Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kada Chana  By Pramod Teewaree | May 22, 2010 | Philosophy

Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana,

Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani

This verse is from the Bhagawad Gita, where Arjuna was not willing to fight the Epic war

of Mahabhaarat and Krishna explains to him to perform his duties.

The hindi translation is as follows:

कर्म� करना� तो� तोम्हा�र� अधि�क�र हा�, ले�किकना उसक� फले पर कभी� नाहा�|कर्म� क� फले क� इच्छा� स� कभी� र्मतो कर�, तोथा� तो�र� कर्म� ना� करना� र्म� भी� क�ई आसक्ति" ना हा�|

Let’s see what does this mean:

Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana - You have the right to

perform your actions, but you are not entitled to the fruits of the actions.

Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani – Do not let the fruit be

the purpose of your actions, and therefore you won’t be attached to not doing your

duty.

This message was from the Lord Krishna to Arjun during the Epic War of Mahabhaarat

when Arjun was not willing to fight, given that he had opposite of him, all those persons

he considers to be his own. Arjun says to Krishna, what’s the use of fighting against my

own for just a piece of land. What happiness will I get by slaying my dear ones? The

ones on the other sides are my own uncle, my cousin. Won’t I be committing a sin?

What will I get by killing all of them. Instead I would have preferred that they kill me

here itself.

Then Krishna explains to him about his duties. The above verse, which is among the

most famous verse in Mahabhaarat, is one of those explanation he has given.

Let us study the context :

In this case Krishna tells Arjun that no matter what is the result of the war, he should

not be worried about it. His duty is to fight, then he has to fight. He wins or loses that is

not important. Even if he dies during the war, he will attain heaven because he has

correctly performed his duty.

Now coming to the second phrase of the above verse, Krishna also advises Arjun that he

should never let the fruit be the purpose of his action, in this case the action is his fight

and the fruit is either he wins or loses. In other words he is not supposed to worry about

victory or defeat. Either one wins or loses, he must be neutral about it.

In simple terms it means: Keep on performing your duties without being attached to the

result of your actions. Either you get something or you don’t get anything, you should

not worry about it. You should have a neutral behaviour.

Well let us relate that in our context as a human being:

As an example:

A student – His duty is to study, he passes or fails that’s not in his control. The student

does not study just for the sake of passing his exams. When he studies, he learns.

Whether he pases or fails he should not be too happy or too sad about it.

If ever a student studies for the sole purpose of passing his exams, in the end he has

not learned anything even if he has passed. But if he studies because he considers

learning and studying as his duty, he won’t even need to be worried whether he will

pass or fail. And such a student as we have always seen they are most likely to pass

their exams. Unless they are not able to reach their exam for some reason. But still he

should not be sad about it. Why? Because the most important is at least he performed

his duty well.

We can also relate this to selflessness:

When we help someone, we don’t do it for the sake of something in return, whether we

are rewarded for our actions or not, this is not our concern. And when we help someone

without worrying about our own gains, this is selflessness. We don’t think what are we

going to get from that. The importance is that as a human being we have been able to

help someone.

Note: In Bhagavad Gita, As It Is, By Swami Prabhupada, the part Ma Karma Phala

Hetur Bhur means, never to consider ourselves to be the cause of the result of our

activities.This is right too, because when we consider ourselves to be the cause of the

result of our actions, we will be tempted to be attached to that result. So when we do

something we are not supposed to take the credit for the fruit of our action. We

consider that it is our duty, so we did it.

Today how many of us really believe in this principle? What does this verse means to us

today?

For me this verse has a really great meaning in my life. Well I would like to know about

my other friends here, really think about this verse.

Management Mythos: Growth has many directionsJun 28, 2013, 03.10AM IST

Tags: Vasudeva| Tirthankaras| the river| Devdutt Pattanaik| Chakravartis

(This focus on people, rather…)

By Devdutt PattanaikI am CEO of an MNC. I'm 53 and have been a CEO for about 14 years now. I have got used to the lifestyle that comes with the corner office. My problem is that I am not moving up the ladder and I have not been considered for global postings. I am bored in my present job. I want to quit and start something of my own but then one side of me says why not stick around for 3-4 years more and collect the booty. I don't want to remain in that conflicted state of mind. Help me think through the conundrum.

All was good in Ayodhya until Kaikeyi desired something out of the way. All was well in Hastinapur until Satyavati desired something out of the way. If there is no desire, there is no shift, no change, no story.

Right now, you are not part of any story. No one is changing the world for you and you do not want to change it yourself if it means losing your comfort zone, and so you are bored. Perhaps, you can take a lesson from Jain mythology.

Jain mythology refers to shalaka-purushas, or worthy beings. They can be categorized into three groups: the doers or Vasudevas, the rulers or Chakravartis and the seers or Tirthankaras. Vasudeva is action-oriented and are busy achieving. Chakravarti is rule-driven and has reached a position of power from where he puts together rules and processes within which others have to work. Tirthankaras are thought-driven and see the world from other points of view.You have lived your life as a Vasudeva. You have been a Chakravarti for a long time. A foreign assignment will make you once again Vasudeva or Chakravarti, in a different zone created by others, nothing else. If you start something on your own, once again, you will be Vasudeva or Chakravarti in a space created by yourself, nothing more. One has less risk, the other has more risk. But there is an option, walk the path of the Tirthankara.

Tirtha means a ford or bridge that connects you to the other shore of the river so that you can see things differently and expand your worldview. Perhaps, you can create new challenges for yourself - creating talent, who will do well either in your company or outside. Identify 10 candidates and help them learn new

skills in a changing world order. This will help you in three ways. When it is time for you to retire, there will be someone to take your place. Or, you can encourage your management to pull up upstairs, as there is someone else who can do very well. Finally, it will give you satisfaction of sharing your wisdom and enabling others to grow.Growth need not just be your own financial growth or the material growth of your company. You can define growth as enabling people around you to do much better than they do. This does not have to be related to organizational goals; this can be a personal goal. This focus on people, rather than organization and/or self, is really in short supply today. Let them grow at their pace, on their own terms, and you will discover new things about yourself: how they are not like you, how they see the world differently, and still it is okay.

Management mythos: Prepare people for new responsibilities before promoting themMar 29, 2013, 04.00AM IST

Tags: Self-motivated| Promotion| Prince Uttar| Management Mythos| Mahabharat| Lakshmi| Kaurava army| fmcg| Devdutt Pattanaik| Business Sutra

(Work with people you promoted…)

By Devdutt PattanaikI run an FMCG business and due to the rapid growth of the business the organization has grown extremely fast. I have always had a philosophy that companies should grow their own timber. But what I find is that every time I promote people they change, often for the worse. Am I going wrong in selection or there is a deeper message here?

On Day 1, you hire a babysitter. On Day 2, you expect them to be tuition teacher. Day 3, you expect them to be a chef. Will it work?

For every job you need a set of skills and these cannot be absorbed through osmosis. Yet we promote people without preparing them to take the job and expect them to do the job brilliantly.

Can they say no, they will not take up the job unless you give them training? They cannot. They will appear like fools. So they take up the position and perhaps even delude themselves they can do whatever it takes, quoting ridiculous cliches like "impossible is i-m-possible."

Then, like in the case of Prince Uttar in the Mahabharat, when they finally face the Kaurava army, reality dawns. They realize their stupidity and run for cover. But this running for cover takes place mentally, not publicly.Privately their fear is intense. They are trapped. They cannot admit not being able to handle their situation. They cannot admit their failure. They cannot show weakness. They cannot seek help.

What does a cornered animal do? It snarls and bites back, it snaps. Cornered humans blame the world for the problems. They neither empower nor enable, because they do not feel empowered or enabled. Who will empower and enable them? Can they turn to you?

But you abandoned them after promoting them, assumed the big fish of the small pond will perform as well in a big pond, not realizing in the new paradigm he is a small fish. If you get talent from the outside, they will resent you even more. They will resent the outsider, and do everything in their power to pull him down.

As organizations grow, we often think only in economic terms (Lakshmi growth). We not think of the impact on emotions (Durga); the associated loss/gain of power.

We do not think of the impact on imagination and thought (Saraswati). So we end up destroying past relationships and making good talent go sour and bad. The responsibility is yours as yajaman.

You need to work with these people you promoted, and help them cope with their new responsibilities. Do not expect them to cope on their own or thrive autonomously.

Management Mythos: Which way is the right way?Devdutt Pattanaik Oct 12, 2012, 06.19AM IST

Tags: Yama | yajaman | Mount Kailas | GARUDA | B-school

I am a marketing manager for a consumer durable brand. We will be launching a new water purifier brand very soon. Either I can do the AK 47 approach and have many models of my brand in the market and hope that this strategy will garner volumes or I can just have two and focus my efforts on these two. Of

course each one has its merits. I am sure mythology will have some answer to my conflict. It will also give me a great story to tell my sales force.

Garuda, the eagle, was enjoying the song of a sparrow atop Mount Kailas, when he saw Yama, the god of death, also looking at the bird. But Yama was frowning. Maybe he did not like the song. Fearing for the welfare of the little bird, Garuda, with compassion in his heart, decided to take the bird away from Yama's line of sight. Garuda took the bird in the palm of his hand, and flew to a forest far away beyond seven mountains and seven rivers. There, he left the sparrow on a tree full of succulent fruits.

When he returned to Mount Kailas, he found Yama smiling. Yama explained, "My account books are balanced. I saw a sparrow here singing a song. It is supposed to die today but not here. It is supposed to die in a forest far away beyond seven mountains and seven rivers, eaten by a python that lives under a tree full of succulent fruits. This has happened, thanks to you, Garuda." Garuda realized that what he thought was an act of kindness turned out to be an act of cruelty for the sparrow.

When strategies are created it is hoped they will minimise surprises. Huge amounts of time are taken to ensure the data is right, the analysis is right so that the results are predictable. As organisation grows larger, the cost of mistakes is higher, and so much more time and energy is taken while taking decisions. And yet, despite all precautions, things can and do go wrong. Only in hindsight we realise if assumptions are right or wrong.

