Managerial Derailment* Derailment... · to the rank of senior leadership in major organisations. The strengths that made the derailers successful had a darker side as well (see Table

1. INTRODUCTION

Derailment as an event occurs when amanager on the road to success is fired,demoted or given a job, which is belowhis actual level of achievements. Thereare six major flaws and the dynamicssurrounding them that contribute toderailment (Meiring, 2000; Van Zyl,2000). Because the corporate pyramidnarrows as one moves up the hierarchicalladder, many managers, for a variety oflegitimate reasons, simply reach theirappropriate level and stop rising. Bytheir own choice or by some perceivedlimitation in their ability, theirorganisation’s expectations of them andtheir level of achievement becomealigned and their ascent halts. For others,

Managerial Derailment*

J.M.Denton1 and J. B. van Lill2

Abstract

This article discusses the events leading up to the derailment of managers, what effect it has on them andthe environment in which they operate as well as possible preventative measures to derailment. This isimportant since organisations should realize that the possibility of managers derailing is becoming morefrequent as increasing demands are made on these individuals. Human Resource professionals willneed to be playing a more prominent role in preventing the causes that lead to derailment and to guidemanagers to maintain the correct balance in their lives.

however, there appears to be morepotential than is realised and theexpectations for them are higher thantheir achievements, resulting inderailment.

Goleman stressed that having a topmanagerial position in a company doesnot guarantee continued success for thefuture. A manager has to stay in touchwith realities and constantly be aware ofall changes affecting him and theorganisation as a whole (Goleman, 1998:39).

Derailment is involuntary and punitive.It occurs when a manager, who wasexpected to go higher in the organisationand who is judged to have the ability todo so, is dismissed, demoted, or plateaued

* Received August 4, 2006; Revised August 12, 20061. Professor & Head of International Affairs, University of Stellenbosch Business School, Bellville,

South Africa, e-mail: [email protected]. Associate Professor, School of Management Studies, Faculty of Commerce, University of Cape

Town, South Africa, e-mail: [email protected]

Perspective

232 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management

below his levels of achievement.Derailment is reserved for those fast-trackmanagers who want to and are committedto advancement but are “knocked off thetrack” (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1995).Derailment does not apply to managerswho are at the top of their function, unitor business group or are promotable buthave no opportunity for promotion.Derailment is neither topping out oropting out nor winning a promotion eachtime it is available. Derailment is not tobe confused with the fact that, asmanagers rise in the organisation, thenumber of positions decreases, causingmore promotable managers to reach theirpeak below the top level in theorganisation (Van Zyl, 2000).

This article aims to identify those factorsthat will help managers analyse warningderailment signs early in their career.

2. SOURCES OF INITIAL SUCCESS

Successful managers are defined as thosewho reach at least general managementlevel and continue to be considered highlypromotable by senior executives. Incontrast, derailed managers are thosewho, having reached at least generalmanager level, either leave theorganisation involuntarily (throughresignation, being fired, or being asked toretire early) or are plateaued as a resultof a perceived lack of fit between personalcharacteristics and skills and the demandsof the position. Derailment is notnecessarily the end of the managers’careers. After derailment they often starttheir own businesses or become successful

in other organisations (Morrison, White,& Van Velsor, 1992).

According to Brubaker and Coble (1997)the term derailment is valid in two cases.The first is when a manager wants whathe/she considers a better position, but isnot assigned to it, and secondly, when amanager wants to retain his/her positionand is demoted or dismissed.

If a manager does not want a position withhigher status and income and is notassigned to it, it cannot be classified asmanagerial derailment. In derailmentresearch, respondents seem quick toidentify the major reasons why they havebeen derailed (Brubaker & Coble, 1997).Derailment is also not only aboutpromotion to a higher status position, butis in keeping with a current position. Theessence is that the individual’s desireeither to stay or be promoted is not met.Such a person has been derailed.

Research done by McCall (1998) across aseries of studies, popular articles andapplications into the processes ofmanagerial derailment showed a patternof results that has been consistent. Thederailment of managers and executivesfor similar reasons and under similarcircumstances suggests underlyingpatterns that recur across industries,organisations and hierarchical levels.

Kipling (McCall, 1998) recognised thesimilarity between triumph and disasterwhen he advised that the “two impostors”be treated the same. The managers andexecutives in the various derailmentstudies brought impressive attributes to

233

the fateful job. These attributes aresummarised in Table 1. Only under themost unusual circumstances does aperson without significant strengths riseto the rank of senior leadership in majororganisations.

