his horror, that his organisation is full of Gangu-Telis and Mitti ka Madhavs. And he had to admit that it was his own fault. For six years the going was good. The demand for the copper pipes he made was greater than the supply. So he hired a number of executives who thought tactically and could sell. “No dreamers for me,” he told his HR department, “I want people who implement.” Mr. Pyne had had his experience with dreamers.

They sat all day, made presentations to him, never moved out of air-conditioned offices, and imagined the market. He had to pay them a fat salary

but there was no output that he could implement or measure. It was a waste of time. “All this strategy nonsense is good for other companies . Not more me,” he said. So he created an organisation where it was all about tasks and measurements . Creativity was not celebrated. “Lets just copy what the competitor does,” he said, “Why waste time thinking ourselves?” Things went well for a long time. Growth in quarter after quarter. Bigger offices, more people, more sales and good profits. Then came the recession.

All the businesses showed a de-growth suddenly . No one wanted copper pipes. Pipes sold were being returned. Payments were not being made. The salesmen were frustrated. Everyone shrugged their shoulders helplessly and hung their head in shame. Mr. Pyne looked around and realised there was no idea he could copy to get out of the situation. Everyone was in the same boat. Almost everyone. There was one small company, belonging to one Mr. Raut, that was doing reasonably well. Their salesmen were not complaining and no one in his team feared losing a job. Mr. Pyne called on Mr. Raut, who was kind to share his secret. “You see when the going was good, I imagined a time when things would not be so. Every boom is followed by a bust. So I created a small team to imagine a situation where there is no demand for copper pipes. How would we survive then? They came with many ideas and I invested a small proportion of my profits to experiment with them. Most of them failed. But two ideas that they came up with are proving to be viable in these trying times.”

Mr. Pyne realised that Mr. Raut was a Raja Bhoj who had created a team of Shekchillis. Together they had dreamt of bust even in boom times. And this had enabled them to survive the bust. If only, he had functioned like that. But then, he was no Raja Bhoj. He had taken pride in being Gangu Teli and now that the fort had collapsed, it was time for him to make the dreaded sacrifice of all that he dearly loved.

23. Yudhishtira learns the lessons of Rajdharma the hard way

When commenting on the great Indian epic, the Mahabharata, people often point to the question raised by Draupadi: "Does a man who has gambled

Page 34: Management Mythos

himself have the right to gamble his wife?" Very few have asked the question: Does a king have the right to gamble his kingdom? What gives the Pandavas, in general , and Yudhishtira, in particular, the right to gamble his kingdom? A king is not the owner of the kingdom; he is its custodian.

If the kingdom is a cow that gives milk, then the king is the cowherd. That is the traditional model of a leader in Hindu mythology. The king takes care of the kingdom and the kingdom nourishes him. He defends the kingdom and the kingdom empowers him. A cowherd cannot exist without a cow and a cow isn't safe without a cowherd. It's a symbiotic relationship. This is the essence of a king's role: to protect the cow, help it produce more calves, enable her to multiply and thrive, and in the process create more cowherds. This is true Raj-dharma - growth for the cow and growth for the cowherd.

In the Mahabaharata, there is a great debate on who should be king. Should kingship be determined by bloodline or meritocracy? After much debate and discussion and violence , which even involves an assassination attempt against the Pandavas, it is decided to divide the lands. The Pandavas get the underdeveloped half called Khandavaprastha , while their cousins, the Kauravas , get the prosperous city of Hastinapur.

With the help of Krishna , the Pandavas transform Khandavaprastha into a great city called Indraprastha , which becomes the envy of the world. With the help of Krishna, the Pandavas even become kings. But then, Krishna leaves, and in his absence, they gamble the kingdom away. It is almost as if, while they have the capacity to be king, they lack the attitude of kingship.

And so, Krishna offers them no reprieve when they have to suffer twelve years of exile in the forest living in abject poverty followed by a year of humiliation when the former kings live in hiding as servants in another king's palace. During this time there are tales of how each brother gets a lesson is humility and patience.

In one episode, the brothers reach a lake where a heron warns against drinking water until they answer his question; the impatient Pandavas drink nevertheless and die, all except Yudhishtira . Yudhishtira pauses, answers the questions, and is then allowed to drink. This displays a shift in character. The man who without thinking gambled away his kingdom, is now ready to pause and think, question his actions and listen to good counsel before acting. He is suddenly more patient and prudent.

The heron then tells Yudhishtira that only one of his brothers will be brought back from the dead. He is asked to choose. "Save Nakula," he says. "Why a weak step-brother ," asks the heron, "when you might as well save a strong brother like Bhima or a skilled one like Arjuna ?" To this Yudhishtira says, "My father had two wives. I, the son of his first wife, Kunti, am alive. Let one of the second wife Madri's son live too." Here again we see a transformation. Nakula was the first of the five brothers to be gambled away in the game of dice.

Thus the unwanted step-brother , who mattered least in the gambling hall matters most in the forest. Yudhishtira has learnt the lessons of Raj-dharma ; that it is not about his greatness and grandeur that the crown is placed on his head. He exists for others; he exists for the weakest in his kingdom; he exists to help the helpless.

Otherwise, his kingdom is no different from the jungle where might is right. Otherwise, he is no different from an alpha male.

Krishna, visualised in scriptures as the supreme divine cowherd, thus acts as a coach in the Mahabharata. He is not a king as in his previous life as Ram (whose story is told in the Ramayana). Here he plays a lowly role of a cowherd and charioteer, but acts as a kingmaker. He knows that it is not just about skill alone that makes a leader (turning the wilderness into a rich kingdom ). It is about attitude. And to shift the attitude of the

Page 35: Management Mythos

leader, sometimes, one has to be dragged through misery - 13 years of forest exile.

24.