MANAGEMENT MYTHOS -- epics & empires

   


MANAGEMENT MYTHOS


epics & empires


November 19, 2010 In dealing with generational change, Indian corporates are looking to mythology for inspiration. Mythologist Devdutt Pattanaik decodes the dharma-sankats of family business




    THE OLDEST GREEK STORIES, ILIAD AND Odyssey, deal with the triumph of the heroic leader who breaks all the rules. The oldest Biblical narratives, Genesis and Exodus, deal with the value of compliance to the rules of the institution. In contrast, the oldest Indian epics, Ramayana, Mahabharata, revolve around family dramas. Ramayana tells the story of Ram of Ayodhya and his antagonist, Ravana, king of Lanka. Mahabharata tells the story of Krishna and his warring cousins, the Pandavas and the Kauravas of Hastinapur. Another epic, the Bhagavata, often considered a prequel to the Mahabharata, tells the story of Krishna's early life in Gokul. Together these three epics deal with every possible family-related issue from inter-generational conflict to succession planning to talent management to sibling rivalry. It is filled with thoughts and ideas that are considered timeless, hence of value even to modern family businesses as they go through dharmasankat, or ethical dilemmas in the new world order where the demands of institutional business tower over traditional family assumptions.

What is a family?

    Families in Ramayana and Mahabharata, significantly, are not defined by blood. Ram and Laxman are half-brothers, with a common father but different mothers. Of the five Pandava brothers, three have a common mother, and none have a common father. Krishna is raised by foster parents, and even his brother Balabhadra is actually his halfbrother. What defines a family then is not blood or law or custom, but trust. In a family governed by trust, there are no rules; only love defines all actions, as in the Bhagavata. In a family with no trust, rules have no role; only power defines all actions, as in the Mahabharata. In between, stands the Ramayana, where there is love but also rules. How critical are rules to bind a family together?

    Rules are the fundamental building blocks of an institution. Members of an institution can be either the sheep, who follows the rule or the independent goat, who challenges the rules. Greek narratives understood the freethinking goat. Biblical narratives celebrated the sheep and equated the goat with the Devil. In Indian epics, however, rules play second fiddle to intent. More important than compliance or defiance is the reason behind the compliance or the defiance.

    Ram, hero of the Ramayana, keeps rules, and so does Duryodhan, villain of the Mahabharata. But Ram does it to ensure stability in Ayodhya while Duryodhan does it for his own satisfaction and this results in the war at Kurukshetra. Krishna, hero of the Mahabharata, breaks rules but so does Ravan, villain of the Ramayana. Krishna does it to bring joy in Gokul with his many pranks as he goes about stealing butter and with his ruthless war strategies to get justice for the Pandavas, while Ravan does it for his own satisfaction and causes the burning of his island-kingdom of Lanka. Family businesses need Rams and Krishnas who work for the welfare of the kingdom (symbol of business), not Ravans and Duryodhans who work for themselves.

What should be the relationship between family and the business?

    In the Ramayana, the kingdom of Ayodhya is more important than Raghu-kula the family that govern it. In the Mahabharata, the Kuru-kula family is more important than the kingdom of Hastinapur it is responsible for. In the Ramayana, Ram, son of King Dashrath, upholds the tradition of the Raghu-kula, goes into exile so that the integrity of the royal family is never questioned and Ayodhya feels secure under its leadership. In the Mahabharata, Bhisma, son of king Shantanu, gives up conjugal life, not for the sake of his kingdom, but so as to satisfy the lust of his father who wishes to marry Satyavati, the ambitious daughter of an ambitious fisherman. The kingdom of Ayodhya plays a key role in all decision-making in the Ramayana. This is not so in the Mahabharata, which is why the kingdom of Hastinapur is divided and the kingdom of Indraprastha is gambled away.

    But placing the institution over the family comes at a price in the Ramayana - the very same royal traditions (Raghu-kula-riti) that celebrate the obedience of the son also demand that a woman of tainted reputation should not be queen of Ayodhya. Thus Ram-Rajya witnesses the rejection of Ram's innocent wife, Sita, whose abduction by Ravana makes her the subject of public gossip. It is case of professional and personal conflict where profession wins. Ram's children grow up in the forest, not the palace. As the follower of the rules, Ram is not allowed to change the rules. But trust remains firm. Ram abandons the queen of Ayodhya but not his wife; he never remarries.

Does loyalty matter?

    Loyalty to dharma matters more than loyalty to a person. Ravana has two brothers, Vibhishana and Kumbhakarna. The Ramayana celebrates Vibhishana who leaves Ravana's side and joins Ram, and berates Kumbhakarna who remains by Ravana's side till the very end. In the Mahabharata, the noble warrior, Karna, is killed for siding with the Kauravas and so is Shalya, king of Madra, who is tricked into fighting against the Pandavas.

    Dharma is the journey of man out of animal instincts, where he outgrows his desire to be dominant and territorial. Both Ravana and Duryodhan are alpha-males, lions that establish pecking orders, demand obedience and work for their own aggrandizement. They don't care for people. They use people as instruments. Both drag their brothers and sons to their death as they cling to their own desires. Such behavior is acceptable in animals but not in humans. Ram and Krishna have outgrown the desire to dominate or establish territory. Thus dharma is the journey from a Ravana-mindset to a Ram-mindset, from a Duryodhana-mindset to a Krishna-mindset. Dharma is about achieving a Vishnu-mindset that ensures the flow of wealth into the kingdom.

