BW Communities

Analysis: The Road Not Taken

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[Kapil Shankar enjoyed a sense of partnership in building the Taffet India organisation through much of the six years of his association. Lately, however, he has been ill at ease in his relationship with his chairman, Aniljeet Daman. What used to be engaging dialogues have now become fractious. And Kapil has decided to quit as the HR chief. Despite apprehensions, Kapil decided to offer feedback on how he saw Aniljeet's leadership and its impact on the organisation in the hope that it would help in  course corrections. It is not surprising that Kapil found many parallels of his experiences at Taffet with recent world events — revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Libya. In India, too, a mass movement had begun against the political leadership on the issue of institutional corruption. Kapil felt that he had a chance to awaken Aniljeet from his errors and create a new stimulus for a change in leadership behaviour. Kapil's apprehension about the meeting was spot on. Although the venue was neutral, the conversations were not. Aniljeet's opening statement was tinged with sarcasm and derisiveness. Kapil side-stepped the invocation and tried to steer it another way explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to build an air of solemnity to the occasion. Aniljeet, however, continued his diatribe and wondered why so much organisation time was spent on people who had decided to leave the company. His reluctance was possibly a denial to listen to some home truths. To him, the feedback was a complaint, an allegation, or worse, an insult. Clearly, Aniljeet did not see feedback as an enabler for improvement. Or for that matter the need to nurture openness as a value to nourish, grow and keep talent. Kapil had planned to speak of the unfettered wealth accumulation, the ill-effects of over-worked employees, the lip service to ethics and the rampant indulgence to dubious means. He wished to explain that these actions were creating disharmony in the organisation. Kapil wished to articulate an alternative way of conducting business, where people had an opportunity to grow their skills and personhood, business was a form of creative expression, rules were transparent, transactions were worthy of trust and merit flourished. Instead the conversation got personal and deteriorated in context and content. Kapil felt compelled to state his reasons for joining Taffet. He spoke of his professional ethos being compromised and emphasised that they no more saw eye to eye on most issues. What was left unstated was Kapil's deep hurt at not being able to engage Aniljeet any more. Aniljeet was impervious to Kapil's state of mind. Had he been sensitive and chosen to detail the contributions and value that Kapil brought to the table, the conversation could have taken a useful turn. A bully's personality is one of being self-centered; the person is so full of himself that he does not have the empathy and sensitivity for another person or view. Reflecting this phenomenon, Aniljeet responds with half-truths: "You surprise me. We have changed everything. I am very open and supportive…." And patronisingly, when he says "When business grows… sometimes there are situations… as long as my actions are… serving a larger purpose…, if I have to ask some people to go, it is because am protecting so many other jobs…." Quite naturally, the dialogue rapidly descends into a series of arguments and allegations, and then insults. Kapil does get to address the central issue of Aniljeet's leadership flaws — of taking the easy way out, of making cosmetic changes, of being surreptitious with employees when life impacting changes were to occur, and of not sticking to the spirit of laws and conventions. Aniljeet's attempt to justify his own actions may suggest that he was unwilling to concede a re-examination of the leadership role. In the end, neither Kapil nor Aniljeet gave any ground to the other. Both would have walked away with furrowed brows and wounded egos. The responsibility for enlightened leadership was lost on both. Kapil had lost the opportunity for thought leadership long before the exit interview. He made too many compromises on his conscience. Had Kapil persisted with forceful and intensive dialogue in the earlier years at Taffet, things may have been different now. In the worst case, he may have left earlier, but with less acrimony. He should have realised that institution-building was a non sequitur at Taffet. Aniljeet may yet remain a hungry businessman playing hide and seek with the law. But he has lost the opportunity to transform into an institution-builder and inspirational leader. But then again, that may never have been his aspiration, but possibly an agenda foisted by Kapil. Jeswant Nair is the global group director of human resources at the Iffco Group of Companies. He is based in the UAE (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 12-09-2011)