Like Garuda who does not ask the sparrow if it wants to be saved, you are not asking what the customer wants. Will he favor you when you offer him multiple choices or when you take the decision for him and give you the best? Your decision will impact your production team, your logistics team, your sales team. Your decision does not exist in isolation. You are part of an ecosystem, and Yama is constantly watching, keeping meticulous records, ensuring you are appraised accordingly.

You seek a right decision: but right for whom? You? Your career? Your customer? Your team? Your organisation? Sometimes our success works against us in the long run. Sometimes our failure works in our favor by creating wonderful opportunities. There is no certainty in life, or business. Do not be fooled by case studies in B-school that focus only on success in a particular context, and ignore failures in that context or successes in other contexts.Ultimately, you are the yajaman: take the plunge and be responsible for it. And be careful of 'stories' - they can easily be used to delude and manipulate, and be passed of as 'motivation'. There is not truth out there, only stories well told.

TIME CAN EXPAND OR CONTRACT, DEPENDING ON HOW ENGAGED YOU ARE IN YOUR WORK

Aking wanted the perfect groom for his daughter. So he travelled to the abode of the gods to find out who the most perfect man ever created was. When he returned with the information, the world had changed dramatically: a hundred years had passed, his daughter and his entire family had died and no one remembered him. He then learned that time flows faster in the realm of the gods and a day there equals a hundred years on earth.In another story, the gods asked a hermit to fetch them a pot of water. As the hermit dipped

the pot in the water, he saw a beautiful girl. He fell in love with her and asked her to marry him. She agreed immediately and so the hermit became a householder and had children by the woman, and the children had children of their own. In his old age, there was suddenly a great flood. The river broke its banks and washed everything away: his home, his children, his grandchildren, even his wife. He was left ashore alone, without anything, when suddenly he heard the gods shout, “Please pull out the pot and give us the water!” The hermit realised he had been dreaming all along.In the first story, what seems like a day turns out to be a lifetime while in the second story, what seems like a lifetime turns out to be a second. In the former, time contracts. In the latter, time expands. This is a common theme in Hindu mythology. What makes time change qualitatively is attention. When you are concentrating, time contracts. When you are not concentrating, time expands.Nikhilesh loves working with Mark. Mark has the ability to turn every project into a game with so much fun that everyone comes early to work, leaves late and no one feels tired. Time passes quickly and weekends feel boring and terrible. Nikhilesh does not speak of worklife balance; work is life and life is work. His wife enjoys seeing Nikhilesh this way, as he brings the energy and joy of work back home, to everybody’s delight.But Nikhilesh had a very different experience when he worked with Dinakar. Dinakar was no fun. Every meeting was a drag. Everybody had to fill in long reports and long forms. Everything was read and discussed, but no one really paid attention. Every minute of the meeting was documented and filed and circulated. It was torture to go to work and a joy to return home. But the boredom and irritable mood at office travelled home and Nikhilesh would often snap at his wife.Mark managed to contract time by making everything a joyful activity. Dinakar expanded time by making everything a boring chore. Time passes fast when we are having a good time. Time moves slowly when we are not.The best way to see figure out organisational culture is to see how people behave during lunchtime. If they are eagerly waiting for the break, it means time is passing slowly at their workstations. If they forget the lunch break, then they clearly are doing something at the workstation that they’re enjoying a lot. Time is constantly contracting and expanding at the workplace.[ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who canreached at devdutt@devdutt.com]

Posted by Freeman at 5:48 AM No comments: 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Labels: STRETCHABLE TIME, time Management

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2011

CRACKING THE CONUNDRUM

EMPLOYEES OFTEN FACE A DILEMMA BETWEEN FOCUSSING ON THE CUSTOMER OR FOCUSSING THE BOSS

Shiva, the ascetic god, sits in Kailas located high up in the snow capped Himalayan range as well as in Kashi located down in the plains, on the banks of the river Ganges. Atop Kailas, Shiva sits in serene meditation as the teacher, Adi Nath. Down below in Kashi, Shiva is Vishwanath, lord of the world, involved in activities of life and death, along with his consort Annapoorna, the goddess of food. In Kailas everything is still and silent and serene. But in Kashi kitchen fires burn along side crematoriums; there is the chaos of worldly life. The devotee is not sure if he should direct his devotion downstream towards Kashi where life is lived or upstream towards Kailas where liberation is granted. Which Shiva matters more?

There is Kailas and Kashi in the corporate world too - the boss sits in Kailas while the customers, in Kashi. Who should one focus on? The boss upstream or the customers downstream. Downstream is where performance happens and value is created, but upstream is where appraisal is done, and promotions granted.

People often say that if there is performance, and then rewards are bound to come. But anyone who has been through the appraisal process knows that there is a huge a gap between what happens is Kashi and what is perceived in Kailas. We may think we have performed brilliantly but when we receive the letter, we are quite disappointed with the contents: either the raise is too frugal, or the promotion is adequate enough.Every employee works for his salary. The boss seated in Kailas has a direct impact on the payslip. The customer who is in Kashi has an indirect impact on the payslip. When events in Kashi have no direct correlation on the decisions taken at Kailas, attention shifts from customer satisfaction to boss management.

Santosh, the restaurant head in a luxury hotel, was furious. The general manager had given a promotion to Vipin, the front desk head. It was Santosh who worked day and night to ensure the guests were happy. It was Santosh who got the great customer ratings for the hotel. It was Santosh who ensured his team walked the extra mile to manage the tantrums of the many celebrities who came to the restaurant. In his view, Vipin did not do much of a job at the front desk where there were always issues with billing during rush hour, and irritated clients who arrived by the late night flight. Rather than focus on his team and his customers, Vipin seemed to focus more on buttering the boss. Santosh refused to be a yes-man or sidekick to the general manager. He felt the general manager should measure him

on the basis of his performance and not on the basis of interpersonal relationship. So when he learnt that Vipin had got a better rating than him at the appraisal he felt betrayed. He lost interest in work. He felt it was time to quit and move on. Kailas, he felt, had ignored the reality of Kashi.

This is the irony of the corporate world. Despite all efforts to create an objective foolproof appraisal system, it relies heavily on the subjectivity of those upstream while the real value is generated with customers way downstream. Events in Kashi happen every day but the pilgrimage upstream to Kailas happens barely once or twice a year during appraisal time. Ideally Kashi and Kailas should be one - customer satisfaction must determine employee appraisal. But this does not happen. So the employee wonders who is God actually - customer or boss?

[ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who can bereached at devdutt@devdutt.com]

Posted by Freeman at 11:07 PM No comments: 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Labels: Employee appraisal, Employee Relation, work Culture

THE THEORY OF RETURN WHY WE SEEK ‘MOTIVATION’ TO DO WORK THAT WE ARE FAIRLY ‘COMPENSATED’ FOR“What is Swarga?" Yayati asked Indra. Indra replied, "It is a place where you get everything without any effort. You stand under a tree called Kalpataru and wish for what you want - and you will have it. You stand before a cow called Kamadhenu and wish for what you want - and you will have it. You hold a jewel called Chintamani and wish for what you want - and you will have it." Yayati realized that Swarga was a place with infinite return despite zero investment.

Humans have always yearned for paradise. And to remind them of Swarga, humans have venerated and adored certain plants that bear fruit all year round with little or no effort. This is why the banana tree is auspicious. The tree does not require much maintenance but it provides delicious energy-rich fruit and leaves that can be used as plates. The same can be said of the coconut, part of every household ritual.We all seek paradise, or a place closest to it. High return on investment is desirable. Or ideally high return with no investment. And that is what we do at work: to get a high ROI either employers demand increase returns or employees try to reduce investment. And it is often tough to measure either.

Sandeep was unemployed for six months. During his interview that finally landed him a job in a tuition class, he was determined to give his best show, work hard and prove to the employers that he was worth the salary they were paying him, even more. So in June of that

year he started his job in full earnestness: arriving on time, preparing for his lectures, giving his full attention to the students, following up all home assignments with enthusiasm.

But two months later in August, Sandeep's enthusiasm had waned. The job had become routine and boring. There was no excitement. He felt his returns for the effort put in was too less. There was no chance of the salary being increased, and so he decided to increase his return by decreasing his investment. So yes, he did arrive on time and did do all his lectures, but he reduced his enthusiasm and attention. He gave lip service to the task at hand and refused to do more than what was expected of him in the job description handed out at the time of appointment.

The management then asked Sandeep to do some extra work, take two extra lectures a week. Sandeep refused as that was not part of the original agreement. The management showed him the fine print: he could be given extra assignments should the need arise. Now Sandeep felt exploited: he felt he was being asked to give more but he received the same remuneration has before. His return on investment was turning out to be low. But the management's return on investment was turning out to be high.

Enraged, irritated, exasperated, he decided to lower his inputs. He barely made it to the institute on time, dragged his feet into the lecture rooms, snapped at students, refused to prepare for sessions, barely glanced through home assignments, did not really engage with students, did just enough tasks to ensure he could defend himself should a complaint arise. During office hours, he tried to finish all his personal work. This was his way to increasing his return on investment.