    Ram is king who upholds the law not for personal ambition but because it is his duty. Krishna is a participant in a war not his own, to help transform five brothers from irresponsible gamblers to responsible rulers, even at the cost of his own family, who are cursed by the mother of the Kauravas following their final defeat.

What is the role of the leader?

    Leader in Indian thought is called a Karta or a Yajaman. A Yajman is not an alpha-male who establishes pecking order and demands obedience. He increases the sensitivity of family-members so that they take responsibility for themselves and the world that depends on the family. To do this, he has to increase his own sensitivity to the needs and wants of his own family. Thus increased sensitivity towards responsibility in the family depends on the increased sensitivity of the Yajaman for the family. Their growth mirrors his growth.

    In the Ramayana, Dashrath is a Yajman whose children uphold values even when all is threatened by the ambitions of one of their mothers. In the Mahabharata, neither Bhisma nor Dhritarashtra who are elders of the Kuru clan are Yajamans as their wards end up fighting over property. Kunti serves as a Yajman to her children. She realizes that individually no son of hers is strong enough to be king, but collectively they are powerful, and so ensures that they are always bound together by a wife.

Is the eldest the natural leader?

    Ram is the eldest in his family but Krishna is not. With or without the crown, both act as leaders as they function as Yajman, understanding people and enabling them to transform and grow.

    Once Laxman, the loyal brother of Ram, complained to his brother, "I always have to obey you because you are my elder brother." Ram responded thus, "In our next life, you will be the elder brother but you will still agree with me, not out of obligation or loyalty but because you will realize that all my actions are rooted in dharma." And so Laxman was reborn as Balabhadra and Ram was reborn as his younger brother, Krishna. Krishna never obeyed Balabhadra but, after initial irritation, Balabhadra always understood.

How does one handle individual aspirations?

    This is alluded to through the food and marital arrangements of the Pandavas. When they were children, the mother of the Pandavas, Kunti, divided the food into two halves. One half was given to Bhima who had a great appetite. The second half was divided equally between the other four brothers and

their mother. The brothers understood Bhima's need and there was no resentment.

    When they got married, however, the brothers had to share their common wife equally. Each brother could spend only one year with her and then wait for four years before his next turn. Bhima did not resent this. And when Arjun accidentally interrupted Yudhishtira when he was with Draupadi he accepted his punishment of a year's exile with grace.

    In the household of Draupadi, no one husband was dominant, even though Yudhishtira is the official Yajaman. To satisfy his individual aspiration, each Pandava brother was allowed to have another wife. But this second wife was not allowed to live in the same household as Draupadi. It was a separate house where the brother could also be Yajaman.

Why do break ups happen?

    Break-ups happen when the Yajman fails, trust collapses and territoriality rises. Basically when trust and dharma give way to the insecure animal within.

    In the Ramayana, stability of the family and kingdom is not the result of Ram being eldest or talented, or because of his brothers' loyalty, but because every brother displays integrity and sensitivity in the face of crisis. Technically, Ram's other brother, Bharat, could have taken over the kingdom after his mother had secured two boons from the king: exile of Ram and coronation of Bharat. But he refuses. To accept would be turning into a Duryodhan, focusing on the letter of the law not the spirit. He refuses to be an opportunist alpha-male. For he knows that will be collapse of the family order and inspire other brothers to follow suit. Bharat and Ram are thus both Yajmans, understanding their responsibility to each other, the family and Ayodhya.

    In the Mahabharata, like Ram, Bhisma gives up his claim to the throne for the benefit of his halfbrothers. His half-brothers however do not behave like Bharat. They claim the throne. Things go downhill after that as no one behaves like a Yajaman. Bhisma's eldest grandnephew, Dhritarashtra, is not allowed to be king because he is blind resulting in a lifelong resentment in his children, the Kauravas; the second grandchild, Pandu, is allowed to be king but he is unable to father children and so needs the help of the gods to create the five Pandavas. Focus of the cousins is all about inheritance rights, not royal responsibilities. Dharma collapses. Rather than share, the kingdom ends up being divided. But even that does not solve the problem. No one has transformed. The Kauravas remains resentful, spiteful, insecure and jealous. Krishna intervenes, as there is no Yajaman around. He hopes to inspire the next generation of kings to rise above their animal nature and in doing so enable others around them to rise above animal nature. The process is not easy. It demands many a sacrifice, years of exile, humiliation, war and bloodshed.

How must talent be nurtured?

    The ashrama system of Vedic times was an attempt to ensure smooth transition to the next generation of kings while the old king was alive. After being a student, one became a Yajama or head of the household, then when the son came of age, one had to retire and finally renounce the world.

    Retirement was a critical step, a quarter of one's lifetime, when one stepped away from actively running the business to enabling the future generation to take over the reins. The point was to render oneself useless over a period of time so that when it is time to renounce the world, the next generation is already running the show responsibly. Thus a vast proportion of time was invested on the next generation.

