Acharya Vineet picked up a chalk and wrote on the board the closing question of the day before: "So, if leaders and teachers must do their duty, how does Drona get away? When Ekalavya approached Drona, wasn't it his duty to accept a student who came to him?"Without preamble, Vineetji eulogised Drona to the students at TABS where he was teaching Indian knowledge tradition: "Drona is beyond description and praise. No words can express his valiance, his greatness, his power. Duryodhan himself praises Drona's learning and intelligence, and declares him incomparable. "Drona's conduct at various points in time in his life stands out sharply, because they were acts of a Brahmin and a warrior unparalleled. [I repeat, ‘Brahmin' is not a status acquired by birth, but a mindset acquired by action.]"Drona is like a picture which is best understood from afar. From childhood to adulthood, his wrongs have been sought to be analysed and defended. Why, when Dhritrashtra, the CEO himself, heard of Drona's death, he was speechless. He refused to believe that one so great could be conquered. His attack of the Pandavas has been described as the attack of inferior animals by a lion!"So are we all great humans. But we get derailed somewhere. And when we see our career slide downhill, we forget our suboptimal role in the yagna and say ‘life is unfair!' Through Drona's life we will be able to see how we cheat the yagna of life first!"Two core reasons for Drona's fall, of which one was the cause of the other. A brahmana by birth, hence a knowledge creator, he could not — like a brahmin, be happy with little. He was a fine brahmin until one day he hurt because his little boy Ashvattama could not get milk to drink. ‘Want' entered his heart, and Drona decided to invoke an old promise made by King Drupad when they were both in school that he would share his kingdom with Drona. Now when Drupad rejected the promise, Drona was wounded and he swore revenge."When our ego demands fulfilment, it will make an idiot out of us. Angry, Drona thereafter spent his life seeking revenge. By handing his life to his ego, Drona abandoned his svadharma."Drona the strategist is the MBA. The aggressive opportunist first moves towards Hastinapur — traditional enemies to Drupad's Panchala; homes in on the Kuru princes, watches them play, sees ball fall into well, retrieves the ball, demonstrates his talent, boys carry story home to their grandfather, who then headhunts Drona as the new teacher. "Drona as teacher... Recognising the potential in Arjuna, Drona swore to make him the best archer, and rejects good students Karna and Ekalavya. Yet he teaches his son Ashwattama exclusive skills, which he does not teach the princes. This was yet another covert dishonesty."When the training period was over, Drona stated his gurudakshina: the Kuru princes will capture Drupad and bring him to the teacher, tied. Arjun and others became the means for this hostile takeover, like companies use employees to commit crimes on their behalf. Drona then takes away half of Panchal and frees Drupad. That unsatiated vengeance spent itself during the Big Battle, attacking Drupad and the Panchal army whereas the battle was against the Pandavas! Drona of perfect pedigree, great lineage, best education, had lost his mind throbbing with anger. Not a good quality for productive work."We see a complex persona in Drona. He hated Drupad to the point of distraction, rejected Ekalavya and Karna to favour Arjun, yet he trained Drishtadyumna — the son whose birth Drupad engineered to kill Drona! Such is the human mind — it responds to hatred, to anger to fear to regret, to deep inner sorrow... in ways we can never know. This is the broad story of Drona, which teaches us stunning lessons in svadharma and the dangers of following another's dharma. Student: Yes, but why not see this as aberration and glorify the warrior in him as Dhritrashtra did? Great people have a bad side to them, too!Vineetji: Drona the teacher, Drona the father, Drona the professional, Drona the warrior — underlying these personas is the fundamental Drona-mind. Drona was by birth a brahmin, a knowledge creator; But Drona enters warfare, abandoning his teacher svadharma, to settle an old score. Look at the reason or cause behind abandoning his svadharma!Drona is the kind of teacher that organisations will give their right arm for. Much as he chides Duryodhan for his competitive anger, he himself nurses competitive aggression — so he is driven and focussed on work, competition, accomplishment, targets, winning at all costs if you see his bull-headed chase of Drupad. Student: Sir... is that wrong? We are in fact taught to win, we are forced to win... our teachers goad us to win this battle of supremacy!Vineetji: Today's education is not for excellence but supremacy. Since we globalised in 1991, we have forced a change upon the character of our people, through the way we do business, why we do business and even what our business is. Office memos read like a war manifesto: aggressively grow top line, ruthlessly prune inefficiencies, attack rivals, battle for market share, kill competition, seize the markets, takeover modern trade, bulldoze the consumer, grab share of wallet... it should terrify, not motivate! The manager has become an ogre, the businesses concentration camps! Why should the sale of soap appear like the Battle of Plassey? break-page-breakDrona's warrior persona likewise, wants success, victory, accomplishment of targets. The ego that promises excellence to Arjuna, is the ego that declares Ekalavya gained unfair/illegal advantage learning archery through observation. Calling it theft, Drona demands his thumb. Student: Then Drona could have had Ekalavya imprisoned by King Dhritarashtra for espionage and stealing state secrets!Vineetji: Ah, but then — no thumb, no comeback; and Arjuna remains number one. Besides Drona's own ego-based anxiety to prove his student the best!Student: I feel Ekalavya being a tribal, lacked self esteem — mirroring society's rejection of him as unimportant.Student 3: Drona sought to kill competition!Vineetji: This is like the new entrants into India post liberalisation, fearing rocky roads and losing to local heroes. So they bought out many local brands one after another... That's right, many also sold their brands to the foreign entrant. We thought these brands would get an exalted status in the MNC stable. Instead? Many brands were killed. Many ice-cream brands died. Beverage brands died... put to sleep. Some brands were too hardy like Thums Up and Limca and put up a display of might and today stand taller than the foreign brands. This tradition of — ‘when I want my turf unsullied, I will decimate the slums in the vicinity' — is not new. This personality of Drona exists in all of us... Student 1: Sir, so what is wrong in being a Drona? If you have dreams, if you have ambitions, must not one let them survive? Why are we reluctant to accept his drive for success? What wrong did he do? He wanted out of poverty and he worked towards that!Vineetji: Except that he changed the course of his duty. And through his life his mind tosses him up and down trying to rein him back into his svadharma. You will see it in his confusion, in his anxiety, his attachment.Student 2: Companies also abandon svadharma then, when they reject you for not being from an IIM, or even if you are not from the premier IIMs A, B or C!Student 2: Like Drona, every organisation and manager is working for his security, his goals, his stock options! What was the problem at Parmeet Khare's office? His line management were looking after themselves and it was up to Parmeet to look after himself!Student 1: My cousin gets praised for spying on competition's movements, watching their trucks leave their factory and counting the trucks to know their sales everyday! This is the Drona syndrome isn't it? Vineetji: Let us come back to the yagna theory. The yagna is for greater good — we are agreed on that. Is the destruction of Ekalavya's skills, the killing of competition, good for the industry? The smaller brands were already a part of the yagna before I the foreign brand entered the country. If the smaller brand offered itself in ahuti, like some brands did, that is different. Student: Sir, it is not the duty of the entrant brands to look after the smaller local brands...Vineetji: Nor is it their right to destroy them deliberately! What is the yagna for a foreign brand coming to India? India is the yagna and in India whatever business enterprises are operating, are all contributors to the yagna and they have a right to live. But as long as they are operating, they must be respected and... Student: And if the government permits, new entrants come in and change the playing field?Vineetji: Then, the yagna's rules change, the participants have to align themselves. Amrita: This is where it gets tricky acharyaji! How do we know if the government's intention is for greater good? How does one trust motive?Vineetji: Then you have no choice, sadly. Accept what the yagna gives you, and continue to contribute as its rules demand. Student: But to be optimistic, if the rules change, won't lesser brands die consequently? Vineetji: The yagna will demand a certain robustness and when you cannot match that, you