Sandeep realized that tasks can be measured but attention cannot. By refusing to give attention to his work, he could decrease his investment and thereby increase his return on investment ratio. Now, the management is wondering why the teachers of their institute, Sandeep included, are demotivated. They have decided to call in a motivational speaker to stir the teachers, make them more enthusiastic, develop more ownership. But the teachers refuse. They fear if they do show enthusiasm, the management will end up getting more returns for the same investment.This is the malaise that often spreads through corporations and is masked as boredom. It explains why we seek 'motivation' to do work that we are fairly 'compensated' for. It is our little quest for Swarga.(The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group. He can bereached at devdutt@devdutt.com)

Posted by Freeman at 11:02 PM No comments: 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Labels: Lack of Movition, Movition

FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2011

TWO WORLDSWORKPLACES CAN BE LIKE MADHUVAN. BUT THEY ARE MORE OFTEN KURUKSHETRAS

The story of Krishna can be divided into two parts: the Bhagavata part and the Mahabharata part. The first part is where he is in Madhuvan, playing the flute, drawing the milkmaids to dance with him outside the village, at night, in the forest. It is a place that is not governed by fear, or rules, or obligation, yet everything is synchronized to form a perfect circle. The second part is where he is in Kurukshetra, riding a chariot, leading warriors to a bloodbath. It is a place of fear and rules and obligations and vendetta, where all rules of decency collapse. Every employee who joins an organisation, hopes it to be Madhuvan: a place of joy and hope and growth and teamwork. Every employee who is leaving an organization describes the situation as Kurukshetra: a place of struggle and politics and insensitivity. We want our worlds to be governed by the principles of Bhagavata, but we are often faced with the terrible ways of the Mahabharata. In a large company of seventy thousand people, Milind found his team of seven people always groaning and complaining and being nasty about everyone and everything from the management to the customer. As a young team leader, he felt he was in the heat of a Kurukshetra battle every day. He realized that every organization had the same grouses with the management, with the admin, with the customer, with teammates. This is how most organizations were, even those who claimed very publicly to be employee-friendly. Maybe, he realised, this is how every employee sees an organization and everyone expects the world around him to transform. Who established Madhuvan and Kurukshetra? Does Krishna create these spaces or these spaces create Krishna? Are we fountainheads of circumstances or victims of circumstances? Milind decided he had enough of the ‘issues’. Every day he would focus on what was positive in both professional and personal life. No negative conversations allowed, except on Tuesdays – which he called ‘vent-day’. Every day Milind would only discuss positive things. When there was a problem, the focus was on solutions. When there was a complaint, the focus was on resolution. He encouraged his team to do the same. They agreed reluctantly. On Tuesday, Milind wore a black shirt and the day was spent only complaining and whining and in bouts of intense irritation. It took getting used to but in a few weeks, Milind’s team was a happier team, all organizations issues notwithstanding. Milind took a stand: he would transform his little world into Madhuvan. He realized the importance of the chariot festival of Jaggannath Puri where devotees pull the giant chariots hoping to bring Krishna back from Kurukshetra to Madhuvan. The point is to discover that only we, on our own, can close the Mahabharata chapter in our life and open the pages of the Bhagavata. If we wait for

management to do it, we may be waiting for a long, very long, time. [ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who can reached at devdutt@devdutt.com]

Posted by Freeman at 1:06 AM No comments: 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Labels: Devdutt, TWO WORLDS

MUCH OBLIGED -THE WEAK ARE THE BURDENS THAT THE STRONG HAVE TO BEARTHE WEAK ARE THE BURDENS THAT THE STRONG HAVE TO BEAR

In the Ramayana, the story goes that in his youth, during a hunt, mistaking the sound of a pot being immersed in water to the sound of a deer quenching its thirst, Dashrath accidentally shot dead a young man called Shravan Kumar. Shravan's aged parents cursed Dashrath that he too would suffer and die due to loss of his son, which explains the exile of Ram. For most people, Shravan Kumar epitomizes the dutiful son. He was taking his old parents on a pilgrimage, carrying them in two baskets hanging from two ends of a staff slung over his shoulder. The image evokes feelings of love and duty towards parents. But it also evokes feelings of burden - a young man trapped by the sling of duty. Is Shravan Kumar carrying out his duty out of volition or obligation? Is it free will or the burden of fate? Most storytellers insist that Shravan served his parents out of love, in freedom, in complete volition. The audience will reject an alternate narrative. It would be considered blasphemy in India. Yet obligation plays a key role in family businesses, which accounts for most businesses in India. One is obliged to serve in the family firm. One is obliged to provide opportunities to less fortunate and less talented family members. Obligation is seen as bondage, entrapment, enforced nobility. Pratap's shoulders are bruised and bleeding because of the sling he has been carrying for the past 12 years. It is the sling with the many baskets where sit his father and his uncles, who first set up the family business. Ideally he would like to sell the old business for a huge profit and enjoy a life of leisure, maybe managing a small business that gives him a lot of free time. But he cannot. He has to work hard to keep the old ship running, employing relatives and old loyal staff, few of whom match his levels of competence. He cannot fire them, he cannot hire professionals at high salaries, he cannot disrupt the workings of the organisation dramatically. It will be a few years before he can shed burden of the elders. So he works with cousins and sisters and brothers-in-law, giving them tasks and dealing with their failures and insecurities and overestimations, forgiving their blunders, and in some cases their lack of ethics. He wants to fight back, but he cannot - he wants to be the good

son. He wants to be Shravan Kumar. To shed the burden of baskets is not easy. The social price will be too high. The world will look at him as a traitor and a selfish lout who abandoned family. He cannot deal with that rejection, not yet at least. So he carries on, making sure everyone knows how much he has sacrificed for them, demanding their respect and deference in return. Modern management speaks of systems and processes and family constitutions to manage family issues. It looks at life and relationship in contractual terms. But there is no contract between Pratap and his family. It is an unspoken commitment that has cemented family businesses over generations, ensured that the weak are protected by the strong. The weak are the burdens that the strong have to bear. This slows down the pack, but it ensures that when the strong become weak, there is always a security blanket. Pratap knows that when he is down and out, this very same family that he considers a burden today will take care of him and so he hesitates to shed the sling. Shravan-Kumar is taking care of his parents as his parents took care of their parents and thus providing a model for his children, in the hope they will comply and accept their burden of obligations. [ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who can reached at devdutt@devdutt.com]

Posted by Freeman at 1:06 AM No comments: 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Labels: MUCH OBLIGED

THE JUNGLE OUT THERESENT INTO EXILE, YOU CAN EITHER BEHAVE LIKE RAM OR THE PANDAVAS

It is curious that the forest-exile is central to both Ramayana and Mahabharata, the twin epics of India. In the Ramayana, Ram goes into exile so that his father can keep his word to his step-mother, Kaikeyi. In the Mahabharata, the Pandavas go into exile following an agreement with their cousins, the Kauravas, when they lose their kingdom in a gambling match. The reaction to the exile in both epics is startlingly different. In the Ramayana, Ram keeps saying that neither Kaikeyi nor his father should be blamed and the moment should be accepted as an act of destiny. In the Mahabharata, Pandavas keep blaming Kauravas and their uncle, Shakuni, for fraud and trickery. Ram looks calm and peaceful, even though he is clearly the victim of palace politics. The Pandavas on the other hand are angry and furious, never once taking responsibility for the fact that they gambled away their kingdom. The loss of kingdom and exile into the forest is a metaphor for misfortune. But the approach to it distinguishes Ram from the Pandavas and makes the former a king worthy of worship. Managers can be classified into Ramayana Managers and Mahabharata Managers. The former take responsibility for a situation, even if they are not to blame. The latter do not take

responsibility for a situation, even if they are to blame. Ramayana managers typically internalise the problem. Focus on what they can do to manage and resolve the crisis. Mahabharata managers typically externalise the problem and spend a lot of time and energy finding people and processes to blame. Two days after Raj moved to his new office, his entire team resigned. He was not the cause. A series of events had taken place before he joined the team and he was witnessing the exit process. Since Raj represented the senior management, on the second day of the job, he had to take exit interviews and hear all the outpourings of negative emotions of those leaving. He had to hear all the terrible things the organisation had done and how the person before him had betrayed their trust. All Raj could do is go through the process, endure the irritation of the exiting team. He did it stoically, never getting angry for the awkward position he had been put in by the management, never complaining to his superiors, never regretting his decision to take up this new assignment, never feeling he had been duped into an unpleasant situation that was not of his own creation. In the large organisation, few knew that he had no role in the crisis. The system revealed him as the manager on duty at the time the resignations were tendered. That somehow made him the cause of the unpleasant effect. Raj took this all in a stride as the reality of corporate life and focused on what he could do, rather than what he had no control over. Sachin, on the other hand, is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. His predecessor's mess had created havoc and he was expected to handle it on the day he joined as the boss of the local branch. Customers were screaming, subordinates were yelling and Sachin did not know what to do. So he picked up the phone and complained to the HR department and then the boss who had hired him for not warning him of the situation. Sachin felt betrayed by the organisation. He blamed the head hunter for tricking him to take up this job. He could not go back to his previous organisation; he had burned all his bridges there. He had moved to a new city with is family and there was no going back. This was not the promotion he imagined. He had been tricked. He was angry. He felt helpless. He felt like a victim. Both Ravi and Sachin are victims of circumstances. Both have taken decisions to move out of their previous situation. Neither expects the current situation to be such a mess. But Ravi takes this without complaint. Sachin is full of complaints. Ravi, like Ram, does not add to the crisis. Sachin, like the Pandavas, simply adds fuel to the crisis. Not surprisingly, everyone wants Ram as their manager, not Sachin. [ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who can be reached at devdutt@devdutt.com]

Posted by Freeman at 12:59 AM No comments: 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Labels: THE JUNGLE OUT THERE

PARADISE IS NOT HEAVEN

PARADISE IS A PLACE OF LUXURY, BUT IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE PEACE

In Hindu mythology, there are two types of heaven: there is heaven (spelt without capitals) and there is Heaven (spelt with capitals). The smaller heaven is also called paradise, to distinguish it from Heaven. Of course, this complex denotation emerges because of the limitations of the English language that was designed to serve the needs of the Bible that has only one Heaven. Belief in one life that underlies Christianity results in faith in one heaven. Belief in many lives that underlies Hinduism results in faith in many heavens, and Heavens. Paradise or heaven is called Swarga and is ruled by Indra, king of the gods. He is surrounded by wealth and beauty and fame, but he is always insecure, fearful that another king or sage or demon may topple him anytime. Then there is Heaven, the Vaikuntha of Vishnu or Kailasa of Shiva, where there is no threat, only eternal peace. But here time stills, there is no ebb and flow of things; no hunger and hence, no quest for satisfaction; no thirst, hence no satiety. In the case of paradise, there is prosperity but no peace, while in Heaven, there is peace but complete indifference to prosperity. Thirty years ago, David and Jacob, after completing their engineering degree, took up two very different jobs for two different reasons. David joined a private engineering firm that offered him no job guarantees but a lot of opportunities. Jacob joined a public sector enterprise that offered him job security but not many opportunities. David spent years moving from city to city, from job to job, changing roles and domains, fighting office politics, struggling for appreciation, making his presence felt, battling recession, and is today Vice-President of a Dubai-based company with major investments in India. Needless to say he is doing very well financially. He has bought three houses in India. But he looks stressed. The job has very high demands. The shareholders want results and the auditors are strict about governance. Every day he has to take tough decisions and every day he has to answer tough questions from people upstream and downstream. Customers are difficult to acquire and retain. David spends all day thinking about the job and this has seriously affected his work-life balance. He envies Jacob. Jacob joined a public sector company. He finds his job boring. Every thing is decided by policies. He knows he can do a better job, but the organisation makes no demands of him. He is expected to behave as per his grade. His remuneration is as per his grade. If he wants to attend a conference abroad, he has to take permission from superiors. He has hardly any autonomy. Even if the chair in his office is broken, the requisition has to go to some to senior who will sign a document in triplicate. His colleagues, he feels, have lost all enthusiasm. Even the fire in his belly has started to ebb. He does enough work so that he is not seen as a slacker. He reaches office on time and comes home on time. He gets to spend a lot of time with his family. For that he is grateful, especially when David calls him and tells him how he was unable to attend his daughter's graduation ceremony in a fancy Singapore University. He knows that boom time or bust, he job is secure, and if he is patient, eventually, he will get his promotion. He may not have bought three houses, but his

company quarters are huge. He is content, but occasionally he does feel his life lacks the thrill of David's private sector job. David is in paradise; Jacob in Heaven. David enjoys growth; Jacob enjoys stability. David is blessed with prosperity; Jacob has peace. We yearn for both, but often one comes at the price of the other. 

[ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group. He may be reached at devdutt@devdutt.com]

TWO WORLDSWORKPLACES CAN BE LIKE MADHUVAN. BUT THEY ARE MORE OFTEN KURUKSHETRAS

The story of Krishna can be divided into two parts: the Bhagavata part and the Mahabharata part. The first part is where he is in Madhuvan, playing the flute, drawing the milkmaids to dance with him outside the village, at night, in the forest. It is a place that is not governed by fear, or rules, or obligation, yet everything is synchronized to form a perfect circle. The second part is where he is in Kurukshetra, riding a chariot, leading warriors to a bloodbath. It is a place of fear and rules and obligations and vendetta, where all rules of decency collapse. Every employee who joins an organisation, hopes it to be Madhuvan: a place of joy and hope and growth and teamwork. Every employee who is leaving an organization describes the situation as Kurukshetra: a place of struggle and politics and insensitivity. We want our worlds to be governed by the principles of Bhagavata, but we are often faced with the terrible ways of the Mahabharata. In a large company of seventy thousand people, Milind found his team of seven people always groaning and complaining and being nasty about everyone and everything from the management to the customer. As a young team leader, he felt he was in the heat of a Kurukshetra battle every day. He realized that every organization had the same grouses with the management, with the admin, with the customer, with teammates. This is how most organizations were, even those who claimed very publicly to be employee-friendly. Maybe, he realised, this is how every employee sees an organization and everyone expects the world around him to transform. Who established Madhuvan and Kurukshetra? Does Krishna create these spaces or these spaces create Krishna? Are we fountainheads of circumstances or victims of circumstances? Milind decided he had enough of the ‘issues’. Every day he would focus on what was positive in both professional and personal life. No negative conversations allowed, except on Tuesdays – which he called ‘vent-day’. Every day Milind would only discuss positive things. When there was a problem, the focus was on solutions. When there was a complaint, the focus was on resolution. He encouraged his team to do the same. They agreed reluctantly. On Tuesday, Milind wore a black shirt and the day was spent only complaining and whining and in bouts of intense irritation. It took getting used to but in a few weeks, Milind’s team was a happier team, all organizations issues notwithstanding. Milind took a stand: he would transform his little world into Madhuvan. He realized the importance of the chariot festival of

Jaggannath Puri where devotees pull the giant chariots hoping to bring Krishna back from Kurukshetra to Madhuvan. The point is to discover that only we, on our own, can close the Mahabharata chapter in our life and open the pages of the Bhagavata. If we wait for management to do it, we may be waiting for a long, very long, time. [ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who can reached at devdutt@devdutt.com]Posted by Freeman at 1:06 AM No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLabels: Devdutt, TWO WORLDS

MUCH OBLIGED -THE WEAK ARE THE BURDENS THAT THE STRONG HAVE TO BEARTHE WEAK ARE THE BURDENS THAT THE STRONG HAVE TO BEAR

In the Ramayana, the story goes that in his youth, during a hunt, mistaking the sound of a pot being immersed in water to the sound of a deer quenching its thirst, Dashrath accidentally shot dead a young man called Shravan Kumar. Shravan's aged parents cursed Dashrath that he too would suffer and die due to loss of his son, which explains the exile of Ram. For most people, Shravan Kumar epitomizes the dutiful son. He was taking his old parents on a pilgrimage, carrying them in two baskets hanging from two ends of a staff slung over his shoulder. The image evokes feelings of love and duty towards parents. But it also evokes feelings of burden - a young man trapped by the sling of duty. Is Shravan Kumar carrying out his duty out of volition or obligation? Is it free will or the burden of fate? Most storytellers insist that Shravan served his parents out of love, in freedom, in complete volition. The audience will reject an alternate narrative. It would be considered blasphemy in India. Yet obligation plays a key role in family businesses, which accounts for most businesses in India. One is obliged to serve in the family firm. One is obliged to provide opportunities to less fortunate and less talented family members. Obligation is seen as bondage, entrapment, enforced nobility. Pratap's shoulders are bruised and bleeding because of the sling he has been carrying for the past 12 years. It is the sling with the many baskets where sit his father and his uncles, who first set up the family business. Ideally he would like to sell the old business for a huge profit and enjoy a life of leisure, maybe managing a small business that gives him a lot of free time. But he cannot. He has to work hard to keep the old ship running, employing relatives and old loyal staff, few of whom match his levels of competence. He cannot fire them, he cannot hire professionals at high salaries, he cannot disrupt the workings of the organisation dramatically. It will be a few years before he can shed burden of the elders. So he works with cousins and sisters and brothers-in-law, giving them tasks and dealing with their failures and insecurities and overestimations, forgiving their blunders, and in some cases their lack of ethics. He wants to fight back, but he cannot - he wants to be the good son. He wants to be Shravan Kumar. To shed the burden of baskets is not easy. The social price will be too high. The world will look at him as a traitor and a selfish lout who abandoned family. He cannot deal with that rejection, not yet at least. So he carries on, making sure everyone knows how much he has

sacrificed for them, demanding their respect and deference in return. Modern management speaks of systems and processes and family constitutions to manage family issues. It looks at life and relationship in contractual terms. But there is no contract between Pratap and his family. It is an unspoken commitment that has cemented family businesses over generations, ensured that the weak are protected by the strong. The weak are the burdens that the strong have to bear. This slows down the pack, but it ensures that when the strong become weak, there is always a security blanket. Pratap knows that when he is down and out, this very same family that he considers a burden today will take care of him and so he hesitates to shed the sling. Shravan-Kumar is taking care of his parents as his parents took care of their parents and thus providing a model for his children, in the hope they will comply and accept their burden of obligations. [ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who can reached at devdutt@devdutt.com]Posted by Freeman at 1:06 AM No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLabels: MUCH OBLIGED

THE JUNGLE OUT THERESENT INTO EXILE, YOU CAN EITHER BEHAVE LIKE RAM OR THE PANDAVAS

It is curious that the forest-exile is central to both Ramayana and Mahabharata, the twin epics of India. In the Ramayana, Ram goes into exile so that his father can keep his word to his step-mother, Kaikeyi. In the Mahabharata, the Pandavas go into exile following an agreement with their cousins, the Kauravas, when they lose their kingdom in a gambling match. The reaction to the exile in both epics is startlingly different. In the Ramayana, Ram keeps saying that neither Kaikeyi nor his father should be blamed and the moment should be accepted as an act of destiny. In the Mahabharata, Pandavas keep blaming Kauravas and their uncle, Shakuni, for fraud and trickery. Ram looks calm and peaceful, even though he is clearly the victim of palace politics. The Pandavas on the other hand are angry and furious, never once taking responsibility for the fact that they gambled away their kingdom. The loss of kingdom and exile into the forest is a metaphor for misfortune. But the approach to it distinguishes Ram from the Pandavas and makes the former a king worthy of worship. Managers can be classified into Ramayana Managers and Mahabharata Managers. The former take responsibility for a situation, even if they are not to blame. The latter do not take responsibility for a situation, even if they are to blame. Ramayana managers typically internalise the problem. Focus on what they can do to manage and resolve the crisis. Mahabharata managers typically externalise the problem and spend a lot of time and energy finding people and processes to blame. Two days after Raj moved to his new office, his entire team resigned. He was not the cause. A series of events had taken place before he joined the team and he was witnessing the exit process. Since Raj represented the senior management, on the second day of the job, he had to take exit interviews and hear all the outpourings of negative emotions of those leaving. He had to hear all the terrible things the organisation had done and how the person before him had betrayed their trust. All Raj could do is go through the process, endure the irritation of the exiting team. He did it stoically, never getting angry for the awkward position he had been put in by the

management, never complaining to his superiors, never regretting his decision to take up this new assignment, never feeling he had been duped into an unpleasant situation that was not of his own creation. In the large organisation, few knew that he had no role in the crisis. The system revealed him as the manager on duty at the time the resignations were tendered. That somehow made him the cause of the unpleasant effect. Raj took this all in a stride as the reality of corporate life and focused on what he could do, rather than what he had no control over. Sachin, on the other hand, is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. His predecessor's mess had created havoc and he was expected to handle it on the day he joined as the boss of the local branch. Customers were screaming, subordinates were yelling and Sachin did not know what to do. So he picked up the phone and complained to the HR department and then the boss who had hired him for not warning him of the situation. Sachin felt betrayed by the organisation. He blamed the head hunter for tricking him to take up this job. He could not go back to his previous organisation; he had burned all his bridges there. He had moved to a new city with is family and there was no going back. This was not the promotion he imagined. He had been tricked. He was angry. He felt helpless. He felt like a victim. Both Ravi and Sachin are victims of circumstances. Both have taken decisions to move out of their previous situation. Neither expects the current situation to be such a mess. But Ravi takes this without complaint. Sachin is full of complaints. Ravi, like Ram, does not add to the crisis. Sachin, like the Pandavas, simply adds fuel to the crisis. Not surprisingly, everyone wants Ram as their manager, not Sachin. [ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who can be reached at devdutt@devdutt.com]Posted by Freeman at 12:59 AM No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookLabels: THE JUNGLE OUT THERE

PARADISE IS NOT HEAVENPARADISE IS A PLACE OF LUXURY, BUT IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE PEACE

In Hindu mythology, there are two types of heaven: there is heaven (spelt without capitals) and there is Heaven (spelt with capitals). The smaller heaven is also called paradise, to distinguish it from Heaven. Of course, this complex denotation emerges because of the limitations of the English language that was designed to serve the needs of the Bible that has only one Heaven. Belief in one life that underlies Christianity results in faith in one heaven. Belief in many lives that underlies Hinduism results in faith in many heavens, and Heavens. Paradise or heaven is called Swarga and is ruled by Indra, king of the gods. He is surrounded by wealth and beauty and fame, but he is always insecure, fearful that another king or sage or demon may topple him anytime. Then there is Heaven, the Vaikuntha of Vishnu or Kailasa of Shiva, where there is no threat, only eternal peace. But here time stills, there is no ebb and flow of things; no hunger and hence, no quest for satisfaction; no thirst, hence no satiety. In the case of paradise, there is prosperity but no peace, while in Heaven, there is peace but complete indifference to prosperity. Thirty years ago, David and Jacob, after completing their engineering degree, took up two very different jobs for two different reasons. David joined a private engineering firm that offered him no job guarantees but a lot of opportunities. Jacob joined a public sector enterprise that offered him job security but not many opportunities. 