    This explains Dashratha's decision to retire when Ram comes home with a wife. Bhisma, however, is never happy with the capabilities of the next generation and refuses to retire even after his grandnephews (the Pandavas and the Kauravas) have children of their own. His over-protective nature results in over-dependence upon him. No talent is nurtured and the family collapses. In the end, Bhisma has to be pinned to the ground with arrows, so that a new world order can finally be established.

What about daughters taking over family businesses?

    Mythology is symbolic. It must not be taken literally. Ideas are communicated through male and female forms. For example, a male form represents king while a female form represents kingdom, thus indicating the mutual dependence. Without either there is neither. Somewhere along the way, there was confusion between idea and the form (vehicle of the idea). Rather than representing kingship, men became identified with kings while women, rather than representing kingdom, became identified as kingdom, hence property.

    Stripped of patriarchal bias and literal analogies, Ram, Krishna, Ravan and Duryodhan are mindsets that can exist in men or women. Vishnu is the mindset that ensures prosperity, hence Lakshmi. Anyone can be Vishnu, a daughter as much as a son.

How does one cope with shift in values over generation?

    Ram upholds dharma very differently from Krishna. One upholds the rule while the other breaks it. This is because the two belong to very different yugas, or contexts. Ram belongs to Treta yuga and Krishna to Dvapar yuga. The conditions of the world in each yuga is different and so is the response to it. Awareness of this change is critical.

    In an earlier age, the Krita yuga, when kings of the earth broke all rules, Vishnu descended as Parashuram. He killed all kings. But then he saw a king called Ram. Impressed by Ram's nobility, Parashuram withdrew from the world. Ability to change with yugas is the hallmark of Vishnu. To cope with the shift in values over generations, Yajmans have to strive to be Vishnu.

How can professionals be included in family businesses? 

India is named Bharat-varsha after a king called Bharata (son of Shakuntala, not to be confused with Ram's brother). The story goes that his wives gave him many sons but he rejected them all as they did not 'look' like him. So he

invoked the gods and the gods gave him Vithata, an illegitimate abandoned child. Vithata ended up being Bharata's heir. This indicates the value Bharat gave to the kingdom he was responsible for. His sons did not match to his expectations and so he considered an outsider. This is not an easy task and perhaps because Bharata succeeded in taking such a monumental decision, the entire subcontinent came to be named after him.

    Often the Yajaman has to struggle between family members and professionals. Family members are viewed as 'mine' and professionals are viewed as 'not mine'. With the former there is more trust while with the latter there is more transaction. Because family members are mine, there is room for more assumptions, more allowances, and more risks, which is not possible with professionals. The professionals, because they are expected to be professional, are encouraged not to have emotional attachment to the business, and focus only on the rules. They are expected to be more logical and less emotional, hence less prejudiced, which an enterprise needs. Unfortunately, what is 'mine' for the Yajaman ends up becoming 'not mine' for the professional. This creates a distance that is difficult to bridge. Often the professional thinks he is Ram, but the family looks at him as Duryodhan. Or the professional believes he is Krishna, but the family is convinced he is Ravana. Sometimes, the Yajaman thinks of the professional as Ram and Krishna, making family insecure, who refuse to see the professional in the same light.

    In the Ramayana, Ram does not consider Ayodhya mine. He does not derive his identity from it. Hence he is able to give it up with ease. Ayodhya is not his territory that secures his self-image. Unfortunately, for most entrepreneurs, businesses are territories that secure their self-image and the self-image of their family. Detachment is not easy.

    Governance rules will never create a Ram. And Ram does not need governance rules to decide who will bring greater value to Ayodhya: a son, a daughter, a nephew, a niece or a professional. 

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToPrint_ETNEW&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=ETM/2010/11/19&ID=Ar02500

Make Vishnu's four symbols your management tools --- Devdutt Pattanaik

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-09-07/news/27671841_1_conch-shell-vishnu-symbols

                                                 

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 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 butterfly, 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.

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 .

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.

Two kinds of teachers --- Devdutt Pattanaik

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/corporate-dossier/two-kinds-of-teachers-some-impart-practical-knowledge-while-others-instill-morals-ethics/articleshow/46466805.cms


Two kinds of teachers: Some impart practical knowledge while others instill morals & ethics 

 In the Ramayana, Ram is educated by two teachers: Vasistha and Vishwamitra. And these two teachers are as different from each other as day and night. Vasishtha is one of the primal seven sages. He is associated with Vedic wisdom. After Ram completes his study, he travels around the world and returns disillusioned by the illusory nature of the world, uninterested in worldly life. Alarmed, his father Dasharatha sends for Vasistha who declares that this is a good thing for Ram is now ready to receive the ultimate wisdom of the Vedas. Then follows, for 21 days, narration known as the Yoga Vasistha in the king's court, after which an enlightened Ram is at peace with worldly life having understood the true nature of reality. One of the lessons he learns is not to mistake correlation with causality: just because a coconut falls from a tree when a crow alights on it does not mean the crow is the cause and the falling of the fruit is the effect. We often mistake events that may be coincidence to be causality and this is the cause of much sorrow in the world. Another lesson is how in turbulent waters the moon has many reflections just as in turbulent minds we see many versions of reality and not the truth. 