wither and die. True brands that recognise the gaps in their image and equity will recognise a great brand and surrender. We have the example of Thums Up which during the Coke takeover of Parle brands could not be decimated. So high was its equity among Indian consumers that Coke bowed before the greatness, the competence of Thums Up. Better still, Coke nourished the brand as its own so that to this day Thums Up is the number one cola brand in India! This is true yagna — where you nourish the total beverage business-yagna! Time and again, keep asking, in the yagna is your commitment to duty? You cannot take away from the yagna more than you have put in or what you have not put in!Back to Drona! Haha..! Drona is a very challenging character, yet fraught with many contradictions. Terrific warrior, great determination, fabulous pedigree, worked his way up with such dedication... but remained confused.Amrita: This just strengthens the theory that Drona was very complex and confused an individual. Yet, as a leader look at the confidence that Drupad exhibits in sending his son to Drona. And, if Drona really felt remorse over capturing Drupad, he should have at the least returned the kingdom – which he did not. Vineetji: Yes, he is a complex character yet he still belongs to the class of the ‘Great'! Undoubtedly! Drona's problem may simply lie in a confusion over his svadharma. He was not wired to be a warrior, I feel. Bad career choice. Amrita: And the related emotion of revenge! Vineetji: There lies our answer. Drona wanted revenge, got that chance and the matter should have ended there. He could have been the forgiving Brahmin, instead his thirst went up!It coloured his choices, so that he stayed with the Kauravas to fight Drupad. He remained on the fence always! As long as Bhishma was the general, Drona remained subservient to him, knowing him to also be his employer, feeling obliged to him for having hired him many years ago. This is where his svadharma created even more confusion. Drona lost initiative as a result. Next, Drona was not the natural choice as Bhishma's successor. Duryodhan wanted Karna to succeed Bhishma, but finally went with Drona to appease the coalition! The Kauravs had already lost 10 days of the battle under Bhishma who was reluctant to attack the Pandava princes, and Drona with his insecurity, inherited a leadership mantle that was a compromise! He therefore wore his commandership very awkwardly. Student: Why is breach of svadharma the pivot of Drona's character?Vineetji: Because that is what led to his downfall! Let us say you are a CFO. The dharma devolving upon you is to protect the financial health of the company. Extended lines of credit are needed. You are unable to raise that. So you dress up the books or you offer as lien assets already mortgaged to another. This is adharma. This is deviating from your svadharma as a CFO. Amrita: So simply speaking, it is doing that which you are avowed not to. Student: And how do you link this directly to Drona's results?Vineetji: Simply, he was not happy with the choices he was having to make! He chose to fight on the Kaurav side for his son's sake, and he was not happy doing that. He could not even have fought on the Pandav side because his arch enemy Drupad was there. Maybe his essential teacher mindset kept reminding him of his wrong each time! Thus he always floundered between being a brahmin or a kshatriya. This is how svadharma, when abandoned expresses itself. This is in sync with the theory of duty and svadharma because you cannot ‘be' what you are not; and you cannot practice what you do not feel. Finally it is your guna (mindset) that determines your personality, not your birth or lineage! Drona is the epitome of a conflicted mind.break-page-breakThen again, by then the Kauravas had become established as rulers. It is cause for great dilemma when you decide to leave an organisation after 15-18 years of service, especially when they are riding the crest of success and your salary, housing, stock options, everything is top drawer. How do you quit? That was another of Drona's dilemma. He could not quit...Student: Yeah... it was Hastinapur that gave him his opportunity, his riches, a palace life... So is loyalty shreyas?Vineetji: Loyalty can be a positive trait. But if loyalty is to support adharma, then loyalty loses its shine. A lot of ministers get torn like this when they hang on to the winning but valueless ship with the hope of furthering their careers.Student: Sir, why else if not for wealth, would I work in an organisation?Vineetji: That's it! You only want the fruit, you do not wish to contribute to the yagna! You only want to be a shareholder in the gains. Real yagna players are hardy fellows. Very hardy fellows. They will get mauled, pushed, beaten but they will be at it, fighting to win for their yagna. The point is: When you choose to participate in a yagna, be clear that this is where you want to be and make your choice firmly without being influenced by this one or that.Amrita: I think all this gets more enhanced because Drona was a teacher and you expect a teacher to have more clarity between right and wrong. What brings down his performance is finally his floundering and fumbling! That is at the heart of why people are in doubt over whether to like him or not!Vineetji: Yet there was Vibheeshan who also abandoned his brother and king Raavan and chose to be with King Rama. Vibheeshan was clear Raavan was treading the path of wrong when he kidnapped another man's wife. Vibheeshan told Raavan that he will not be party to his crimes but Vibheeshan did not leave Lanka! Maybe he did not know where to go, or he was unable to think of life outside the palace comforts, or he did not have the courage to get up and tell Raavan, or he hung on to a ‘mis'-founded obedience! Familiar? Vibheeshan stayed on living in comfort until he meets Hanuman who questions his ideals and values. Hanuman could see that Vibheeshan was greatly value driven, but wary of having his values challenged and tested! And then they talk about it etc and Vibheeshan leaves Lanka.Dean Palusker: Excellent point Acharyaji! This is the sign of our times. How many people stick on with an organisation despite knowing that it is unethical in conduct. My own nephew chooses to ignore an accounting fraud on grounds that he is in sales! He is unable to give up the comfort of a well paying job! Amrita: You know, after all this, one question becomes necessary: Does Drona realise his errors at all?Vineetji: I guess he did. It must have revealed in various ways. Began with Duryodhan piling pressure on him for more conquests — and Drona was easy to manipulate. Examine your own self — why are you so easy to manipulate? So, we are looking at the Drona in all of us. The minute he goes and asks for half the kingdom from Drupad, he broke his svadharma. He could have asked for help as a friend. But he was a Brahmin and a brahmin is supposed to subsist on bhiksha. Drupad points this out to him. If Drona had heard Drupad's words without its packaging, he would have corrected himself immediately!So Drona, to answer yesterday's question did not get away. He struggled all his life straddling two stools. The idea is to make perfect choices, first time right! Therefore, as Miyagi san says, "I tell, you do, no questions!" That is duty!Classroom DiscussionCorporate warmongering fans desire for competition. Desire fans anger and anger goads foolish conductcasestudymeera(at)gmail(dot)com(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 16-01-2012)
Read More
We need to differentiate between virtue and dharma; and of the two, dharma must shape virtues. Drona's lavish material comforts, which the students in the case equated with success, are reward for the virtue of loyalty that Drona displayed towards Hastinapur, which had hired him as a teacher to royal princes Kauravas and Pandavas. Due to loyalty, he fought on Kauravas' side even though he knew they were wrong and by demanding amputation of Ekalavya's thumb and robbing him of prowess in archery, he killed competition to Hastinapur in two ways. First, Arjuna the royal prince becomes the best archer and second, the threat of attack on Hastinapur by powerful forest tribes where Ekalavya belongs to, is subverted. Drona's loyalty is not rooted in dharma but destructive emotions chiefly pride, anger and fear... the reasons why Drona is not effective in the roles he plays in life.In the Mahabharata, all references to dharma imply nurturing, cherishing, enriching, increasing and enhancing all living beings by securing their prabhava or ability to be what they are (prabhavarthaya bhutanam dharma pravachanam krtam. Shanti Parva 101:10). This is possible only by ahimsa or freedom from violence which, according to the Vedas, is not just abstention from physical injury, but also from doing injury to the nature of anything by which it deteriorates in its good qualities. Ahimsa is equated with dharma (ahimsa paramah dharmah). Drona committed violence to his svadharma when he abandoned his Brahmin svabhava and donned alien Kshatriya robes, thus was neither effective as a teacher nor a warrior. As a guru, he fails to impart dharma-based values to student Duryodhana, and his demand of Ekalavya's thumb as guru