David spent years moving from city to city, from job to job, changing roles and domains, fighting office politics, struggling for appreciation, making his presence felt, battling recession, and is today Vice-President of a Dubai-based company with major investments in India. Needless to say he is doing very well financially. He has bought three houses in India. But he looks stressed. The job has very high demands. The shareholders want results and the auditors are strict about governance. Every day he has to take tough decisions and every day he has to answer tough questions from people upstream and downstream. Customers are difficult to acquire and retain. David spends all day thinking about the job and this has seriously affected his work-life balance. He envies Jacob. Jacob joined a public sector company. He finds his job boring. Every thing is decided by policies. He knows he can do a better job, but the organisation makes no demands of him. He is expected to behave as per his grade. His remuneration is as per his grade. If he wants to attend a conference abroad, he has to take permission from superiors. He has hardly any autonomy. Even if the chair in his office is broken, the requisition has to go to some to senior who will sign a document in triplicate. His colleagues, he feels, have lost all enthusiasm. Even the fire in his belly has started to ebb. He does enough work so that he is not seen as a slacker. He reaches office on time and comes home on time. He gets to spend a lot of time with his family. For that he is grateful, especially when David calls him and tells him how he was unable to attend his daughter's graduation ceremony in a fancy Singapore University. He knows that boom time or bust, he job is secure, and if he is patient, eventually, he will get his promotion. He may not have bought three houses, but his company quarters are huge. He is content, but occasionally he does feel his life lacks the thrill of David's private sector job. David is in paradise; Jacob in Heaven. David enjoys growth; Jacob enjoys stability. David is blessed with prosperity; Jacob has peace. We yearn for both, but often one comes at the price of the other. 

[ The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group. He may be reached at devdutt@devdutt.com]

Management mythos: Mahabharata and the corporate worldDevdutt Pattanaik May 20, 2011, 03.59am IST

Tags: Future group | arjuna

Mahabharata refers to three great archers who face different challenges for reasons beyond their control. There is Arjuna, the Pandava, prince of Hastinapur. There is Karna, the foster son of a charioteer, who does not know who his real parents are. And finally, there is Ekalavya, a tribal youth, an outcaste.

Despite his privileged background, Arjuna feels threatened by the talents of both Karna and Ekalavya. When Karna presents himself at an archery competition, Arjuna and his brothers revile him as 'the charioteer's son who should know his place.' When Ekalavya is able to shoot arrows into the mouth of a barking dog thereby silencing him without killing him, Arjuna turns to his guru Drona, who, to comfort his

royal student, takes advantage of the Ekalavya's gullibility and extracts a terrible fee: 'pay me with your thumb for serving as your inspiration'.

Despite his talent that earns him the support of Duryodhan, another prince of Hastinapur, Karna is forever haunted by his status in society. Despite his talent costing him his thumb, Ekalavya is unable to comprehend why people who are supposed to be learned can be so cruel.

The corporate world is full of talented people. Not everyone comes from the right pedigree, or has the right qualifications or experience, as Arjuna does. Not everyone gets the support of a Duryodhana, as Karna does. And some talented people, like Ekalavya, don't even have the tact to realize that they have been shortchanged, remaining forever sidelined.

An Arjuna, despite everything, remains insecure about Karnas and Ekalavyas. A Karna, despite support of Duryodhana, always feels inadequate and under appreciated. An Ekalavya remains a victim of his own innocence.

The corporate world is projected as a fair world, full of objective parameters where through systems and processes talents are managed so that the best man wins. But everyone knows that is not true. For underlying these systems and processes are the motivations and politics of human beings, factors that do not go away despite the best of technologies, factors whose existence is constantly denied.

Mr. Mathias knows that because he is the eldest son of his family, his taking over as CEO will always be seen as a function of his bloodlines, and not as a function of his talent. No matter how hard he works, no matter what his performance is when compared with professionals in the company, he will always be his father's son. He is the modern-day Arjuna, found in almost every family business.

Mr. Mathur knows that despite years of proving himself, he will never become the CEO; he is not part of the family bloodline and the family will never give the mantle to a professional. He is our modern-day Karna, who leaves the family business and joins a professional company, only to realize that even that multinational company has a glass ceiling. He is not an alumni of a particular B-school, hence he will never ever be good enough. He will always be the outsider.

Mr. Bakshi works as a manager in a departmental store. He would have been a part of the strategic team but he will never be, because he is not a B-school graduate. No school accepted him because in the group discussion he would only express himself in Hindi. His thoughts were outstanding but those who judged him heard only his language and felt he would not fit in because he did not know English.

Mr. Bakshi did not learn English because the government schools taught only the local language because the political parties insisted in supporting the regional language over a foreign language, never mind the fact that the children of the politicians went to English schools. Mr. Bakshi is the modern day Ekavalya not quite sure why well-meaning politicians and well-meaning academicians denied him his thumb.

Management Mythos: Rationality in management is a mythSep 6, 2013, 04.00AM IST

Tags: USA| Rationality| Modern management| Management Mythos| Japan| economy| Devdutt Pattanaik| Denmark

(Modern management as we…)

By Devdutt PattanaikModern management as we know it today thrives on an assumption: that it is objective and rational. Cutting edge thinkers know that it is not so. Subjectivity plays a key role in management. And subjectivity is influenced strongly by culture.

The way we see the world is conditioned by the culture we have been most exposed to since childhood. A child brought up in Denmark, for example, has a very different understanding of life compared to a child brought up in India, internet notwithstanding.

There will be many things common but there will also be many things different. How much focus do we pay to subjectivity relative to objectivity, irrationality relative to rationality, in management thought?

People are divided on this. We have been conditioned to look upon subjectivity and irrationality as wrong, even evil, the source of problems and the source of chaos. Yet, it remains a factor impacting business and can be a lever that can change the way we conduct business and solve problems we face today.

In Denmark, one is exposed to an economy of five million people, 80% of the same ethnicity. In India, one is exposed to an economy of 1,200 million people, where less than 40% speak the same language, and the remaining 60% speak 15 languages, and there is great diversity along economic, political, linguistic, educational, religious and caste lines.

Management principles that will emerge from, and will be applicable to, Denmark may not work as well in India. This seems pretty obvious, but many people challenge this. Such reaction reaffirms the idea that different people see the world differently: the world is not a rational, logical, objective space, where there

is one truth. There are many truths. But some truths are more favoured and more dominant than others, and even positioned as THE truth.

Belief is an assumption based on how many data points we are exposed to, and how we join these data points: the more the dots, the more complex the pattern. The more the experience, the more ways we know to join the dots. And so belief keeps expanding. Like a business plan which changes when assumption changes, our understanding of business and management changes dramatically when our belief changes, or rather expands.

Notions of business and management as we know it today comes primarily from USA and Europe. These are shaped by Western cultures. Historically, today's management is influenced by principles of the Roman Army, Jesuit Missionaries, and Industrial Engineering of the 19th century - all Western. It is not objective at all.

It does not take worldviews of China and India into consideration. It assumes itself as rational, independent of cultural thinking. And that is its greatest shortcoming. Mathematics and statistics may be universal languages, but the way we read the results varies with the cultural gaze embedded in the leadership.

This understanding is critical in the new 'post-internet' world order where everything is mingling and merging and we are realizing that all things Western are not necessarily modern, or complete, or suitable for all contexts. It is important to re-evaluate our gaze. It is important to expand our mind, join more dots.

Sun Tzu and the Art of War became popular in the 1980s because of the success of Japanese corporations and it gave management thinkers all over the world exposure to Chinese thought (Sun Tzu was not from Japan). Since India became a hub of outsourcing and a potential market for many in Europe and America, people have been wondering about Indian thought. Hence the proliferation of books on Chanakya and Bhagavad Gita.

  Chanakya appeals to the rationalist and Bhagavad Gita appeals to the philosopher. But neither takes into consideration the vast body of knowledge embedded in the stories, symbols and rituals of India.Neither takes into consideration Lakshmi, restless but delightful goddess of wealth, the most popular Goddess in India (not just amongst Hindus). Perhaps this has to do something with 19th century disdain for all things 'myth' and an obsession for rationality and scientific thinking.

Of course, today social scientists know that 'myth' is essentially a cultural point of view that expresses itself through stories, symbols and rituals: every society has its own myth. There is no culture that has no myth. Western thought is also a myth that shapes the modern world; it is neither rational nor real.

To be continued...

Management Mythos: Why the Upanishadic method of teaching one to one worksOct 11, 2013, 03.00AM IST

Tags: Upanishadic| Upanishad| Tantras| Pandavas| Devdutt Pattanaik| Bhagwad Gita| Ashtavakra

Devdutt PattanaikOne day, the student came to the teacher and said in a rather accusative tone, "You have taught me a lot of theory but nothing practical." Calmly the teacher replied, "I taught you a lot of things. Your capacity and capability determine what is theoretical and what is practical. For the smart, all that is theoretical is also practical. For the not-so-smart, all that is practical is also theoretical." Thus the burden of learning was shifted from the teacher to the student.