Vishwamitra, however, is a very different kind of teacher. Born a king, he is a great warrior before he decides to become a sage. He drags Ram into the forest, ignoring Dasharatha's protests. There he makes Ram kill the rakshasa demon lady, Tadaka, who disturbs his yagna. He then makes Ram bring back to life Ahalya, the wife of Rishi Gautama, who had been turned into stone on charge of adultery. Thus he makes Ram take life in one incident and give life in another. He tells Ram stories of his gre .. 

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/46466805.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Why the customer should not be the only God --- By Devdutt Pattanaik

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/corporate-dossier/why-the-customer-should-not-be-the-only-god/articleshow/40268205.cms

Glorified in death: Why companies love Abhimanyus who die young --- By Devdutt Pattanaik

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-08/news/52593924_1_krishna-arjuna-dwarka


Everybody loves the story of Abhimanyu in the Mahabharata. This son of Arjuna and Subhadra was a young lad who knew how to enter a battle formation called Chakravyuha but did not know how to get out, yet he plunged himself into war to save his family, and in the process got himself killed. The corporate world is full of seductive Chakravyuhas that enchant and entrap ill prepared but valorous and impressionable Abhimanyus. We find ambitious young men with little skills believing they can solve any problem in the world and then finding themselves in tricky situation they cannot escape from. While the company, which has bet on them, cannot let them go despite recognizing their shortcomings, the Abhimanyus find themselves choked because they bit off more than they could chew, unable to cry out for help.

In a folktale, when Arjuna blames his incompetent brothers and his vile enemies for the death of his son, Krishna says, "Perhaps you should consider blaming yourself too. You always admired brave heroes who dared to do the impossible. Your son wanted to be the hero that you would forever admire, even if it meant taking foolhardy risks. Now he is a great hero you can admire. But he is a dead hero."

This coming from Krishna is significant as Krishna is called Ran-chod-rai, he who ran away from the battlefield. The story from the Bhagavat Purana goes that when it was clear that Jarasandha's general, Kal-yavan, would burn down the city of Mathura, Krishna simply gave Kal-yavan the slip and ran away to distant Dwarka. He returned only after he had befriended the Pandavas and was able to defeat Jarasandha using trickery rather than strength. The temple of Ranchod-rai is located in Dwarka and Dakor in Gujarat and is ironically patronized by Rajputs or warrior communities popular for preferring death to dishonour. It is also popular amongst Banias or trading communities who are often told by their elders, "To succeed in the marketplace, leave your nose (symbol of ego) behind at home."

In the corporate world, we often glamorize high risks and hard work. So people work crazy schedules doing ridiculous tasks. Sales guys chase unbelievable targets, way above market growth, and believe that by staying in the office late at night they will solve the problem. Marketing guys spend hours going over strategies, editing them endlessly, preparing charts after charts, trying hard to mask their confusion and cluelessness.

Often people start assuming that ignoring family life will somehow make them successful, as they will be rewarded for this 'sacrifice'. Those who work odd hours, refuse to sleep or eat or rest, become heroes in the workplace. They are seen as displayers of true integrity. Anyone who is smart and organised, who balances work and life, is seen as selfish, cunning and not committed to the task at hand. This is especially seen in jobs related to strategy, creativity, and marketing, where the endpoint is not clearly measurable, people compensate and justify their salary by overworking, by creating problems and investing time and resources at solving them. We live in a world where bards sing about Abhimanyus who die young not Ranchodrais who live to fight another day.

The thing is business is uncertain but shareholders demand certainty. We plan, we strategise, but the market constantly us by surprise. Our assumptions turn out to be wrong. Our risks do not always work out. This creates stress as the world only values winners. We try to increase the probability of victory through overwork and even foolhardy work. We are afraid to leave the battlefield and come back refreshed the next day. We bravely put ourselves in situations and find ourselves ill-equipped to handle the tasks at hand.

We overestimate ourselves and underestimate the problem that needs to be solved. We are too proud to admit mistakes or shortcomings. We always have hope - things may just work out. And so we continue, entrapped by valour and glamour, even when chances of success look bleak.

The author writes and lectures on relevance of mythology in management. He is the author of Business Sutra: an Indian approach to management.

Organizations need scapegoats to take responsibility for failures --- Devdutt Pattanaik

http://devdutt.com/articles/leadership/organizations-need-scapegoats-to-take-responsibility-for-failures.html

Organizations need scapegoats to take responsibility for failures

Published on 23rd January, 2015, in The Economic Times

In ancient Greece, whenever there was famine or epidemic, a criminal or a disabled person, known as the pharmakos, would be cast out of the community. In ancient tribes of Israel, it was common to drive away a goat, known as azazel, with a noose round its neck, deeming it the carrier and container of the sins of the community. Thus purification of the village, or tribe, took place in a ritual way. This was clearly irrational – the pharmakos or azazel was not responsible for the problem. Yet by casting him away, the community felt cleansed, renewed and invigorated. It feels unfair when we consider the victim’s point of view but it makes great sense when you see the beneficiaries’ point of view.

For all talk of measurability and rationality, modern corporations make great use of scapegoats. Someone has to be blamed for a mistake. We need to identify the cause of a problem and get rid of it, and start afresh. It all sounds logical, if one is ready to get to the root cause of the problem. But in fast moving organisations, where we need results fast, we have no time for root cause analysis. And so we focus on symptoms, and find someone or the other to blame and take action accordingly.