The strengths that made the derailerssuccessful had a darker side as well (seeTable 2). The potential for strengths tobecome liabilities is one of the commondynamics of derailment.

Managerial derailment are sometimesalso referred to managerial blind spots.Savage (2002b) defines a blind spot as “avalue that the individual simply sees asinconsequential and irrelevant. It does notfeature on the individual’s internal radarscreen. Blind spots make us miss what isright before our eyes. Our blindness leadsus to make an incorrect interpretation of

what we see.” Condensed definitions onthe topic include: “Achilles’ heels”(Hauer, 2006), “mundane values” (Savage2002a), and “career stoppers” or “careerweak spots” (Turner, 1998).

Blind spots are “those areas that involveunconscious incompetence - we don’tknow that we don’t know. Blind spots areespecially catastrophic for organisationsbecause they combine arrogance andweakness” (Willmore, 2000). Simmons(2000) maintains that whenever amanager consistently mishandles a givensituation that is a certain sign of a blindspot on his or her part.

Bachrach (2004) states that behaviouraland style blind spots represent “you asyou are, and as you are seen by others,but not as you see yourself.” Mcnamara(2006) makes an interesting observation

Denton et al , Managerial ...

Table 1: Sources of initial success

Track record Most people who make it into the executive ranks have a strongtrack record, consistently achieving bottom-line results or makingan impressive impact in a functional or technical area.

Brilliance Being seen as uncommonly bright was a common reason forsuccess. Brilliance might show in a technical or functionalspeciality, in analytical and problem-solving skills, or in a singularburst of genius in a specific situation.

Commitment Many could list their loyalty to the organisation as a strength,which is often expressed as a willingness to work long hours andaccept whatever assignments they are asked to take on.

Charm Some people are capable of considerable charm, charisma, orpersonal warmth when dealing with others. Sometimes this qualityis used effectively and is often expressed upward towards thosewho make performance judgements.

Ambition Although some are “drafted” into the management ranks, manyothers actively seek it, doing whatever is required to achievesuccess.

Source: McCall, 1998: 29.


by defining blind spots in a dual manner:“character traits that we are blindtowards. These are strengths, and gifts,that we don’t use; as well as weaknesseswe are not aware of.” Raffals (2006) seesblind spots as internalised patterns andunconscious habits which stand in theway of a higher level of our personal (andcareer) development.

3. DYNAMICS UNDERLYING MANAGERIALDERAILMENT

The dynamics underlying the derailmentof talent, as summarised in Table 3, suggestapproaching the issue with a different setof assumptions. Every strength can be aweakness, blind spots matter eventually,success after success can lead to arrogance,and “bad luck” happens. However, whata person does when things go wrong ismost often the determining factor of hischaracter during derailment.

A study done by McCall (1998) at a multi-billion dollar, US based, multinationalorganisation revealed that the organisationcontributed in several ways to thederailments that occur. Competitivepressures led the organisation toimplement an aggressive business strategythat was driven by dramatic growth.Projections of the numbers of executivesneeded to achieve the plan showed adramatic shortfall in subsequent years.

As Table 3 indicates, managers who hadbeen assessed as exceptionally bright butlacking in line experience and whobecame mired in process at the expenseof action were the ones that derailed.Action-oriented managers with greattrack records, in contrast, often derailedwhen the job became too complex or theywere unable to develop a strategicperspective. People who were seen as both

Table 2: The darker side of the derailment strengths

Track record Success can be achieved in a narrow technical or functional areathat later blinds a person to the broader context. Track records canbe misleading. Other people or events may have had more to dowith the success than the executive, success may have been achievedin destructive ways, or the executive may have moved too fast forthe consequences of his actions.

Brilliance Brilliance in and of itself can be intimidating to others, but brilliantpeople sometimes dismiss people they believe are less brilliant thanthemselves or devalue other people’s ideas and contributions.

Commitment Over-commitment may lead to defining their whole life in terms ofwork and expecting others to do the same, being willing to do almostanything, including engaging in questionable activities, for the sakeof the business, or treating people as the means to an end.

Charm Charm can be used selectively to manipulate people.Ambition Ambition darkens when people do whatever is required to achieve

personal succe]ss, even at the expense of others in the organisation.


235Denton et al , Managerial ...

Table 3: The dynamics of derailment

Strengths become The remarkable strengths that made the person successful canweaknesses become liabilities in situations where other strengths are more

important.Blind spots matter Weaknesses and flaws that did not matter previously or were

forgiven in the light of strengths or results become central ina new situation.