We often see education as a one-way street. The teacher trains, or the student learns. That is why what was once called the Training Department is now called the Learning Department. In the former, the onus rested on the trainer. In the latter, the onus rested with the participant, with the trainer now called facilitator. But learning is more complex than that. It is a two way street.

We can equate knowledge with food. The teacher can serve any kind of good. The quality of the food may be good or bad depending on the teacher's ability. But what we eat depends on our taste. And what we finally imbibe depends on our digestive capacity. So what we learn is as much dependent on what the teacher serves and on ourselves.

To improve quality of presentations people are often told the following: Keep one message; use more images than words on slide; say what you want to say, say it and tell people what you have said. But this does not guarantee communication. This advice ignores one important lever of communication - the mood of the recipient. Is he interested in hearing? Is he hostile? Is he distracted? Must efforts made to make him more attentive? Is that the onus of the speaker too?

The Upanishadic method of teaching was one to one. Upanishad means come sit by me. Here the teacher and the student sat and talked about ideas. The teacher calibrated his choice of words depending on the intellectual and emotional level of the student. The students grew by learning what the teacher was trying to communicate. The teacher grew up improving his ability to transfer information and knowledge. In this method, both grew.This customization is adversely affected when another joins the conversation. As more and more people join the conversation, the level of conversation aims to satisfy the 'lowest common denominator'. This happens in one to many conversations as in public speaking and town hall meetings. We cannot then present complex ideas. We can only communicate simple ideas in the most pedestrian of ways for the basic understanding of all.

That is why tales of knowledge transmission in ancient Indian stories always take the form of one to one, and rarely one to many. Ashtavakra explains what he has to say to Janaka alone and not to anyone else. Krishna sings the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna alone; he does not present his ideas to all five Pandavas. When Shiva is explaining the Tantras to Shakti, he demands complete isolation. The story goes that the bird or fish who overhears this conversation is admonished, not because they trespassed, but because

they may not have the capacity/capability to understand what was said and so there was danger of faulty and distorted transmission.

This was one of the reasons why gurus insist on diksha or initiation; they would select students carefully and nurture them carefully to ensure good transmission of their thoughts. For a guru is not a shepherd leading sheep, he is a human who is trying to enable another human discover his potential. Likewise, a trainer or facilitator is not one who transmits knowledge or skills into an empty vessel, he is someone who enables the participant to digest and assimilate what the organization expects of him so that he can successfully keep up his end of his contract.

Management mythos: How Mahabharat tells us that in business actions are rationalised, not always rationalDEVDUTT PATTNAIK Apr 27, 2012, 05.27AM IST

Tags: rationalised explanation | Rational Explanation | Management Mythos

In the Mahabharata, as the great battle is fought between the eleven armies of the Kauravas and the seven armies of the Pandavas, nine days pass without any conclusion. The Pandavas realise that as long as Bhisma leads the Kaurava forces, victory is not possible. But Bhisma cannot simply be killed, as he has the power to choose the time of his death. But surely, he can be incapacitated and prevented from participating in the battle.

For that, he has to made to lower the bow. And he will never do that as long a man stands before him. He will lower his bow only in front of a woman. But rules prevent women from participating in battle. The desperate Pandavas seek a way out. Krishna says, "Let us get Shikhandi to participate in the war. In his past life, Shikhandi was Amba.

In this life, he was born a woman and became a man in later life. His gender is ambiguous. No one is sure if he is man or woman. So we will see him as a man and let him ride on my chariot and stand in front of Arjuna. Bhisma will see him a woman and lower his bow. Bhisma's interpretation will lead to his defeat and our interpretation will lead to our victory."

This is done and thanks to Shikhandi, Bhisma finally falls in battle, paving the way for Pandava victory. Is the decision right or wrong? Since the Pandava interpretation ensured their victory, one can say Shikhandi is actually a man. But this a rationalised answer rather than a rational one. Had Bhisma agreed with the Pandavas and also seen Shikhandi as a man, victory would have eluded the Pandavas.

Rational explanation exists before the event and is independent of outcome. Rational explanation is right whatever the results; rationalised explanations seek to justify the results. Rationally, Shikhandi's gender is anyone's guess. But Shikhandi can be rationalised to be a man as the Pandavas did.The ambiguity of the rational answer is unnerving; we prefer the certainty of rationalised answers. Often in business we take a decision based on how we interpret the situation, unsure of whether it will work or not. When it works, we are taken by surprise. But the world at large demands an explanation.

We are expected to prove that our decisions were strategic, not simply a fluke. To say victory was a fluke makes us nervous. Corporations reject this. So once the numbers come, the manager has to spend hours creating a story rationalising his action so that everything looks as if it was part of a plan.

In his confectionery shop, Russell made a biscuit covered with chocolate. In Europe, these were known as chocolate-flavoured biscuits. But in Indore, where Russell's shop was located, the customers called it biscuit-containing chocolate. It was a huge hit with the customers. Everyone wanted this very unique chocolate. Its texture was the talk of the town. Russell wanted to correct his customers and inform them that this was a biscuit, not a chocolate, but good sense prevailed.

The truth of the customer that ensured his success was the truth of business. Rationally speaking, the product he had created could be biscuit or chocolate. Rationally speaking, it was conventionally called a biscuit in Europe. But Russell rationalised it saying that he observed that Indians love eating street food with different textures and so he designed a chocolate with a biscuit texture. Everyone believed Russell.

The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group. He can be reached at devdutt@devdutt.com

Management Mythos: How to balance the institution building and the entrepreneurial culture?Devdutt Pattanaik Jul 19, 2013, 03.46AM IST

Tags: Management Mythos | investments | institution | entrepreneurial culture | Devdutt Pattanaik

(Management Mythos: How…)

I own a dotcom and we are growing fast. Till now we were a typical entrepreneurial set up were everybody took initiative and we were involved with every part of the business. Now we are nearly 200 people, and have I put a structure in place. But now what I feel is that things have changed, loyalties have changed, the way we work has changed. But what bothers me is that we seem to be getting into that siloed mode that big companies have and that is inhibiting innovation and team work. How do I balance the institutionbuilding and also the entrepreneurial culture?

In modern management mythology, growth is good. We have to keep growing — more customers, more employees, more market capitalization, more investments, more fame.Growth has to continue relentlessly as the shareholder/investor keeps demanding growth quarter after quarter, year after year. This mythology never bothers to check for the consequence. For as you grow, your focus is so much on the goal that relationships crumble and collapse. What makes a startup enterprise fun is the relationship and involvement in people's lives. This is replaced by impersonal structures of institutions and processes as we choose the path of growth. Long have we been told by management gurus is this approach to business is good.

Institutions are good. They last longer than people. And they are fair and just, unlike people who can become corrupt. So slowly gradually, we start building the anthill and we start valuing the anthill over the ants. This is what is happening to your company. The anthill has become a creature that the market loves. The anthill overshadows the ant. Ants do not matter. They are naturally insecure. In insecurity, they bite!

When you speak of innovation, you are speaking about benefitting the anthill, which in turns benefit you, the major shareholder. Why do you expect the ants to contribute? When you speak of teamwork, you are speaking for the benefit of the anthill, which in turn benefits you, the major shareholder. Why do you expect the ants to collaborate? Of course, in nature, ants work relentlessly to help the entire community, build larger and larger anthills. But humans are not ants. Humans have imagination — every human being seeks an identity and meaning. And if the institution does not provide him the same, he withdraws — either rebels or turns subversive.

When you started out, they connected with you. And you inspired them. Now, there are layers of managers between them and you. They have lost connection with the source. To get back the entrepreneurial spirit, you have to reconnect with at least the key talent. Make them feel they matter more than the anthill. And they have to genuinely believe that it is not about this impersonal structure; it is about them. Then, you will see the difference.

(Devdutt Pattanaik is the author of 'Business Sutra — a very Indian approach to management')

Management Mythos: Are you being Mahabharat's Bhishma at work?Nov 16, 2012, 06.42AM IST

Tags: retiring| retirement| Professional| letting go

("We are identified with…)

By Devdutt PattanaikI am the CEO of a media company serving my last days. A successor has been appointed and I am supposed to help him takeover. It has been an interesting phase. Already people have started ignoring me and sucking up to the new CEO. The board has started reaching out to the new candidate , sometimes keeping me out of the loop. Even the new candidate treats me like a piece of history. I have a mind to take back control and show everyone I am still the boss. I know you will tell me to let go and be a bigger man. I don't agree with that logic. I have put my heart and soul into this company. Why should I let go?

Let us first clarify. Are you the owner of the company or just the professional hired to do the job? If the media company is the yagna, then the yajaman of this company is the board of directors. They have a right to choose who will be their chief priest. In the popular versions of the Mahabharata told in comics and teleserials, Bhisma is presented as a noble figure who takes a vow of celibacy. Flowers are showered on him. Yet, few ponder on why Krishna insists that during the war at Kurukshetra, he be pinned to the ground, suspended between heaven and earth, unable to move his limbs.Also check: Portable loos to Sanitary Bonds, India needs a latrine policy | How Asus took on established PC firms & what India can learn from it | Top 3 2G bidders won't pay a rupee for next 3 yearsIn the old Vedic ashrama system, a man is supposed to retire (vanaprasth ashram) once his son has a son of his own, and renounce the world entirely (sanyas ashram) when the grandson has a son of his own. In the retired state he is supposed to eat half of what he ate as the householder (grihasth ashram) and in the renounced state he was supposed to eat whatever the wind brought him. What does this mean? This is essentially a 'talent management system' meant to ensure that the old makes way for the new so that society is always taken care of and there is not too much burden on the resources of nature.

Bhisma goes against this system. He takes advantage of his boon of choosing the time of his death, refuses to die, even after his grand-nephews, the Pandavas and Kauravas, (who are old enough to be his great grand nephews) become old enough to be kings. He may have renounced conjugal pleasures but he refuses to renounce his position, because he believes he is still responsible for the welfare of the family forever. Basically he does not let go and Krishna pins him to the ground, gets him out of the way, so that life can move on. Are you a Bhisma?