The scapegoat is usually the weakest link in the chain – the criminal in case of Greeks and goat in case of Israelites, someone who really has no voice. Thus in many organisations the external partner or the vendor is to blame for the problem. Not the procurement department whose bonus depended on bringing down cost, not the quality control whose demands for paperwork bordered on the ridiculous, not the finance department which delayed payment, not the auditor who loved playing inspector and was not bothered of the results. So vendors are changed, but the problem continues. But by the time we discover the problem has resurfaced, we have a new CEO to deal with who does not know that this has happened before. So once again the scapegoat is punished and the root of the problem festers.

Many leaders use scapegoats to deflect accusations of lack of competency. They hire people in senior positions not to do a job, but to become the focal point of an inevitable failure. The CEO of an online health portal realized too late in the day that the assumptions of his business plan, that had impressed the investors, were wrong. Failure was inevitable. So he hired a sales head and gave him the task of executing the ‘brilliant’ plan. The sales head realised soon enough that the plan given to him was ‘far from brilliant’. He tried to raise his voice but was silenced. When the results came, everyone blamed the implementer not the strategist. No one questioned the strategist. The CEO thus survived. He had calculated that even investors would never admit to the error in strategy they had themselves approved of and invested in.

Leaders also use scapegoats a lot to protect those who matters to them. An innocent third party of no consequence is often punished to save someone close. It is seen as expression of loyalty. But it also earns us loyal followers, for the one who is saved becomes beholden to the saviour. The one who is not sacrificed becomes the slave, eternally grateful to the saviour. Thus a tribe of loyal followers is created – a corporate fiefdom.

In family-owned companies it is easy to declare overpaid professionals as scapegoats by pointing to their salary and questioning return on investment. When someone is made accountable without empowerment, he needs to know that he is being set up. A leader needs to be aware that people hate taking blame for failures. For they fear taking responsibility will result in loss of power and maybe even termination of employment. And so it is best to not take responsibility and find scapegoats who can be blamed.

Leaders have to ask themselves if they are creating ecosystems where people wish to nurture scapegoats for their survival. They have to keep checking if people being blamed are merely scapegoats or root cause. That is not easy for it means deep investigation and insight, demanding time, which is in short supply in the impatient corporate world.

How to use a consultant --- Devdutt Pattanaik

http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/how-to-use-a-consultant.html

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-14/news/56092866_1_rishi-consultants-forest

When we read the Puranas, one little detail catches your attention. There are sages in the forest known as rishis who continuously visit kings or rajas, or there are rajas continuously visiting the hermitages of rishis. One can see the relationship between the rishi and the rajas as one between a consultant and a CEO of an organisation. The stories reveal how the relationship can benefit both rishi and raja.

The rishi and the raja belong to two different worlds. The rishi lives in the forest and travels from kingdom to kingdom, never staying in a human settlement for more than a day, except during the four months of the rainy season. His travel across kingdoms exposes him to different ways of governance. His stay in the forest forces him to realize the gap between nature and culture, the ways of the jungle and the rules of the kings. Kings stay trapped in their kingdom, with little or no exposure to the modes of governance other than their own. They can stay complacent with their own knowledge or learn better skills and take advise from the rishis.

In modern society, consultants play a key role in corporations. Reasons vary. One CEO of a pharmaceutical company revealed that he saw consultants as wild wolves of the forest, while employees as domesticated dogs of the village. When the latter gets too complacent, he gets the wolves in to shake up the system. It kept the dogs on alert. Another CEO of an FMCG company saw consultants as auditors: external eyes that told him what his own people would not tell. They provided him with a fresh perspective of his own organisation, his market and his own strategy. In a software company, consultants were used for projects for which the organisation did not want to hire employees; they provided skilled labour, nothing else. Of course, most CEOs agree that consultants are a powerful fig leaf to take tough decisions; they fire guns using the capable branded shoulders of esteemed consultants and get away with ruthless decisions that would otherwise not meet approval of the board and make them infamous in the company.

There is a famous joke that a consultant tells you what you already know and charges you for it. It is a joke cracked by people who do not know how to use a consultant. People often see the consultant for a doctor who solves problems. He is expected to deliver a cure for a sickness: give the magic potion that will give children to the childless king. In the Mahabharata, when Drupada seeks a solution for his problem from the rishi called Upayaja, the rishi tells the king to go his brother Yaja who will do the needful for ‘he seeks earthly pleasures and so will give you what you seek’. Thus the problem-solving rishi is seen as a separate, even inferior quality, of rishi. A more genuine rishi only offers the kings clarity, better frameworks for decision-making, possibilities, points of views, and draws attention to consequences of various approaches. He leaves the decision to the king. When a CEO seeks solutions, he is essentially giving up his responsibility as the decision-maker. He ends up outsourcing decision-making and de-risking himself from failure by creating a fall guy or scapegoat in the consultant. The rishi, source of knowledge, but not of solutions, does not care either way for he is steadfast in mind and body, indifferent to success and failure. In indulging this fear of failure, a king stops beings a king and the sage stops being a sage.