Success leads to arrogance Success goes to a person’s head, leading to the mistaken beliefthat he/she is infallible and needs no one else. This often occursat precisely the time when these assumptions are least viable.

Bad luck Sometimes derailment results from a run-in with “fate” thatis not an accurate reflection of the person’s talent. Sometimes,however, bad luck is exacerbated by one of the other dynamics,suggesting that “fate” does not always act alone.


smart and action-orientated but whoderailed were sometimes flawed either byan inability to develop effectiverelationships, by ineffective responses tochange or feedback, or by the arroganceproduced by their success. Though theseflaws were usually identified in advanceby the elaborate assessment process on allmanagerial personnel, they werefrequently overlooked or forgivenbecause of the individuals’ high potential,because their strengths were highlyvalued or because the pressureaccelerated their development process.

Turning this situation around involved farmore than altering managementdevelopment practices or adding trainingprogrammes to urge managers to takecharge of their own development. Theproblems were deeply embedded in theculture of the organisation and a piecemealapproach to change would not have solvedthem. In this organisation an emphasis onresults strongly coupled with rewardsbased on results, impatience with mistakes

and the pressure to increase the managerialpool added up to a culture of “survival ofthe fittest”. Unfortunately andunintentionally, the elements that hadmade this driven organisation sosuccessful had become part of the problem.

4. THE PROFILE OF A DERAILED MANAGER

Approximately 30% to 50% of high-potential managers and executives derailat some time during their career(Lombardo & Eichinger, 1995). They tendto be dissatisfied with subordinate roles,are more independent and have a lowerneed for affi l iation (Lombardo &Eichinger, 1995). On the other hand, high-performing leaders are found to beassertive, introspective, have high energyand initiative and possess an ability tosolve problems well and quickly (Bass,1994). These high-performing leaders alsopossess corollary weaknesses. They areoften impatient and do not listen very welland experience people problems. They arevery independent to a point where work


relationships deteriorate. They also like tosolve problems on their own.

In the past, a manager’s technical abilityand superiority were very often highlyvalued. As corporations were confrontedby internationalisation and globalisation,they were confronted by competition,rapid technological change, new clientsand products.

A high need for achievement and a lowneed for advancement seem to typifymodern managers. They desire

challenging positions that allow them topursue non-work interests as well.Modern managers also seem to have agreater desire to give and receiveemotional support (London, 1983).

More effective leaders will possess mostof the following characteristics:

• Handling the demands of themanagement job, throughresourcefulness, doing whatever ittakes and decisiveness.

D e m o n s t r a t e dstrength

O r g a n i s a t i o n a lcomplicity

Derailing flaw

-Intelligent

-Technically superb

Both

-Impressive results-Actionorientated-Strong trackrecord

Move rapidlywithin narrowchannels

Forgive flaws ifresults produced

Focus onimmediateobjectives

Bogged down inthought

Mired in process atthe expense ofaction

Unable to developeffective relationships

Ineffective response tochange or feedback

Success leads toarrogance

Overwhelmedby complexity

Lack of strategicperspective

Figure 3: Derailment patterns of persons with high potentialSource: McCall, 1998: 56.

Performance declineUnforgiving culture

DERAILMENT


• Dealing with subordinates by leadingsubordinates, setting adevelopmental climate, confrontingproblem subordinates, work-teamorientation and hiring talented staff.

• Respect for self and others throughbuilding and mending relationships,compassion and sensitivity, candourand composure, balance betweenpersonal life and work, self-awareness, putting people at ease andacting with flexibility.

As the demands of leadership havechanged, so have the criteria for leadersto meet those demands. The balance hasmoved away from technical qualities tohandling complex, ambiguous leadershipsituations, from independence tointerdependence and team-building, fromdirectiveness to mutual understanding.The modern manager must be able toadapt to these challenges or riskderailment.

Meaningful conclusions have also beenfound by Goleman (1998). Goleman did astudy among top executives in a UnitedStates company and the outcomesuggested the following reasons to be themost common causes of failure:

• Rigidity – These managers wereunable to adapt their managementstyle to the changing circumstancesor changing organisational culture.They were unable to react onfeedback they received regardingtrait changes. One could say theywere unable or unwilling to listen andlearn.

• Poor relationships – One of the mostimportant factors is that derailedmanagers are too critical, insensitiveand demanding. These factors causeda separation between them and theirco-workers.