dakshina without accepting him as a student (deeksa) is against rules of guru-shisya relationship. As a paid teacher, Drona cheats Hastinapur by withholding knowledge of special mantras, which he imparts only to son Aswathama. Early, every morning the student-princes fill water from the river while Aswathama is given a wide mouth urn so that he can finish the task quickly and be tutored before others arrive. Despite blatant partiality, Arjuna and Ekalavya become great archers simply because they are better students than Drona is guru.As commander-in-chief of the Kaurava army, Drona is not effective. For 10 days, he fights without killing a single person of significance except thousands of ordinary soldiers. Each day, he makes tall but half-hearted promises to Duryodhana, which he never fulfils (capturing Yudhisthira alive). Finally, when he hears the false news of his son's death, he throws his weapons and withdraws, creating chaos in the Kaurava army. Drona's life demonstrates that deviation from dharma leads to inferior results.The Vedas emphasise that both disregard and idolatry of human attributes is violence. To disrespect self interest, desire for material prosperity and even morality is violence to the self, while their idolatry invites an even greater violence to self, relationships and society. At the political and economic level, idolatry becomes an ideology that causes collective and extensive harm, examples of which are unbridled capitalism or religious fundamentalism. To value too greatly or too little a particular human attribute in its relations to the rest is to disintegrate the natural wholeness of self. In the case, students consider Drona successful because he is leading a good palace life filled with comforts, riches and position power. To treat roti, kapada and makan as parameters of success is idolatry of materialistic values. Enlightened organisations are strategically moving away from this extreme material- economic perspective to balance the whole through corporate social responsibility, sustainable development practices, stakeholders' perspective and business ethics. Students must realise that organisations today reward excellence in work that can only come from balanced mind, purity of purpose and skills. Drona lacked the first two attributes; mere skills did not help him.In the context of dharma, the virtue of loyalty can not be interpreted to mean only lifelong allegiance — it is complete self giving to work. Bhishma, Drona and Kripacharya knew Duryodhana's fight was in vain as he was neither morally correct nor valourous like the Pandavas. But they could not cut the golden chains of virtue and fought with a divided self that brought defeat to Duryodhana. It was Ekalavya who rose above virtue and aligned himself to dharma. His devotion (virtue) to guru drove him to Drona's side, who he thought was fighting against enemy Arjuna. When Drona explains that Arjuna is not really the enemy, Ekalavya realises the pointlessness of war, rises above virtue and goes away with his army. The Mahabharata is testimony to the fact that dharma can easily be mixed up with virtue and can lead one astray, while knowledge and practice of dharma alone can lead to success, and this comes from a balanced mind.Dr Mala Sinha is associate professor, Asian Perspectives in Power and Leadership; Business Ethics at the Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 16-01-2012)
Read More
Uday Basu was very angry. What made that worse was the fact that his MD, Ajit Saigal, was playing a covert game. Very simply, Ajit wanted Uday, sales director, to leave Delaware. Uday who had put in 17 years at Delaware, was seen as one of the better managers, with a dependable sales prowess that had seen the whole business actually gain great robustness during his tenure. Not only that, Saigal wanted him out by 1 February, and wished to make a suitable announcement by the first week of March.This was the first time Uday was even hearing of such a plan and it came without any reasons. Why? What was brewing? He asked his close friend and ex-Delaware manager Brian, who had quit when he married another Delaware manager, "If my performance is bad, should not sales be plummeting? We are still No. 1 or No. 2 in almost all categories in the industry. Morale of team is high… then what is it? And what is going to happen on 1 February?"Uday had a serious confrontation with Saigal when the latter began to mount pressure on him to fix his last date, adding an unsavoury ultimatum for good measure (see ‘Plotting And Blotting A Career Path', BW, 20 February). And Uday had exploded: "If I do not accept? What do you mean!" The crux was an exit package that Saigal wanted Uday to accept and clear out as fast as possible. Angry, Uday had refused to heed any of Saigal's words and instead asked to talk to the president of the Asia Region, Sudhir Narayanan. Saigal instead arranged for Uday to have a telecon with the president of Asia's HR, Mark Steiner. Uday did not mind that — after all it did indicate that they were prepared to discuss and arrive at a better level in the negotiations. Mark was all sweetness and fairness. He said that he particularly and Delaware really valued Uday's contribution and did care about being fair to him. Plus, he offered to factor in enough time so that Uday could find a job suited to his needs. Relieved, Uday captured their talk in an email to Mark and copied it to Sudhir Narayanan, Saigal and India HR head, Prahlad Uppal. Mark had been engaging and understood where Uday was coming from. "I fully comprehend," were his words. But India's HR head assigned Thomas Varghese (AVP, HR) to speak to Uday. Thomas called Uday on the intercom and said, "Hey, Basu! After you spoke to Mark, Ajit is now making a huge exception in your case. He has added one more month for you to stay on and look for a job! So you do get to stay till 31 January!"Uday: What about the exit package?Thomas: No change there… we consider that our final proposal – from the top management, as it were. And you have to accept it quickly and agree with the announcement of your resignation immediately, as they want to make an official announcement on 1 January. Uday: I don't agree, Thomas. The package does not recognise my 17 years! Anyway, this is between me and my direct line manager, Ajit. I will like to discuss with him directly; not through you Thomas, or even Mark. Uday was now deeply disappointed in Ajit. Why would he not pick up the phone, or walk across the floor and have a chat with him face to face? He would later tell Brian: "Ajit fails his people everytime..." Uday realised that it was during times like this that Delaware's mask fell revealing its falseness.Uday also noticed that all of Ajit's dialogues and mails to him had been without recourse to Mark. He now decided he would call Ajit's bluff by CCing all the mails to Mark and Uppal. Writing to all three he highlighted the differences in their exit proposal to him versus what they had offered to his predecessors. Uday was now convinced that once Mark saw what Ajit was proposing as the compensation, he would see how unfair the India management was being to him and would step in to correct the situation.A big shock was in store. Within hours of his email, Uppal, the HR head for India, called him and in a friendly tone said, "Hey, Basu! How you doing? You know, we got your mail to Mark and in fact all three of us read it together. Now this is what Ajit has to say: you probably want more time to decide, so if you do not accept Ajit's offer – which is technically Mark's offer as well — Ajit will make the following announcement on 1 January anyway – Uday Basu preparatory to leaving Delaware is handing over charge and the entire sales team will report to Indira Varshney, who is taking over from Basu, etc.Uday was not sure if he was more humiliated or shocked. This was not merely unethical, it was now covert blackmail. And Indira Varshney? This was a crazy new angle...what is going on?Sitting alone in his 14th floor office, Uday wrote to Steiner, Saigal and Narayanan: "I am alarmed that you not only want me out but you come with an agenda as well. I find this conduct contrary to all that Delaware has stood for. Sudhir, you as leader and hence conscience keeper, and Mark, you as the custodian of Delaware's values, should I take it that you endorse what is going on? Then again, what have I asked for that I elicit responses that are animus? And what kind of leader does not talk to his director directly, especially when he is sacking him? Not even an hour passed and Uday received a reply from Mark, "Ajit will talk to you one-on-one next week."The following week, as promised, Uday met Ajit for 15 minutes. At this meeting, Ajit said, "We are left with no option, Uday. If you do not agree with this proposal, Asia will issue the announcement." Uday felt extremely slighted. But he said, "I do not understand you! You are bent upon insulting and humiliating." Saigal: I offered you Rural MR; you did not take it.Uday: So you say ‘jump dog', and I jump? Why is it that you once thought I knew best what strategic decisions I should make on the field, but that I would be helpless and stupid when it comes to making a decision about my career? If tomorrow you are asked to resign