You may have given your heart and soul to the company as the hired professional. For that you have been paid, I am sure. Why then do you demand more? It's not about being a bigger man and letting go; it is simply about being a professional. But it's hard to be professional when our source of self-worth comes

from the successful organisation. We are identified with the work we do. Hence we cannot let go of the work. When we let go of our work, we let go of our identity and that is terrifying.

Management Mythos: Wealthy and WiseSep 27, 2013, 04.33AM IST

Tags: saraswati| market conditions| Lakshmi| Good times| Genetic| Business Sutra

(One generation discovered…)

By: Devdutt PattanaikWe have grown up being told Lakshmi (goddess of wealth) and Saraswati (goddess of knowledge) always fight and avoid staying in the same place. This is based on the observation that rich businessmen tend to be uneducated and educated people tend to be poor. This is also based on the assumption that Saraswati is the goddess of education, learning and training.

This understanding of Saraswati is rather pedestrian, and lacks insight. The word Saraswati stems from the Sanskrit root 'saras' which means that which is fluid and can be either contained in a lake (sarovar) and made to flow as in a river (sarita). It refers to imagination, the one faculty that separates man from beasts.

Human imagination is what enables humans to envisage future problems, hence innovate, invent, and pass on learning from one generation to another, a trait not seen in any other animal. Every generation thrives by taking advantage of knowledge gained in the past. So there is continuous skill and knowledge upgradation in the human species.

One generation discovered how to control fire, another discovered the wheel, another discovered electricity, another the microchip and these have changed how we live. We may have the

same genetic structure as our ancestors a hundred thousand years ago, but we live very different lifestyles, all thanks to imagination. Inherited wealth and lottery are the only cases where Lakshmi comes without Saraswati.In all other cases, we need Saraswati to get Lakshmi. Saraswati is all kinds of knowledge and skills. The better knowledge you have, the better skills you have, the more likelihood of you generating wealth. The farmer grows food because he knows how to farm. A craftsman creates valuable products because he has knowledge of a craft.

Saraswati is needed not just to generate but also to retain wealth. Unless the farmer and the craftsman have business acumen, they lose their generated wealth. They need to have knowledge of marketing and sales, financial skills or partnerships with people with financial skills. A trader, a banker, even a housewife needs Saraswati. We narrow Saraswati to knowledge received in schools. But until the British came to India we did not have schools in the modern sense of the term. We used the apprentice model.

The potter passed on Saraswati of pottery to his sons, the mother passed on Saraswati of cooking to her daughters. Saraswati has many forms - knowledge and skills that we can pass on through schooling and apprenticeship is the most prominent of them. But the one form of Saraswati that cannot be passed on is wisdom. Wisdom cannot be inherited or bequeathed.

It has to be generated through reflection or tapasya. Absence of wisdom is evident when Lakshmi comes, and we don't value Saraswati as much. We feel we have magically generated wealth and it will stay with us magically. Someone who is truly a student of Saraswati will know that fortunes are never permanent and we have to work towards preparing for future crises.

A famous software company was so busy harvesting wealth from the market focussing on compliance that it did not bother to create a talent pipeline and naturally faced a leadership crises when market conditionschanged. A case of assuming there is a limit to Saraswati.

In fortune we don't trust home grown knowledge and believe knowledge exists only in formal schools and colleges, a common problem seen in small and mid-sized family businesses across India who are sending their children to Europe and America to earn business degrees and find that the children either do not want to return home, or look down upon their family business (not fortune) as full of terrible practices.

There is a folk adage: in good times Lakshmi walks towards us and Saraswati moves away from us while in bad times Saraswati walks towards us and Lakshmi moves away from us. The trick is to focus on Saraswati at both times. In boom times, she teaches us how to ensure sustainable growth. In bust time, she teaches us how to reverse our situation and make our way from misfortune towards fortune.Lakshmi or no Lakshmi, we always need Saraswati if we wish to survive or thrive. The Lakshmi-Saraswati battle is a myth Wealthy and Wise Devdutt Pattanaik is the author.

Devdutt Pattanaik is the author of 'Business Sutra — a very Indian approach to management'

Management mythos: Why investors usually fall into Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva mindsetsOct 4, 2013, 05.00AM IST

Tags: YES| yajaman| Vishnu| stress| Shiva| missing| Management Mythos| investors| Devdutt Pattanaik| Brahma

(The Shivas are viewed as…)

Devdutt PattanaikHindu mythology speaks of the creator Brahma, preserver Vishnu and destroyer Shiva. Conventionally, we take it to mean someone who creates a business or organization, preserves it and destroys it. This makes Brahma an admirable figure (the entrepreneur?) while Shiva not a very pleasant one. Yet, there are no temples to Brahma in India. Yes, yes, there is one, or two, but nothing compared to the popularity of Vishnu and Shiva.

This is a classical case of categorical error. We are using a biblical template, where God is creator, to understand Hindu mythology. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva refer to mental states and traditionally in Hinduism the Brahma mindset is frowned upon while Shiva and Vishnu are adored. In fact, understanding of this mindset enables us to appreciate what ails corporations today.

To understand Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, we need a framework, one that has desi roots. The Vedas provide this framework. It is ritual of yagna, where the process-owner (yajaman) invokes a beneficiary (devata) and gives (svaha) in order to receive (tathastu). One can say, yajaman is the investor, devata is the investee, svaha is the investment and tathastu is the return on investment. Yagna is thus an exchange, the characteristic feature of civilized human society. It has wrongly been translated as sacrifice by European Orientalists.

> Brahma is a yajaman who performs the yagna, paying attention only to the tathastu more on returns than on investment.

> Vishnu is a yajaman who is as much concerned about the svaha as he is about the tathastu.

> Shiva is a yajaman who is not interested in the yagna at all as he has outgrown hunger and so does not need tathastu.

The yagna presupposes hunger. We want to satisfy our desires and so start a business or take up a job. We satisfy our desires (tathastu for yajaman) by satisfying someone else's desire first (svaha for devata).

Brahma is unworthy of worship because he is more interested in his hunger than that of others; much like many of the shareholders of today's corporate world, who constantly seek unending growth and profit quarter by quarter, with increasing margins every year, at the cost of the larger good of society.

Brahma mindset can be divided into two: Indra and Daksha Prajapati.

> Indra is like a child, who constantly seeks self-gratification. His name is derived from 'indriyas' and he enjoys the pleasures of the world with a sense of entitlement. He sees himself as king of the world, hence, he is king of devas. These are the members of the privileged 'old money' club who are insecure about the 'new money' club of first-generation entrepreneurs.

> Daksha is like a parent, who feels secure only when he is in control and telling people what they should do. He loves the institutional model of business where everyone is aligned by a single goal - creating shareholder value. He is the control freak, who rules by reward and fear and who loves to regulate. Shiva cuts his head off.

  Shiva is the hermit, the monk, who rejects the ways of Brahma. For it does not bring peace of mind. It creates stress, restlessness, insecurity and a continuous sense of siege. He promotes renunciation and an end of all material aspirations. He seeks to outgrow hunger and succeeds. He withdraws and condemns.

Unfortunately, the Shiva mindset cannot sustain society. Not everyone can outgrow hunger. Common folk love the satisfaction of desires. We love our things. We may not be greedy but we do have material aspirations. And so in the scriptures Shiva is encouraged to marry (a metaphor for social engagement) and transform into Shankara, the benevolent one, who is less eastern and more accommodating of the devata's hunger.

Vishnu understands the hunger of all stakeholders. He establishes culture so that everyone can enjoy material benefits. But while doing so, he constantly provokes people by displaying the inadequacy of material things and rules of the yagna. He makes people think beyond themselves. The yagna for Vishnu exists for the devata, not himself. He is merely a facilitator. As yajaman, he seeks to transform the devata into yajaman, preferably one who is also Vishnu.

Of course, using the modern discourse, we can call Vishnu as the 'giver'. But the concept of unconditional giving or unconditional taking does not exist in Hindu mythology. Every action has a consequence. There are no 'final solutions' to problems; in fact, every solution comes with its own set of problems. This is karma, an idea missing in modern economic and political discourses that are 'solution-oriented'.

In many ways, modern management principles promote Indra and Daksha. The Shivas are viewed as the 'radical rebels' or the 'exotic spiritual gurus' who get standing ovation at corporate functions and economic forums. Vishnu remains ignored. The yajaman who grows by helping others grow, for whom business is much than about tathastu.

Devdutt Pattanaik is the author of 'Business Sutra — a very Indian approach to management

Management Mythos: Hierarchies play a key role in marketingDevdutt Pattanaik Oct 18, 2013, 08.00AM IST

Tags: Subtle | Gold | europe | economy | Business Sutra | B-schools | Avatar

(Since the world is dominated…)

There is a vast difference between management taught in American B-schools and management taught in European B-schools. Since the world is dominated by alumni from American B-schools, and by jargon produced by professors of American universities, not many notice the difference.An American CEO thrives on showing his egalitarian nature. He drives his own car and loves to do his own plumbing. In Europe, things are more hierarchical and elitist (what Americans call feudal).

This difference has its roots in popular philosophies of the respective lands. Europe was the land of kings and castles and colonizers. America posed a challenge to this by being the world's first republic - the land of freedom and democracy.Europe was based more on farm-based economies as compared to America that spearheaded the industrial and technocrat revolution.

As a result philosophy that underlies most American management principles resonates the American worldview. Hence use of words like 'collaboration' and 'teamwork' and 'matrix' take precedence over organizational hierarchy.

From the American scheme of things, there is nothing redeeming about traditional Indian business families, which tend to be seen as extremely feudal almost functioning like a wolf pack.

While the feudal orders are frowned by the new world of politics and economics, the human desire to dominate cannot be underestimated. And domination takes subtle new forms.The most popular form of domination takes place in the form of designation and the levels to which these designations belong. So the executive is at the bottom o the pyramid and the director is at the top. Domination is justified on the basis of differences in experience and skill-set and level of responsibility.