People might be seen as excellent leaders,but without appropriate and positivecharacteristics the possibility of failure isvery likely.

The opposite of rigidity is adaptability.Leadership adaptability means beingversatile. Leaders should be able to workwith people across all levels of anorganisation and be willing and able tochange their management styles whenneeded. Such a leader must have empathyand a high degree of self-management.This kind of agility must be developed.Big differences emerged betweensuccessful managers and those that havederailed. The most common dimensionsof derailment regarding emotionalcompetence are the following:

• Self-control – Unsuccessful managersdid not handle pressure well andwere easily put in a bad mood.Successful managers were far betterin handling stress and remained calmand confident in stressful situations.

• Conscientiousness – Derailedmanagers would deny anyinvolvement in failure and shifted theblame to subordinates or externalfactors. Successful managersaccepted and admitted to theirsuccesses and failures. They correctedtheir mistakes in a proactive manner.


• Trustworthiness – The failures weretoo concerned with their owndevelopment, even at the expense oftheir subordinates. The successfulmanagers had a high degree ofintegrity and they had a real concernfor the needs of their subordinates.They would not impress anyone atthe cost of their co-workers.

• Social skills – Failures lacked empathyand sensitivity. They were mainlyarrogant and dominated theirsubordinates. The successfulmanagers were empathic andsensitive and showed real care foreveryone with whom they worked,including subordinates and superiors.

• Building bonds – This insensitivity ofthe failures meant that in contrastwith the successful managers, theywere unable to build a network offriends in their respectiveorganisations (Goleman, 1998).

In conclusion, the most visible group ofderailors are those high in independenceand low in affiliation needs, who tend tobe seen as bright, technically-proficient,problem solvers with poor team-buildingand people skills (Lombardo & Eichinger,1995; Basile,1997).

In Table 4 some typical early strengthsthat promote managers to the fast trackare listed in the first column. The secondcolumn lists the latent weaknesses anduntested areas these strengths often hide.The third column indicates the changingexpectations placed on managers overtime, and the last column reveals how

those early strengths, if rewarded anduntempered by further development,may derail a manager.

5. THE DERAILMENT PROCESS

Derailment patterns normally evolve overa period of time. Behaviour such asdishonesty and breaches of integrity is theexception. The standards of excellencechange as managers who were firstrewarded for outstanding individualcontributions are later confronted withorchestrating a network where teams areto be built or where things are done, butnot by the manager himself. In addition,the scale of operations also changes. Wheremanagers supervised small groups ofprofessionals early in their career, theyneed to deal with larger and more complexgroups or teams of people. They also donot have the luxury of a supportive seniormanager who shows them the ropes andwho serves as project leader, which is oftenthe situation early in the managers’ careers.These managers have rarely startedbusiness units from scratch, or have beenthrown into massive operations they knewlittle about, or were asked to turnunprofitable businesses around.

Later in their careers tolerance for a lackof management flexibility and mistakesdecreases dramatically as the scale ofoperations changes, costs soar andstandards shift. In such a situation anindividual strength no longer matters orhelps or can become a weakness, anuntested area likewise becomes aweakness, a flaw matters critically or ablind spot becomes a flaw.


Table 4: The derailment process: From early strengths towards eventual derailment

EARLYSTRENGTHS

a) Brilliantb) Driverc) Ambitiousd) Tough on lag-

gards

a) Independentb) Likes to do it

alonec) Dislikes doing it

aloned) Over-managese) Suppresses sub-

ordinatesf) Extremely loyal

to organisation

a) Controllingb) Results- orien-

tatedc) Single-mindedd) Technical detaile) Extremely per-

sonablef) Relies on rela-

tionships

LATENT PROBLEMS/ UN-TESTED AREAS

a) Over-ambitiousb) Needs no one elsec) Abrasived) Lacks composuree) Handles others’

mistakes poorlyf ) Does not know how to get

the most out of people

a) Does not develop subordi-nates

b) Does not resolve conflictc) Poor delegatord) Selects according to own

imagee) Has never chosen or built

staff

a) Has trouble with new jobs,situations, people

b) Easily irritatedc) Has not developed a stra-

tegic perspectived) Does not adapt well to new

cultures or changese) Has not made transition to

an unknown area

C H A N G I N GDEMANDS

a) Interpersonal ef-fectiveness

b) Building andmending rela-tionships

c) Stability re-quired for trustto develop

a) Team-buildingb) Staffingc) Developing oth-

ersd) Increase in im-

portance

Giving up old wayof doing things,which is essential tosuccess at morecomplex assign-ments.