from India but take up Nepal or Bangladesh, will you? It's about relevance, Ajit. And when you give something irrelevant, you are in fact showing your irreverence, nay, disinterest!On his way out, Uday's phone rang. It was Brian. "Hey, come over. I was just setting some coffee, join me. Oh, you just met the bad man? How did it go?"break-page-breakUday: Oh never mind! They are all in this together. It's humiliating. Until now I was fighting to hold my own in an organisation that I loved, worked for, and held very close to my heart. Now, with the scales having been scraped off by these three gentlemen, I do not want any of this. This was dog eat dog. Saigal is mauling me to curry favour with his bosses, win cheap brownie points and get a pat on the back. So is Mark and so is Uppal... a whole chain of back scratchers.As he finished the call, his mobile beeped a text message alert. It was from Maya. "Meet us at the Wayside Inn. Ambi is with me." Ambi Kesavan was the HR head for regional coordination, India, a parallel of Uppal. He was a senior resource, and was slated to move into an overseas posting soon. Why Ambi? wondered Uday as he drove out to the Inn. Greeting him warmly Ambi said, "Nasty, all this. Sorry how it is panning out. I feel a lot for your anguish and really wish it would not have turned out like this." Maya: Tell me, why do you think Ajit wants you out of the way? Were there other issues at play?Uday: Nothing I can think of. But yes, we had our share of differences, which to my mind, is normal in a healthy management environment. Like he likes to, and there were a number of instances, particularly during crises, when expected results did not materialise. He would call the lower levels and talk directly to them, and the managers above disliked it! Like he is now dealing through Thomas and not his boss Uppal! See?Ambi: You also disagreed with the Board several times last year.Uday: Yeah, but that is what a Board is for, right? To debate and argue? 2010 was bad for the whole industry, not just us. The Board was asking managers to change their plans practically every month or second month, as results were not coming as expected. Managers would present Plan One, get the approval, and just as they would get it off the ground, the Board would ask them to drop Plan One and try Two. And the same would happen to Two as well. 2010 was knee jerk, chaotic and frightened. It did not help anyone. In a matter of three months, we changed plans thrice! And then the Board blamed the managers saying they are responsible for not achieving the plans. It was very messy, stressful and disorienting. There was such a huge amount of morale loss at ground level. And here we were all killing ourselves trying to keep morale up. So yes, tensions between us were growing. We both experienced frustration, but its par for the course. What top management job comes without all this? That is how it is in every organisation. I see that dynamism as a positive, as healthy. But Ajit wanted a sales head who would be aligned with his way of managing the organisation.The recession also changed our lives. Ajit joined in 2009 and wanted to show fabulous results. So he pushed and pushed and pushed... sales were uninspiring, markets were depressed, offtakes were poor. What to do? Ajit has sacked me to show that he has made me accountable for poor sales in 2009 and 2010. That is my take. But only he knows the truth. Maya: Wonder what ever happened to Delaware? In the past 10 years, one has seen a steady decline in respect. I have seen CEOs come since 1986... I see a growing diffusion of focus — from organisation to self. Did you at any time feel a lack of respect?Uday: These are perspectives, Maya. In the face of survival, I am not sure one, save the Gandhi himself, can remain respectful. In this case, a lot is at stake for Ajit. He is young, dapper, wants to take the whole world in his arms... the choices are tough to make. We learnt all this in the field. He is unfortunately having to manage disappointment as an MD. Bad for the business, but if youth is the choice of Delaware, then it comes with incomplete experience, I guess. "He said that he would like to change the leadership for sales and I actually viewed it as a captain's view of the company. So nothing disrespectful, this is the obligation of any manager to choose his team member. That is how I saw it. Then when he offered me RMR, I thought I could negotiate and ask for another position, because I was seeing it all as a cabinet shuffle. But when he said RMR or nothing, then it became apparent that he was twisting my arm."Disrespect happened later, when we were negotiating the exit package. I thought all that was tasteless; including Saigal avoiding me after that. What had I done? If I had committed a crime, he may probably be justified. So why was he so cagey? And what is the story of Indira Varshney here?"Ambi: Here is the official line. We are an organisation committed to gender diversity. Indira is ready for a senior business role but before that Ajit wants her to be in a gruelling function like sales, before he sets her up in a business role. Therefore, he wants Indira in the hot seat before his own appraisal in September 2012. Thus he will be Mr. Goody two shoes! Of course, this is entirely my reading.Maya cursed unabashedly. Uday had run out of expression. Ambi looked very pathetic. "You can't be serious," said Uday.Ambi: You will find this out yourself. I am telling you this sooner to save you humiliation later, especially since I know that Indira and you are such good friends.Maya: I am all for women to grow and growl and all that. But isn't this stupid? Are you sure, Ambi? This is the most harebrained idea I ever came across. Why is it that our policies for women are always so stupid, hasty, frightened and so utterly idiotic? We see this as a country, now we see it in our organisation! Ambi: International farmaan. Gender diversity ratios are now weighted, not counted. That means even if you have less women, it is okay as long as they are in senior jobs. Look, I am not commenting on all this as I am not in policy. This is a ham-headed leadership and I have to earn my bread!That evening, Uday wrote to Ajit, Mark and Narayanan: "After 17 years of service to Delaware, I am told the organisation is unable to give me any opportunities for growth. I am, therefore, being asked to leave. I also understand that this is being done to help Indira Varshney's career growth. "Since that is so, I am willing to leave, primarily out of great regard for Indira. But I want a commitment from you that you will treat me with fairness and compensate me in a manner fitting a senior manager of this company. break-page-break"Until you get back with a fair proposal, do keep my departure confidential. Which naturally means you cannot make an announcement of any kind. No covert hints to the press, no rhetoric to the management committee." A knee-jerk reply came from Thomas in HR, copying the other men who for some reason would not talk to Uday directly: "This is what we propose as the text of our announcement:"Uday Basu is leaving Delaware after 17 years to pursue his own interests. As head of sales, he has clocked for us many successes. Taking over from him will be Indira Varshney..." Blah followed by more blah. And then, "The top management of Delaware thanks Uday for all his years of service and wishes him the best in the future." Uday (in a mail to Saigal): HR has sent me a mail where you have been copied. I had said this before, please do not communicate anything till we have finalised my compensation.Meanwhile, Kaushik Kashyap, a headhunter friend, advised Uday, "Don't accept any artificial project head position. It will raise suspicions among potential employers. It is better to say that the company was unable to find better growth avenues for you."By 4 pm, another mail came from Thomas describing the compensation:"You will be given a sum equivalent to six months' salary. You can remain on company payroll for another six months. You can keep the car, but not the driver. You must hand over the company accommodation, but you may move into the company guest house in the suburbs." Uday called Ajit. "How can you even suggest a compensation such as this? I have another 12 years' service left with the organisation. Let us not forget that. For 17 years' service you give me six months' salary?"Ajit: No. You are also getting to remain on the payroll for a year, so effectively you are getting nearly one month's salary for every year of service – 12 months in salary plus 6 months in compensation.Uday: You talk like a broker. People who were given VRS last year — middle level managers, level-2 and level-1 managers — were given six months' salary even though they had been here for only 4-5 years. And for 17 years you give me six months?Ajit: Don't keep saying 17 years service. You were paid for the 17 years. So that has no significance. We are keeping you for a year till you find another job. And you forget you were offered the RMR job, which you declined.Uday met Ambi. "I am being stripped of my dignity now! It is embarrassing fighting over this. What makes it worse is that Ajit can actually sit there and talk down to me and the only reason I cannot do a thing is because I am on my way out!"Ambi: No, you are mistaken. Ajit cannot do anything. He knows that. You can choose to not leave. Then he will have to sack you and that will splash the mud on his face. So my advice is: remain calm, polite and detached. Write a firm letter and ask for one month's salary for every year of service over and above. Don't request. Tell them this is what you expect. And conclude that they cannot announce your exit till you agree. Don't worry, this will go back and forth several times before being finalised. What you have asked for is fairer than what they have offered, so they will increase the offer. Be patient and co-operative. Arre, they cannot afford a public fight with you! Threats? Nonsense. And one more advise: get Indira on board. She needs to know this.Uday looked around the office of Delaware. What a shame, he thought, just as Ambi muttered, "We always hire right. Not once do I think we have made a bad choice. But it is what we do to people once they join... perfectly good people are mauled by a system of greed and glory."Classroom DiscussionCould Saigal have instead partnered Basu to develop an effective sales succession plan?To be continuedcasestudymeera(at)gmail(dot)com(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 12-03-2012)