With this difference comes difference in salaries, in perks, in stock options, in location of workstation and cabins, in parking lots, in access cards, in car allocations, in house allocations, whether one travels ineconomy or business class. This is not described as feudal, but it does indulge the human desire to belong to a pecking order, preferably on the top. There is nothing egalitarian about it.Hierarchies play a key role in marketing. The brand position and price point determine a pecking order. Who can afford it, who belongs to the exclusive club of owners of a particular product determines one's status in society. So millions are spent by organizations that do not believe in organizational hierarchy to create market hierarchy. There is the commodity market for all (the havenots) and the brand market for the few (haves).

Every advertisement coaxes customers to belong to the higher rung on the hierarchy. Hierarchies are most evident in customer service and loyalty programmes. In airline industry, you are special if you are frequent flier card holder.

Amongst these there are hierarchies: silver, gold, platinum. So everyone aspires to hold that platinum card - the Brahmin card, that gives you special privileges and access to services no one else can get. It feeds on the human desire to be special, unique, different from the rest of the herd.We justify this by using words like segmentation and targeting, but it does remain a new avatar of capitalismapproved feudalism.Devdutt Pattanaik is the author's new book 'Business Sutra — a very Indian approach to management' is available in bookstores.

Management Mythos: Relationship between actions and outcomes is complexOct 25, 2013, 04.42AM IST

Tags: Management Mythos| Mahabharata| Gita| draupadi| Devdutt Pattanaik

(Some gurus separate target…)

By: Devdutt PattanaikOne of the most famous lines in the Gita is: Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kada chan, in which Krishna tells Arjuna to focus on actions and not on the results.This instruction seems simple enough but it becomes very difficult to implement in corporations where the whole focus in the target and the task. Business begins by visualizing the phala or fruit.

And then one figures out way of planting the bija or seed. We call this outcome-based management, which can be seen as the very opposite of the lines in the Gita. You focus on what you want and then you work towards that goal.

Some gurus separate target from task and say that while one may desire the target one must focus on the task. That is what Krishna is trying to say. Once we visualise and agree on the target, we must forget about it and focus on doing the various little tasks that will lead us to the target.

So a cook, having planned the menu, needs to focus on the little details like cleaning and cutting the vegetables, and boiling the rice, and laying out the plates, rather than keep wondering about whether the guests will enjoy the food.

If one focuses too much on the ultimate outcome, one gets too distracted from the tasks at hand and ends up messing the meal. At another level, this line draws attention to unpredictable outcomes.

When we do any task we have a predictable outcome in mind. However, there are many forces in the world that determine outcome, besides our action, so outcome need not be predictable.

So rather than focus on outcome, one should focus on action. Expecting predictable outcome to one's action leads to unhappiness. Taking the case of preparing a meal for example, despite all our efforts, one cannot control things from going wrong or right: extra guests, sudden medical emergency, maybe an electrical shutdown, that can ruin the planned dinner.

A mind that is overwhelmed by fear of unpredictable outcomes will always be stressed. And so it is wise to focus on action alone, not on result. In the Ramayana, Ram raises an army of monkeys to save his wife Sita. But the outcome is far from predictable. He saves her from the demons of Lanka but in unable to save her from his own subjects who gossip about her tarnished reputation. Likewise, in

the Mahabharata, Draupadiseeks vengeance and wants the destruction of the Kaurava clan. She gets what she wants but it comes at a price. Her children are killed in the war.This collateral damage was not predictable. Unpredictable outcomes need not be negative. They can be positive too. Sudama goes expecting some financial help from Krishna but is swept away by incredible hospitality and generosity. Ram is asked to string Janaka's bow and ends up getting a wife for himself and for all his brothers. When unpredictable events happen, we believe they are destined. When predictable events happen, we are the fruits of desire. We really do not know what is destined and desired. So it is perhaps best to focus on tasks rather than on targets.

Management Mythos: Modern management leans towards processes, not peopleSep 13, 2013, 09.37AM IST

Tags: Warren Buffet| Steve Jobs| Narayan Murthy| Mukesh Ambani| Modern management| Mark Zuckerberg| Management Mythos| Jason Hercules| institutional model of modern management| Facebook| Devdutt Pattanaik

(The reliance is once again…)

By Devdutt PattanaikThe mythology of modern management is rooted in the belief that all that is measurable can be managed. It lends itself (wrongly) to the secondary assumption that 'all that is not measurable does not exist'. A good scientist is acutely aware of this. But how many good scientists are out there? Most scientists of the world happen to come from cultures that value monotheism (one god, one truth) over polytheism (many gods, many truths). Even atheism is presented along monotheistic lines where rationality is argued as a god.

Emotions cannot be measured, imagination cannot be measured, but these play a critical role in business decisions. The measurement-celebrating Western myth has resulted in placing more values on processes (measurable) than people (not so measurable). We rely more on institutions than on individuals. This has its roots in Biblical myth (one half of Western myth) where the tribe or church is more important than the individual member. We are constantly seeking to institutionalize Steve Jobs of Apple and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.

Ironically, these two gentlemen are embedded in the Greek myth (the other half of Western myth) where glory comes from doing something extraordinary that challenges the status quo. They broke the prevalent assumptions of communication. They were what the Greeks called hero, men who changed the rules of the game.

Western management myth subscribes to the Biblical and Greek mythologies that are similar to each other in that they value only one truth. They are also at odds with each other: the one focuses on the collective and the other focuses on the individual. Biblical mythology does not mean the Christian Bible, it refers to a vast body of thought that emerged from Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Levantine, where great value is placed on central authority.

Social scientists have used this individual/collective framework to explain cultural phenomenon all over the world not realizing this framework is Western, not global. Different cultures have different frameworks they operate from. This is especially true in China and India. China values relationships and India values contexts. Neither China nor India thinks tribe/church/institutions although words like clan and caste do give the impression that they do. Hence guanxi (special relationships) are so critical in Chinese business.

In Confucian China that dominated the court culture, the focus is the relationship between one and the other, not one and the many. This is a critical difference. The Chinese does not think China, he thinks 'boss' or 'subordinate'. The boss embodies China, until he is overthrown by someone more worthy. People equate Chinese with ants. Incidentally, the institutional model is also about ants. In the Chinese worldview, the pecking order of ants matter. In the institutional worldview, the anthill matters more than the ants.

India values neither ants nor anthill. Great value is given to impermanence (think Buddha). Nothing is fixed, except maybe gender and caste that are determined at birth. Everything else is continuously changing. So the individual is continuously trying to figure out his relationship with the other in every context.

Caste relationships, and village relationships, are more reliable than relationships with the government or someone far away. In a realm of impermanent structures, there is no fixed institution (as in the West) or boss (as in China); everything is changing and so one has to figure out at each interaction that status of the other, hence oneself. This creates a lot of ambiguity that exasperates people who do business in India.

A simple tool to understand different cultures is to study the dominant mythology of the land: the stories, symbols and rituals that are favoured by a society. Unlike psychoanalytical 'archetype' models that seek the common and the universal, the approach needs to be more structural - seeking differences. Biblical mythology celebrates rule-following prophets (Moses) and kings (Solomon) while Greek mythology celebrates rule-defying heroes (Odysseus, Theseus, Jason, Hercules).

  Indian mythology has both rule-following Ram and rule-breaking Krishna, both of whom, are not two different characters but the same character, Vishnu, in two different contexts: he follows rules as Ram in Treta yuga and breaks rules of Krishna in Dvapara yuga. Then there is Shiva who is indifferent to all rules and who beheads Daksha who seeks to impose rules on others, for Shiva is more interested in the intention beyond the rules, beyond the processes, beyond the institution.In chasing the institutional model of modern management, we do not question its intention. It is structurally designed to celebrate growth. We speak of stakeholders, but the only action favouring stakeholders seems to be more rules: regulations protecting environment, or workers and rules compelling the rich to be more charitable.

Management mythos: What Mahabharata teaches us about consequences of a decisionDevdutt Pattanaik Dec 2, 2011, 12.34am IST

Tags: decisions | CFO | CEO

In the Mahabharata, after the city of the Indraprastha is built, Yudhishtira was crowned king in the presence of all the kings of the earth. Following the coronation, the priests asked him to honour his guests. But the first to be honoured had to be the one they respected most.

Yudhishtira and his brothers, the Pandavas, were unanimous in their choice of who should be honored first, Krishna, their friend, philosopher and guide. And so Krishna was made to sit in a special seat and his feet were washed. He was also garlanded and offered gifts. Thus the Pandavas expressed their gratitude.

Unfortunately, the other guests took this as an insult. In paying Krishna attention, they had neglected the others. They were angry that the Pandavas chose a man who was not even king, and who was raised by cowherds, as the chief guest. They felt insulted. Surely one amongst them was more worthy.

The kings raised objections, tempers flared, angry words were exchanged and finally violence broke out, resulting in a messy end to a great event. Decisions do not exist in isolation. They are perceived differently by different people. Each one perceives it from his or her individual point of view.Thus, every decision contributes to the measure of one's own value. And this can be very tricky. For what may be seen as good by one can be seen as terrible by another: a personal affront, even if that is not the issue. As the stock market collapsed, Biswajeet became very insecure.

As CEO, his reputation was at stake. He had worked very hard with his team to improve the market capitalisation of his small company and now, for no fault of his own, the firm's share price was being threatened by the goings-on in Europe.Not knowing what to do, he was wandering the office corridors when he met Jayant, his young and competent General Manager. They had started their career together but Biswajeet had moved ahead because he clearly had the brains. Jayant had remained a good friend.

"Come, have a coffee with me," Biswajeet said and took Jayant to his cabin. They spent an hour talking about their early years, being nostalgic, anything to forget the horror of the falling share prices. Biswajeet just wanted to calm down and feel normal. But his sitting with Jayant for an hour got the rumour mills working across the maze of office corridors.

The CFO got annoyed: surely, he was the confidante in such situations. The COO got irritated: was this a suggestion that Jayant was being considered as his replacement? The Company Secretary was angry: why was so much time being given to Jayant by the otherwise busy CEO?Biswajeet's team imagined all kinds of reasons for his meeting with Jayant. They felt he was signaling that they did not matter to him anymore as they had failed to achieve the desired objective. Everyone saw it from their point of view, not from Biswajeet's point of view.

Their rage and their anger was a of their own insecurity and their doubts about the relationship they shared with Biswajeet. A tiny event triggered a crisis.

(The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group. He can be reached at devdutt@devdutt.com)