BW Communities

Analysis: One’s Own Conviction

BW Online Bureau Nov 08, 2014

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root available-locales="en_US," default-locale="en_US"><static-content language-id="en_US"><![CDATA[Chaitanya Suri comes across as a very down to earth person with his own way of making sense of things, taking appropriate action and being very successful at it. He clearly accepts, perhaps even enjoys, being put into situations that are both challenging and difficult. His approach appears to be very simple: clear ethics; focus on what needs to be immediately sorted; do what is best for the organisation; and take all concerned along without losing focus. Simple and effective. One thing that he is clearly uncomfortable with is standing out as some kind of lone leader. He is the kind of person who is most at ease with the whole group being given credit for success and is almost embarrassed about standing out from the group. He has a strong concern for the group or organisation as a whole and not just one or the other group within the organisation. For example, he tells HR: "This year's appraisals were force rated because we had no money" or "...you take away their increments and give me a carpet?" Clearly Chaitanya has embodied a highly democratic approach, which builds connections. Simply put, here is a very apolitical person with a broad need to be responsible for the whole. Chaitanya has his own way of going about his task. His source of reference is himself; not what he should do but what he believes is the right thing to do. He is at the other end from conventional. Yet he is clear about his inner frame of reference: integrity, involve, collaborate. He feels the pressure of the expectations and perceptions of others on him, but is still quite capable of doing what he thinks best under the circumstances. On the other hand, the leadership of his company, Rollsum, comes across as more conventional. Sujeet Mathur, a board member, says, "Young man, you will get used to it. Good people like you have to go there one day."  This statement shows clearly that he does not ‘see' Chaitanya. He sees a category, a type. So Chaitanya is a ‘type' who will inevitably fit into Mathur's way of seeing. There is a patronising quality about this, which also conveys a disconnection from others. If he sees Chaitanya in this way, how might he be seeing others? When a deeply democratic person comes into contact with an authoritarian and political person or group, there is a feeling of two very different world views: the proverbial Mars and Venus. However, Chaitanya is in a very interesting position where if he can hold his own, and can also potentially influence the system or culture to make it move away from the hierarchical. He is also very forthright and strong. Take his comment to Rollsum's chairman, Abhay Acharya: "If you trust me to run your business, how come it is difficult to trust the very first move I choose to make as CEO?" He also says, "But now I do not want distraction, not for a second. Look, all I am saying is keep status quo for 8-10 months, let us achieve a few milestones which I need for the survival of the business, and then we can make whatever cosmetic changes that you want." It is brave of him to come out with such thoughts openly. This man has the courage to stand firm and stay rooted in his values and assessment of what is critical for the organisation, even if he has to go against his seniors. It is perhaps this strength that will help him change the system. However, the dominant culture is pushing, and will push, the expectation on to the ‘reluctant' CEO to conform to what it believes is ‘right', though this is completely at variance from what Chaitanya sees as necessary. In fact, this senior group will also attempt to belittle or smirk at his way of thinking so there can be an enormous pressure on him to fit in with the existing way of doing things. This will undoubtedly cause a lot of stress, especially since Chaitanya is also one who inherently wants to take all stakeholders along in a spirit of collaboration. If he is able to trust his own ‘gut feel' or intuition without too much doubt, there can be a stronger CEO who can potentially make a lot of difference. However, what deeply troubles Chaitanya is not only the outlook of the senior folks, but also his ‘ex-buddies'. The way they give him a wide berth shows how they have also internalised the overall hierarchical attitude in the organisation. This attitude believes differences in level determine frankness. There is a clear feeling of hurt in "Chatni" (as Chaitanya is called by his team) when he sees the sharp difference in the way his peers suddenly start relating to him. There are two choices in front of him: either he fits into the hierarchical way of this organisation or he takes his own inner ‘truth' and uses it as a starting point to bring about a fundamental change in the system — one which is not so stratified, but is a community of people whose relation does not change simply on the basis of shifts such as promotions. Kaushik Gopal is an organisation consultant and leadership coach. He is an associate coach and faculty with the Center for Creative Leadership and works with Chatur Knowledge Networking (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 10-10-2011)