Read More
There is no such thing as company culture although companies do have cultures. Culture is a personal thing, and company culture is an extension of its leader's culture. I have seen this play out in companies across the world. Neither does it have anything to do with being Indian. Indian companies are perceived to have a more consistent culture as their leaders typically spend their entire careers in one company and ensure that their successors share or are aligned with their values set. There are, essentially, two kinds of leaders. The first is a person with a long history in one company. She or he would have built relationships over the years with employees across the hierarchy and, sometimes, even with their families. This leads to emotional bonding and respect, compassion and caring. In such an environment, when an employee has to part ways, for reasons other than misdemeanour, it is done with sensitivity and respect, and the employee and his family is treated fairly. The second type is a fairly new incumbent (typically with short stints in various companies), with a desire to prove himself. In all probability, the person would have been told during the recruitment process that he is being brought in to bring about change. Such a leader has limited emotional attachment with the company, is there to get a job done, and will make the changes he deems fit. And often, he will make changes because he sees himself as a change agent. If he is rational in his approach, he will conduct efficient evaluations before deciding on personnel changes. But if he is unreasonable, he may take such decisions in haste, without weighing the pros and cons. However, once the decision is made, both the types of leaders will align with their direct bosses as well as the functional bosses of the employee concerned. Then HR is called in, and the plan is executed. Thus, there are varied approaches to arrive at the same conclusion. Careers, businesses, markets, and even consumers are no more what they used to be 20 years ago. So, if the consumer has changed, businesses and business models are also recast followed by a change in the organisation's internal dynamics. Therefore, those who are unable to change must move on. And we are witnessing that more people who quit early are unwilling to change, and are averse to re-inventing themselves to be in line with the changed environment. This break can be a gut-wrenching experience for those who have been employed with one organisation for long, and have made personal sacrifices for it. But that's life. The rules of the game have changed, and the only way to deal with it without doing further damage to oneself is to live in the present. What aspect of our lives has not been impacted by this change? In modern hockey, when the turf changed from natural to astro, the game changed and so did the winners. The dominance of India and Pakistan is over. The fast pace of the game means there are five substitutions compared to the two earlier. People who boasted of playing the entire match have ceased to exist. In T20 cricket, bowlers who bowl four overs twice a week earn more in one season than what test cricketers of repute have earned in an entire career. If you re-invent yourself regularly and consistently deliver results, you may still have a long career with one company. If not, you will have to make way for change. Uday Basu has been a performer, and a loyal employee. Once he gets over this shock, surely he will think of ways to re-invent himself and feel the better for it. As Steve Jobs had said during his speech at Stanford in 2005, "Getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner…it was an awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Do not lose faith."In the case, Ambi, who had an "outside in" view and was not sucked into Uday's emotional whirlpool, gave him the best piece of advice, albeit difficult to execute: remain calm, detached; be firm; state your terms clearly; don't request, tell them they cannot announce your exit. Once you have dealt with the emotional roller coaster, channelise your energies to get a fair deal, because that is what all the companies, irrespective of their culture, owe to employees.Business today is about swiftly outmanoeuvring competitors. Saigal, as the boss, has brought in his culture with which he manages Delaware. But a company of repute cannot allow its leaders to treat its employees unfairly under the garb of ‘culture'. The other truth is this: the person who is right, doesn't always win. This is not to be seen as defeat or karma, but simply the power of untruth in a world of competition. That is all.Abhijit Bhattacharya is executive vice president at Royal Philips Electronics, and based in Amsterdam(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 12-03-2012)
Read More
Having communicated the separation decision to Uday (albeit not necessarily in the best possible manner), the spotlight is now on a few issues: What is the best way forward for Delaware to close this most effectively and painlessly for all concerned? What are the options Uday has and how can he best protect his interests? What are the ethical issues involved and what is the ‘right' thing to do in these circumstances? Delaware seems to be in a situation wherein Uday, who had been a star performer and effective contributor over the years, is now seen as a ‘blocker' as they had succession plans in place where there is no meaningful ‘next role' for Uday to move into. It turns out that Uday was asked to leave or take a smaller role. In these circumstances the best option for Uday would be to agree with the company and accept a package that is fair and quickly move on. Any delay would not be good for the organisation as it would not be able to follow its succession plan on time, or would be left with a demotivated Uday hanging on in some ‘project management' role and spreading negative energy within the organisation. If the senior leadership at Delaware, particularly Ajit Saigal, who has been working closely with Uday, is able to the see the situation this way, they would immediately realise that a win-win solution could be achieved by being flexible on Uday's package (since there seems to have been a precedent of higher packages) rather than extending the time he could be on the company's rolls. Negotiation on these lines would meet the needs of both parties better and consequently have a higher chance of success. For Uday, it might be best to treat Delaware as a closed chapter and move ahead in his professional life at the earliest. Yes, it would be equally important to get the best possible package and leave with his reputation intact. However, there are three possible routes available for Uday. The first one is to fight Delaware tooth and nail given the arbitrary way in which he was being terminated and the apparent unfairness of the package on offer. This could even be a public spat wherein Delaware would be embarrassed but Uday's market reputation could also get damaged in the process. The second option is to accept Delaware's proposal and move on. The risk here is that his interests might be compromised if he did things in too much of a hurry. And the third is to remain patient and respectful but also firm and unemotional in his discussions and negotiations with Delaware. Although it is difficult to do this as a lot is at stake for Uday, this approach would probably have the best chance of helping him achieve his twin objectives of getting a reasonable package and moving on to a new job with his reputation intact. He would also need to focus on and expedite the process of finding a new job. Uday should also continue leveraging the support of people such as Brian, Sara, Maya and Ambi as it is always a good idea to consult a few people in a situation like this. Maya and Ambi can also be leveraged to send subtle messages to the organisation and also to evaluate the preliminary response of the company to these messages.As has been pointed out a few