The idea of consultants being equated with rishis may be to the liking of many people. For the rishis are visualised as being other worldly and non-materialistic while consultants are very much part of profit-making consulting firms: one is always wondering whose organisation does a consultant’s advise benefit, the client’s or the consulting firm’s. In stories, rishis are not as non-materialistic as we are given to believe. The rishis are practical. They need material support from kings in order to survive in the jungle: cows, wives, maybe soldiers to protect them from hostile demons of the forest. But it is not quite a consultant fees which is payment for services rendered.

In a rishi-raja relationship the gift to the rishi is not dependent on the quality or quantity of advise given as in the consultant-corporation relationship: a raja is obliged and duty-bound by tradition to take care of the rishis and the rishi is obliged and duty-bound not to ask for anything beyond basic survival needs. In the modern world of consultancy, unfortunately, the advisor has a meter ticking. Every minute is charged. He wants to increase billing hours while the CEO wants to keep costs low. The result is that somewhere in the relationship the conversation becomes fake as money takes its toll.

Customer is not the Only God --- Devdutt Pattanaik

http://devdutt.com/articles/world-mythology/customer-is-not-the-only-god.html

Customer is not the Only God

Published on 10th August, 2014, in The Economic Times

In Hinduism, every thing and everyone is a devata, or a deity. That is why it is not difficult to offer prayers to a rock, a cow, a tree, a person. There are temples to heroes and martyrs, but there are also temples dedicated to deemed villains such as Ravana and Duryodhana.

European Orientalists of the 19th century, and many Indians of the 21st century, believe that this indicates a simple primitive mindset of a pre-religious people. Such a condescending belief is rooted in the assumption that monotheism is superior to polytheism. Such condescension obscured analysis.

The attribution of ‘devata-hood’ to every thing and everyone was an attempt to draw attention to the uniqueness of all things. Nothing was without value. It enabled celebration of diversity, as everything in nature mattered to someone.

The monotheistic mindset is the reason for the phrase: ‘customer is God’. So all things are done to please the customer. A shrewd analyst will observe that the only other beneficiary of this belief is the shareholder. Thus the phrase is a clever way to exploit employees and vendors, give them minimum payment and make them work that extra mile. It is this mindset that assumes that corporations exist only for the benefit of the consumer of its products, services and ideas.

But in the Vedic mindset the purpose of the yagna was to benefit everyone who came in touch with it: the yajaman who initiated it, the various pandits who contributed to it, the various craftsmen and labourers who provided the pots, the bricks, the ladles, the mats, the fences of the ceremony, the cowherds and farmers who provided the ghee and the grain, and of course, the invisible gods who would partake of the ceremony. The yagna was established a medium of exchange between various stakeholders. The gods were fed. But so were those who fed the gods. Everyone was fed. And the yajaman would say: sarva sukhina bhavatu, may everyone be happy. Everyone included not just those who were in immediate contact of the yagna but also those beyond its influence – the ancestors, the ghosts, the animals, nature beyond the boundaries of culture. Everything and everyone was considered.

Likewise an industry impacts everyone not just customers. It impacts the employees, the vendors, the suppliers, the society at large, and of course the ecosystem. We need to be aware of all of them. Every stakeholder is a devata. Every non-stakeholder is also a devata. A successful organisation is one that enables everyone who is in touch with it to generate sustainable wealth.

This is a highly demanding proposition, especially if one believes wealth is finite and that to be a ‘have’, we have to create ‘have not’. Thus to create value for the customer and the shareholder, someone has to suffer: usually vendors, partners and employees. This is a highly prevailent mindset amongst many business people and is a recipe for exploitation. This is a mindset of those who believe all capitalism is crony capitalism and all rich people are evil. It reveals a mind that believes wealth has to be stolen, that it cannot be generated. It reveals a mind that refuses to see the devata in every person, that every person has the ability to give value – some value – if properly invoked. It is a mind that denies the humanity of humans.

Rather than believing that only the corporation brings value to the customer and employees enable that, it is important to believe that every person brings or needs to bring value to the table. The doorman exists because he brings value. The data entry operator exists because he brings value. The shareholder exists because he brings value. Who is the recipient of this value? For the employee and vendors, the recipient is the corporation, while for the corporation it is usually the end customer. Corporations now have to think in terms of what value it brings to the employee and vendors to increase their stickiness as best places to work and partner with. Thus everyone becomes aware of the hunger of every god in the work ecosystem.

Cast into the Forest --- Devdutt Pattanaik

http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/cast-into-the-forest.html

Published on 25th April, 2014, in The Economic Times

A businessman asked me to solve a problem. He was a self-made man. He began with nothing. His father was a peon in a government office. He was now a millionaire with a house in Delhi and farmhouses in Punjab and offices in Dubai. But neither his son nor his daughter seemed to share his drive. They lacked his insight. They were more interested in playing ‘boss’, ordering people around, expecting everyone to follow their commands.

I asked the businessman, “Do you love your children?”

“Yes,” he replied, startled by the question. “I have made sure they got everything I did not get as a child.”

I smiled. For he just revealed what the problem was.

The way we see the world depends a lot on how we are raised. The businessman grew up in poverty, surrounded by people unwilling or unable to give him what he wanted, and that poverty provoked a ruthless drive in him that made what he was. His children grew up in affluence, surrounded by people who gave them everything that they wanted. What did that affluence provoke? How could it be expected to provoke the same drive as poverty?