times in the case, the key ethical issue involved is ‘respect'. Having made the decision to part with a long serving employee, (I am not commenting here on the merits of the decision as that was covered in the first part of the case) Delaware could possibly best deal with the situation by demonstrating respect in a few ways: Getting Ajay, who has been Uday's direct manager, to handle the important communication directly, and in a transparent manner; Providing "outplacement" support to Uday from experts in the field. This is not so much about helping find another job but more about negotiating through the emotional stress of a situation like this and presenting oneself confidently to prospective new employers; Being direct and then firm about what is the best package that can be offered rather than get into protracted negotiation with junior employees making the initial offer and then more senior ones coming up with minor improvements. The respectful approach, if handled properly, has a greater chance of arriving at a mutually acceptable solution quickly compared to the current approach. A key point here is that had Ajit Saigal been more respectful and empathetic in his approach and communication with Uday, he may have elicited a more neutral response from Uday in the first place and the current unpleasant state of affairs could have easily been avoided. In short — a more respectful, empathetic, open and direct approach to the situation by Delaware could still help to reach a reasonably amicable resolution of the issues at hand. Samik Basu is the chief people officer for PepsiCo, India region. Earlier, he was senior HR director for PepsiCo South East Asia based in Bangkok.(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 12-03-2012)
Read More
Maya Pai waited as Ajit Saigal, the MD of Delaware India signed the letters, humming a non-existent tune. Maya was Saigal's secretary; everyone knew the MD's office would be in shambles if Maya was away for even a day. In fact, she was greatly respected."Uday was here this morning," she began slowly, referring to Uday Basu, Delaware's sales director. "He asked to see a copy of his mid-year appraisal. I noticed you have not filed a copy... have you forgotten to? Quite unlike you though..."Saigal: Well Maya, between us, Uday is going. I need to shepherd the process sensibly so that he goes without kicking and screaming. Mark and I have been working on this for over a year, which is why there is nothing to his mid-year 2011 appraisal.Maya: Oh! So... Saigal: Let's leave it there. If he comes back, tell him some story. And if he asks me, I will tell him you would know.Uday is going.... What had led to this? Just two days ago was Uday's appraisal; it was held right here in the MD's office. She remembered Uday coming in and even asking her to book his tickets to Ooty as his secretary was on leave and there had been some silly joke they made about that... all had been normal. In fact, when he came out of Saigal's cabin (rather quickly) she had even heard them discuss a thriller at the door. And in less than 48 hours, Uday is going... Saigal's tone now appeared to conceal a plan. What Maya did not know was that at the appraisal, within seconds of his sitting, Saigal had said, rather directly: "Uday, we will get to the details soon after, but it will be sensible for us to set the platform for our meeting today so that we both don't waste time. I believe that sales needs a new leader.... So now you have two choices: One, move to rural MR as their head, or two, leave Delaware."No further explanation followed. But the abruptness and urgency with which he had said it all was very disturbing.But Uday noticed how much Saigal squirmed as he dealt with the moment. So Uday said, "It is much more difficult for you Ajit to say this to me than for me to hear it... I will think over your proposal to lead the small business. And if I choose to instead quit, I really expect from Delaware and from you personally to be treated with respect and fairness."Saigal chose to be quiet but pushed the two-sheet appraisal towards Uday artlessly. Silence took over the judgement. Uday did not even look at the sheet. In his heart he knew those sheets would contain a justification for what he now saw as a political strategy, of which Ajit was either a part or the orchestrator. Uday reminded himself that when it came to power, the best men are rendered helplessly smitten.As Uday got up to leave, Saigal said, "Of course, we will treat you with respect, Uday! Come back in two days with your choice...."Uday: George R.R. Martin says in Meat House Man: ‘Of all the bright cruel lies they tell you, the cruelest is the one called love.' We can adapt that to ‘Respect'. You must read this book...Saigal: You read too much fantasy, don't you?Uday: But in George's words, ‘we read fantasy to find colors again'!As he left Saigal's office, Uday thought, here is a man with whom I have a perfectly healthy personal relationship, yet he is now being challenged to take a professional decision that is going to lead to unpleasantness. At the end of the day, we are nothing but hunting dogs who are let loose in the marketplace to go grab the top line numbers. And when we sit in our kennels licking our wounds, we do feel terrible about all those people we had to run over.Strange, he thought, same time last year the words were glowing — "great performance. Uday and his team have designed a new market strategy that in one sweep addresses the small kiosks right up to the hypermarkets, with least disruption and maximum efficiency...." Saigal had been all gung-ho. Ditto during the mid-year review. Not a frown or even a doubtful word. Except that, Saigal had chosen not to record the mid-year praises! But was everything really alright? Some things did not add up. For instance, in June 2011, during the review meeting, Saigal had also said, "I have been discussing your move with Mark (Steiner, AMEA —Africa, Middle East and Asia region — HR president) already for six months...." His tone had then seemed quite normal, but today those words rang with heavy significance. What had they been discussing? What move? And why? And is this appraisal verdict linked to that?That was when Uday met Maya in the lunch room separately and said, "I need your help with something. Can you give me a copy of my June 2011 review?" Maya agreed she would, but she had not found them. That intrigued her. Saigal was fanatical about papers being in place. Where was the review sheet?That was how we heard her ask Saigal, more out of anxiety at not finding it in the files, and in replying to what she had not asked him Saigal had planted the seed of doubt. When Maya went to give him the bill for his Ooty tickets, Uday asked about the review sheet. Maya, fresh from the loaded exchange with Saigal, said, "Well, it occurs to me that it never was filed." Then they looked at each other in the manner of senior executives bound by and reverential of a sacred code of ethics. She knew what had happened. He knew she would know. But he would not ask her, nor would she tell. Such was the beauty of the moment as they both converted the loaded look into a "Well! Then that's that!", ending it with the forced spread of pursed lips into a stretch, that pretended to be a smile.As both furiously battled with their confusion, Maya's thought pool read, "Taking into account that he is very accurate and pedantic with papers and procedures, it seems to me like Saigal decided not to leave a trail... Nor was he intending for you to take corrective action. My dear friend, what you will not see is that as early as June, he had made his decision about you." When Maya left, Uday thought, what lies behind this web of lies? The most recent review before the current diabolic one in November 2011, was in June and there was not even a hint of unhappiness. Wasn't it just September 2011 that Saigal was telling him to guide him on Little's Meadow? Then what explained the exchange at his year end appraisal? None of these added up. Uday, who had been matter-of-fact and congenial in the MD's room, was now slowly stewing in his questions and doubts. It was all triggered by a simple fact of the June report not being in the file. Maya will not lie. break-page-breakAs if dusting his mind, Uday shook off his chattering mind. After all, organisations worked on the back of numerous plots and plans and a part of all that demanded human blood — the removal of managers. He had worked 17 years at Delaware, enough had happened right before him. He knew. Therefore, the truth would never come out. Saigal will hang on to the official version. The following day, after a presentation on new territories, as they were leaving, Uday ran into Saigal in the men's room. As is wont to happen between men sharing a recent stressful encounter, Saigal filled the silence with a hasty, "So, have you given it a thought?"Uday: I will think over the option, but more likely I will choose exit. When Uday left the men's room, he knew he would quit. At 7 p.m., he drove straight to the home of Brian and Sara, close friends, to attend their five-year-old son's birthday. Brian had joined Delaware in the same batch as Uday had. Brian married very late, and another colleague Sara, and then both quit Delaware. Brian: When do you have to let him know?Uday: Tomorrow.Brian: Is he stupid? Will he make a divestment decision in 48 hours? Uday: All organisations have a people strategy that hums beneath all that they do. It does not have a label or a definition. It's just there. And top management falls in line and knows how to keep it running. Funny thing is organisations believe their people strategy is not visible. But it shows; like a stain — growing brighter after every wash.Sara: That is why your story rankles. In fact, yours is a story of a people strategy gone wrong, misused, abused by a system! "So June 2011 is when Saigal is double faced. Sitting before you is the mask that is telling you that you are good, just tweak this or that, all is going well, no complaints, you are doing a great job...normal positive discussion. And behind this mask he is hiding his truth and strategising your exit with the AMEA region head."And six months later, he is asking you to leave! When was this people strategy written?"He has nailed his coffin by saying: I have been discussing your move for eight months. But to save his back, he has not put down your appraisal of June 2011 in writing. Important is how his mind works. So he does a routine chat and makes usual polite sounds, using words to fill the space and time..."Brian: I guess they have decided that they want to replace you. Everything that follows will therefore be towards that. They are not in the business of managing human emotions; they are in the business of earning profit. A few days later, Saigal called Uday. "So the Rural MR position is out?"Uday: It does nothing for my career, Ajit. Besides I am not a marketing person. Anyway, as I told you, I prefer to quit.Saigal: I understand, Uday, and I have already asked Prahlad Uppal to do up your exit package with fairness. I have told him to be respectful of your stature and needs. (Later) Brian: How do people select their words? Why does Saigal mention ‘respect'? Uday: Well, he offered me the rural MR job and ‘showed me respect', I guess.Brian: You are kidding, right? That job was proposed in order to make a formal case, that Delaware is giving you an opportunity inside the company. I have been there, Uday. That is a grade 2 job, you are three levels above G2. The fact that rural MR is fitted with a G2 manager means that the size of the business does not require someone of your level. Why aren't you seeing this? Saigal knew you will not accept this. Sara: I agree there. His thinking is easy to see — just pretend to be the enabler, make any offer. Then Uday will reject the offer and Saigal can sit back and say, "Well, I tried. Too bad that he is being difficult!" Elsewhere, Maya was challenging the head of HR in India, Prahlad Uppal. Mysteriously wording her pent up anger, she said, "How is it that HR is able to pump millions into hiring, retention, training, development, and then when it chooses to, it is easy to unceremoniously discard the resource?""Excuse me?" said Prahlad, most confused. And Maya had already reached for another bullet, as she added, "How can an organisation be so lacking in grace and elegance that it ‘gets rid' of a long-standing employee, a senior manager who has directed the fortunes of the company in the past, but does not feel the need to treat him with the sophistication and class it shows to a new employee it is wooing? How can your HR system be so shortsighted that it believes that employees can be treated badly and the rest of the organisation will not notice?"Prahlad: Has there been a case of moral turpitude? What has happened?Maya: I should not be saying this, but Uday quit. Let's say he was made to quit.Prahlad was distressed but in control. "Ajit has a plan for the organisation..."Maya: Oh. So you know! How shameful...Prahlad: Maya it sounds cruel, but if you lift the corporate veil, you will find a human being with needs and wants, not a dispassionate servant of God, please. Expecting care and patience etc., is silly. Loyalty is not a part of a company's vision or people strategy and if they say so, don't believe it. Employee loyalty to company is expected. Company loyalty to employees is logically fallacious. Three weeks later, HR's Joseph Thomas (Prahlad Uppal's junior) met Uday with the offer. Uday: Are you seriously proposing this or is this some kind of joke?Thomas: Why don't you study it?Uday: Where is the mystery in a proposal of ‘one month's salary for every completed year of service subject to a maximum of seven years'? It is blatantly unfair. It does not take into account my 17 years' service, of which six years were on the Board! I would like to talk to Ajit please; not you. Thomas: I was expecting this reaction...Uday: What a wise man, yet not so wise after all. Yet you chose to speak to me thus!Later to Brian: That was a game... negotiations tactics from the company's side! Sara: Fascinating. The top management, it seems now, are a bit foolish and disconnected from reality. They expect to get extremely intelligent people when they hire, and after hiring ignore that their employees continue to remain intelligent! So, what is he saying now?Uday: He has welcomed me to ‘be in touch with Saigal' and ‘see what he has to offer'. break-page-breakUday knew that a new game had been initiated. The next day he called Saigal, asking to meet him. "I am pressed for time, Uday, leaving for the airport in the next 20 seconds. Either we reschedule or we talk on the phone?"Uday: Oh! Then we will wait for you to return, Ajit. Can't discuss my future on the phone. Saigal: I am not back till the 22nd, and we do need to hurry, Uday. (Later to Brian): This is not the Ajit I knew. He was a friendly, straight forward human being. Even now, I feel he is crumbling under pressure... or his ego. Difficult to say because power is like that!Saigal wanted Uday out; he had communicated as much, no matter how poorly. Now he couldn't be bothered by small details like ‘closure'. Or even finesse. That was for the system to deliver. Delaware had become a tired organisation that was running faster than its legs could carry it, except, not always in the right direction, mused Uday.Yet, all this seemed out of sync with the personality of Ajit Saigal as Uday had known him...Meanwhile, Thomas came back dutifully with Delaware practices around the world; France did that, China did that, Americas did this... "but in India we can offer you only according to local policy, you see," he said.Uday: Indian policy? Can you show the policy? There is no such thing. In India we compensate at the discretion of the MD. Talking of policy, throughout my 17-odd years with Delaware, I never worked according to ‘policy'. I worked 14-16 hours a day, which is not what the Shops & Establishments Act prescribes. Two, even if there is no legal prescription, I expect fairness and justice from the company where I have spent more than 17 years! Is this what you would offer our expat directors in India? Thomas: Uday, you are not an expat and should not compare your package with the package of expatriates... Uday: I do not agree with you. So, please go and bring me a fair proposal from the company. Uday then wrote to Saigal, expressing complete disagreement with the proposal. Marking the board he requested fair play.Two days later, Saigal called Uday from an airport. "Your expectations are not practical, Uday. You have chosen to reject the new job I have offered you. Despite that I am going out of my way to design a good package for you. You must appreciate that had it been a distress situation where we were forced to retrench you, your claim for more would be tenable. Even that, I would doubt a lot. I cannot offer you anything more than what Thomas has indicated. "Look. I do not want a confrontation with you, Uday. I do not want to fight with you; I do not want unpleasantness. This need not get painful for either of us. We are agreed that you have to go and I want this to be peaceful and sensible." Uday: That makes two of us, except I am not in agreement that I should go. I don't even know why you want me to go. Saigal: I am in Melbourne, and cannot bleed the company on a long call. Suffice it to say that I wish to make the announcement of your exit on 1st January 2012. Uday: In that case, no announcement can be made till the moment we agree on the terms of my departure, Ajit. And, if you are saying you have no authority to better your offer, I would like to talk to the head of the AMEA region. Saigal: Very well. Then I will organise that!Classroom discussionAre trust and respect, emotions that have no context in business dealings?To be continued...casestudymeera(at)gmail(dot)com(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 20-02-2012)
Read More