In the Ramayana, Ram is raised in the comfort of the palace and educated in the security of Vasishtha’s hermitage. He is the crown prince, much adored by his father, Dashratha, the king of Ayodhya, who wants to shower him with love and affection. But then an ex-king, Kaushika, now a hermit with a new name, Vishwamitra, appears in the court, and insists on taking Ram to the forest with him. “I need your son to provide security while I conduct my yagna.” The king offers to send his army, even come himself, but the ex-king insist that only Ram should come, no one else. After much persuasion, Ram is forced to follow Vishwamitra. In the forest, Ram learns new skills and successfully protects the yagna, killing numerous demons along the way.

This story from the Bala-kanda of the Ramayana is key to talent management. The forest is a metaphor where the prince is denied all pleasures and entitlements he takes for granted in the palace. Here he is just prey to the predator with no social standing. He not only has to survive on his own strength and wits, he is expected to protect those around him, his age notwithstanding. Imagine Ram sleeping alone in the forest, without servants or guards or even a guru watching over his well-being, enveloped by the sound of hungry animals and birds and reptiles. The forest is no sylvan retreat as we are given to believe in comic books: no guarantee of food or water. The young prince has to fend for himself. What kind of psychological impact it has on a future king? You learn about survival, about fear, about predators and prey, the importance of rules and strategy and teamwork. Ram who returns home is fit to rule.

Mahabharata clearly differentiates between Pandavas and Kauravas. The former are born in the forest, and have to return to the forest three times: once to study in the hermitage of their tutor Drona, next when their new palace is burned to the ground by their cousins, and finally when they gamble their kingdom away for 13 years. Each forest sojourn is a time to learn what kingship is all about. What it means to have nothing. It generates skill, and empathy.

In medieval times, kings sent their sons into battlefield. It taught you about the brutality of life, the machinations of palace politics, and the price of royal power. It prepared you to wear the crown. It is in trauma does Saraswati, goddess of knowledge, become most accessible.

What do young men and women in affluent families have that prepares them to be good leaders other than imagined problems or maybe internal drive born of some psychological trauma? How does the older generation of self-made businessmen pass it on to the next generation? In trading communities, children were encouraged to start their own businesses early in life. Failure was seen as learning and training for the future. Success enabled families to identity talent. What are new business families doing to provoke this in children?

An MBA in Harvard does not prepare you for the grit realities of the Indian bazaar. Perhaps that is why many of the young and rich and talented are turning to the virtual world and to virtual marketplaces which are so different from brick-and-mortar spaces but which is so much like gaming. You don’t have to deal with the idiosyncrasies of people. You can always switch it off with a tap on the screen, and go to sleep in the comfort of your air-conditioned suite.

How a superhero differs from an avatar --- Devdutt Pattanaik

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-05-23/news/50055242_1_avatar-superhero-vishnu

By Devdutt Pattanaik

There is a fundamental difference between the words 'superhero' and 'avatar' and it is critical to understand this if one hopes to be a good leader.

Unfortunately, today, no thanks to videogames and Hollywood, the two words are used synonymously. The inability of those who understand Hinduism to explain the difference has further contributed to this miscommunication. In the beginning, in Europe, there were no superheroes.There were masked crusaders though, like Zorro and Scarlet Pimpernel, men who pretended to be ordinary but secretly displayed their extraordinary talents only to help the helpless. Hiding their talent was necessary so that they could mingle with ordinary folk, and unsuspecting villains. In other words, they were skilled and clever.

The extraordinary became the fantastic in an America spellbound by outer space, radioactivity and modern technology. There was Superman who came from outerspace and so had X-ray vision and superhuman strength.

There was Spiderman who was bitten by a mutant bug that enabled him to create spider webs. And there was Batman who used his wealth to create fantastic gadgets like the Batmobile. All of them hid their true capabilities and lived unremarkable lives as Clark Kent, Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne.

Both the European and the Amercian characters were like Greek heroes standing up against cruel authority (the supervillains) on behalf of ordinary folk.

But that is not an avatar. The word avatar is derived from another word 'avatarana' - to come down. This word is commonly associated with Vishnu, the preserver of the cosmos. From his abode, Vaikuntha, Vishnu watches over the world. And from time to time he descends either as animal or human to set things right.

At face value, it seems exactly the same. So what is the difference? Both help the helpless. But in the case of the superhero, the hero has to secretly unleash his extraordinariness to solve the problem. But in case of the avatar, Vishnu has to make himself less divine, more mortal, to solve the problem.

Expansion of capability transforms the hero into superhero. Compression of capability transforms Vishnu into avatar. Vishnu 'comes down' in not to save people from supervillains as many cartoon versions of Krishna seems to suggest; he 'comes down' to uplift or do 'uddhar'.

Ram may fight Ravana, but he does not seek to destroy Ravan; he seeks to enable Ravan to discover his divine potential, his ability to outgrow the animal instinct to grab and dominate.

In the superhero's story, the people around him stay the same. In the avatar's story, the people around him are hope fully transformed. In the superhero's story, the world becomes a bet ter place thanks to the superhero's intervention. In the avatar's story, the world remains as it was - hurtling to wards pralaya, the end of the world, which is unavoidable - but hopefully people are wiser and see the world differently.

  The superhero's world is physical, tangible, measurable. The avatar's world is psychological, intangible, not measurable. Superheroes save the world.Avatar seeks to provoke wisdom about the nature of the world and humanity, knowing fully well he may not succeed.

At work, leaders often exhort their teams to become superheroes, solve problems that no one else can by discovering latent extraordinariness. That is the purpose of motivational speeches and pep talks and role models and success stories.

The burden of transformation rests with the followers. If the leader takes the burden of transformation upon himself, he then becomes the innovator, the saviour who tides over a crisis.

But to be avatar means working with people who are not as capable or skilled as you are, but who you know can be much better, within their parameters, if they try. It is about being able to go down to their level and helping them break free from their limitations.

The trick is not to intimidate them or make them feel insecure for not being as smart as you are. It is about making them comfortable with who they are and creating an ecosystem where everyone feels they matter. This is not easy, for the temptation to be condescending is difficult to resist.

The superhero hides his extraordinariness so that those around him do not feel threatened. An avatar who is aware of his divine potential strives hard as fish, turtle, priest, king and cowherd to reveal the divine potential in those around him. The superhero seeks to solve the problems of the world.

The avatar seeks to help people appreciate dharma, their human potential to cope with a world that resists all attempts to control it. The superhero gaze is on that elusive target. The avatar's gaze is on the happiness of the employee.The former does not include the latter; the latter includes the former., the saviour who tides over a crisis.

But to be avatar means working with people who are not as capable or skilled as you are, but who you know can be much better, within their parameters, if they try. It is about being able to go down to their level and helping them break free from their limitations.

The trick is not to intimidate them or make them feel insecure for not being as smart as you are. It is about making them comfortable with who they are and creating an ecosystem where everyone feels they matter. This is not easy, for the temptation to be condescending is difficult to resist.

The superhero hides his extraordinariness so that those around him do not feel threatened. An avatar who is aware of his divine potential strives hard as fish, turtle, priest, king and cowherd to reveal the divine potential in those around him. The superhero seeks to solve the problems of the world.

The avatar seeks to help people appreciate dharma, their human potential to cope with a world that resists all attempts to control it. The superhero gaze is on that elusive target. The avatar's gaze is on the happiness of the employee.The former does not include the latter; the latter includes the former.

?(The author writes and lectures on relevance of mythology in management. He is the author of Business Sutra: an Indian approach to management.)

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-05/news/40391939_1_cmo-cfo-sons

Management Mythos: How Indian mythology can help in choosing a good CEO  ---   Devdutt Pattanaik

I have been asked to pick someone for the top job as CEO, basically to replace me. The two candidates are my CMO and the CFO, and the problem is both are very good leaders with excellent track records and impeccable credentials, both have been with me for the last 8 years. While the CMO has helped carve out a very effective brand-led growth strategy that has worked for our company, the CFO has helped maintain the cost and organizational discipline that really made the strategy work. Each one wouldn't have worked without the other. So help me decide the criteria for decision.

The Ramayana speaks of three sets of brothers: the sons of Dashrath (Ram and Bharat), the sons of Riksha (Vali and Sugriv) and the sons of Vishrava (Ravan and Kuber). The sons of Dashrath are willing to make the other king; the sons of Riksha have to share the kingdom but end up fighting over it; one son of Vishrava, Kuber, builds Lanka and the other, Ravan, usurps it. The sons of Dashrath are called manavas, or humans, because their only concern is Ayodhya. The other brothers are called vanars (monkeys) or rakshasas (demons) because they are not concerned about the kingdom, only themselves. Ultimately, it is about the organization, not the candidate.

Your concern should not be who is a better candidate, your concern should be who is good for the organization, the one who will enable the organization grow even in your absence and face challenges of the future. This can only happen if you have not been a Banyan tree, become so big that nothing has grown in your shadow. Yes, the CMO and CFO have done well in their respective domains. They have done what you feel should have been done. But will they be good in new roles, different roles, handling jobs beyond their respective domains. For example, does the CMO know anything beyond marketing: does he understand sales and finance and HR and admin and investor relations? Can he handle the board? And does the CFO know anything beyond discipline? Can he inspire people? Does he have a vision that will get the organization excited and aligned? Most critically, are either of them a yajaman?

A yajaman is proactive in decision-making and responsible for its consequences. Did your CMO do what he was told to do or was he taking independent decisions and responsibility? Did your CFO just do his job, but go out of his way to take decision and take responsibility, not just for success but also failure? Most critically, did you see any one of them groom people to take their respective job. If they don't help people grow, if they don't think beyond their domains, if they are unable to think future and take risks, they are probably not good to be leaders.

To be a yajaman, one has to take people along. Who amongst the two tries to take people along? This does not mean consensus all the time. Sometimes it requires force, a little pushing and pulling. Who can handle the consequence of losing the other? Who can find a replacement quickly enough? Who is capable of retaining the other?

You need to list all the things that you feel you did to be a good CEO and map if these qualities exist in some measure in either of the candidates. You need to check if either of them empathizes with the organization and understands the market and can handle change that even you cannot anticipate today. The CEO position cannot be a reward for a job well done. You never promote for performance; you always promote only if there is potential.