The case addresses the issue of exit of an employee who has been loyal to the organisation for 17 years. Such an abrupt exit of a senior manager is not a normal situation and, therefore, the top management must ensure to make the parting as smooth and honourable as possible. The case, primarily, raises the following three important issues: Process of taking exit decisionsSince the advent of liberalisation and globalisation, it is now accepted that the top leaders of a company may lose their job if the business results in their area of responsibility are not satisfactory. Senior managers in the Indian corporate world have reconciled themselves to this new reality. At the same time, they have a legitimate expectation that the company should follow a fair process of making the exit decisions. Fairness involves openness and transparency about the grounds for the decision. After taking the decision, the company should give an opportunity to the person to present his point of view and should also give him a reasonable amount of time to quit to make the exit smooth. In the case being analysed, Uday (who has been asked to move out of his position) has been asking Maya for a copy of his 2010 last quarter appraisal. However, this document is not being shared with Uday because nothing substantial has been recorded in it. It appears that Ajit and Mark have something in mind which they do not wish to share with Uday. For a person like Uday, (who has spent 17 years in the company and has been a good performer) this has come as a rude shock. The situation is even more disturbing for him because he was orally given a positive feedback in the June 2011 appraisal. By not documenting the real assessment, Ajit has given rise to a serious doubt in Uday's mind. Exits of senior leaders affect not just the person concerned but the entire organisation. They have a high symbolic value from the point of view of organisation's culture. The CEO must, therefore, handle such exits with utmost care. Giving and receiving negative feedback The managers find it difficult to deliver negative feedback and communicate hard decisions during the appraisal process. But in the fiercely competitive business environment they have no choice but to communicate negative feedback. They have to be prepared to handle the fallout of giving such a feedback. In fact, the company should train its top management in this area. Unfortunately, Ajit has been very direct in his communication, which has not gone well with Uday. Equally important is the way the appraisee looks at such situations. There is an expectation of maturity on his part to be ready for unpleasant decisions. In this case, Uday has not made any efforts to seek an explanation from Ajit. His insistence on the rationale for the decision would have forced Ajit to share at least some details. It would have revealed whether he had played a role in the decision or whether he was merely following Mark's instructions. Sometimes a manager is almost forced by his boss to communicate decisions to his subordinates. In such situations, the manager is expected to own up the decision and not act as a mere postman. Uday may have looked at the entire episode in a different way if Ajit had shown a higher sense of ownership.Golden handshakeWorking out a fair and graceful severance package is a very critical process in which the HR function plays a major role. There are two aspects to this. One is to provide an alternate position and the second is to adequately compensate monetarily on separation. If the alternate position offered is at a lower level and is not commensurate with the stature and competence of the separating employee, it is better not to make the offer as this will humiliate the person even more. In this case, Uday was offered the position of rural MR head by Ajit to purportedly "show respect". It is either a lack of sensitivity on the part of Ajit or a deliberate move to pretend to be fair. In either case, it does not show him in good light. Exit of a senior leader is not a normal situation and, therefore, it is inappropriate to apply the standard policy/rules to calculate the package. Ideally, HR needs to be ready with suitable alternatives and not start collecting data about best practices after announcing the decision of retrenchment. This package has to be very carefully customised for the person and the CEO himself must take personal interest. The practice of asking an HR manager to negotiate the package without empowering him is yet another mistake that organisations make. In summary, the case highlights the need for high emotional quotient, which alone can help in handling such awkward situations arising from the changing realities of the Indian corporate world.D.T. Devare (Subhash) is a Bangalorebased freelance HR consultant(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 20-02-2012)
Read More
The case ends with the MD, Pradeep Saigal proposing to set up a call with Mark, the AMEA (Africa, Middle East and Asia) president of HR, for Uday to discuss his exit package. Here is a person who supposedly leads the country operations as the managing director and he concedes that neither he nor his HR lead is empowered to negotiate with Uday to arrive at a reasonable and fair settlement. We see this pattern throughout as the case unfolds. Saigal squirms when he informs Uday that he needs to move out of his role as the sales director. He would not have reacted this way if he were sure that the decision was taken in the best interests of the company. Again, when he tells Maya that Uday has to go, he lets it out that he has been working with Mark to ease Uday out. This is yet another indication that Saigal had been instructed to do this by the AMEA boss and he is nothing but a tool to meet a "desire" to revamp the sales team of Delaware in India. So, we realise that the Indian operations are run remotely by the AMEA chief sitting somewhere in Singapore, Hong Kong or Australia. This is true for many MNCs that operate in India. In the 80s and 90s when India was but a tiny blip in their sales radar, it was justified as "not worth senior management's time".But today, as the markets here have grown larger and most of the major economies have stagnated, it is hard to believe that the same strategy is still being pursued! But then I realised that the reasons have changed. Now India has become too critical to be left to local homegrown leaders. So, what we now see is a power game where again the local management is jerked every now and then based on somebody's whims and fancy. Often there is no historical context to the decision making as constant reshuffle of management brings in expats who have very little understanding of India.This approach, of course, has always been a bugbear for the local MNC executive cadre. But again, the returns in terms of fancy perks and significantly above average salaries seemed to weigh in quite handsomely in the past. Now the times have now changed. The new generation in India has many more lucrative options unlike the earlier times. In a globalised world, they can choose to work in other countries. With VC's and angel investor's money, they can even try their hand at entrepreneurship. Moreover, there are a host of Indian MNCs, which pay quite well to woo the best talent. As a result, Indian professionals consider themselves no less than expat executives and therefore expect to be treated at par with them. An executive who has been on the board like Uday will not accept that he should be given less in severance than any expat executive in the company. Not only will it cause resentment but will also lead to legal battles, which will further tarnish the reputation and image of the company. Social networks make it easy for the professionals to find out where they stand and what their market value is, without having to depend on company appraisals. In future, professionals are likely to build their own brands independent of the employer. This will surely tilt the balance in the favour of employees especially the high performing ones. Technology today is also forcing an accelerated pace of change like never seen before. Walmart, the world's biggest chain of retail stores, feels threatened by Amazon, which is a rookie in comparison. Market dynamics, too, are changing fast. Alibaba with its dominance in China eyes to acquire Yahoo! So, no brand or legacy is infallible in today's time. Hiring and retaining the best people in key geographies is the only way to ensure that the organisation can adapt itself quickly to changing times. Doing anything which goes against this will be suicidal, to say the least.In the changing business scenario, there is an urgent need for the Delawares of the world to relook at their people strategy in big markets like India. It is imperative that they let the local managers make their own hiring and firing decisions based on what they believe would be in best interests of the company. A situation like what we see in Delaware is very damaging for the company in the long term. The Indian employees are keenly aware of the highhanded "big brotherly" tactics adopted by the Delaware management. We hear a rumbling of discontent as Maya and Prahlad (the HR head) who are well respected within the company, feel upset and anguished with the developments. The morale of the team is likely to go down which would reflect in the future performance of the company. Needless to say that every one of them including Saigal will be on the look out for a better opportunity to ensure that they do not fall prey to the same fate as Uday. And by then, chances are that Mark Steiner would have moved to greener pastures after having made his mark at Delaware! Anuradha Parthasarathy is CEO, Global Executive Talent(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 20-02-2012)
Read More