REASONS FORDISCORD

Poor treatment ofothers

Cannot mouldstaff

Cannot make tran-sition to more stra-tegic, complexroles

a) Creativeb) Conceptually

strongc) Ball of fired) Finger in

a) Lack of attention to essen-tial detail

b) Disorganisedc) “Speedboats” along; leaves

people danglingd) Has not really completed an

assignment in detail

Depth as well asawareness of howone is perceived ifone does not followthrough on commit-ments/detail

Lacks follow-through

Has a single notablecharacteristic, such astons of energy, rawtalent or being a long-term mentor

a) Too many eggs in one bas-ket

b) Staying with same persontoo long

c) Has not stood alone

Increasing complex-ity requires broaderskills; standing onone’s own without ashield

Overdependenceon single strength


EARLY

STRENGTHS

a) Contentiousb) Loves to arguec) Takes strong

standsd) Usually right

LATENT PROBLEMS/ UN-

TESTED AREAS

a) Does not know how to sell aposition, cajole

b) Has to winc) Trouble adapting to those

with different styles

C H A N G I N G

DEMANDS

Cajoling, persua-sion, understandingof group process re-quired

REASONS FOR

DISCORD

Strategic differ-ences with uppermanagement

Source : Lombardo and Eiehinger, 1995 : 8-9

Derailors cling to past habits and resistchange, because they rely on their greateststrengths from the past and because theyhave been visibly rewarded for doingthings their way. Over a period of timeproblems arise because of what they door do not do, which is not to adapt andchange their management behaviour inresponse to different demands anddifferent people.

6. REASONS FOR DERAILMENT

Reasons for derailment have beenidentified by research done by McCall andLombardo (1983). These included

personal flaws such as being insensitiveto others, arrogant, overly ambitious andbetraying trust. They also includedmanagerial inadequacies such as over-managing, the inability to manage staffeffectively and an inability to thinkstrategically. Other reasons are aninability to adapt to a superior with adifferent style, overdependence on amentor and specific performanceproblems with the business.

Denton (2000a; 2000b) (See Tables 5 and6) found that the following five factors arethe most dominant causes of managerialderailment:

Age 21-30 31-40 41-50 50 and over44.6% 44.6% 9.3% 1.6%

Gender Male Female71.5% 28.5%

Position Top Senior Middle Junior7.8% 15.0% 48.7% 28.5%

Term of service Less than 2 2-5 5-10 10-20 20in years 3.3% 39.9% 16.6% 19.7 0.5Programme MBA Part-time Modular Full-time Anglo IMDP SA Navyattended at USB 26.4% 24.3% 16.1% 18.6% 14.5%

Table 5: The measurement of managerial derailment: Biographical detail (N=193)


Question CD MD SD U SA MA CA* N Mean**

1 Over-ambitious 8,8 15,5 19,7 7,3 25,9 17,6 5,2 193 3,992 Does not need 7,3 15,0 11,4 5,7 16,6 28,5 15,5 193 4,56

anyone else3 Abrasive 3,1 5,7 8,3 28,5 26,9 18,1 9,3 193 4,624 Lack of composure 7,3 7,8 10,4 9,8 32,6 22,3 9,8 193 4,595 Handles 3,1 7,3 8,8 8,8 24,9 30,1 17,1 193 5,03

mistakes poorly6 Does not know how 3,1 7,8 8,8 3,6 14,5 34,7 27,5 193 5,32

to get the most outof people

7 Does not develop 4,1 9,8 8,3 3,1 17,1 30,1 27,5 193 5,19 subordinates

8 Does not resolve conflict 1,0 9,8 6,7 6,7 22,3 26,9 26,4 193 5,259 Poor delegation 4,1 6,2 8,8 5,2 22,8 29,0 23,8 193 5,1810 Selects persons 3,1 6,7 10,4 16,1 25,9 22,8 15,0 193 4,83

in own image11 Has never chosen 7,3 11,4 9,8 16,1 19,2 24,9 11,4 193 4,48

or built staff12 Trouble with new 4,1 14,0 9,8 13,0 23,8 22,3 13,0 193 4,56

jobs, people13 Easily irritated 2,1 9,3 14,0 17,6 22,3 19,2 15,5 193 4,6814 Does not adapt to new 3,1 5,2 13,5 7,8 22,3 27,5 20,7 193 5,06

cultures or changes well

Table 6: Managerial derailment: Analysis of each item (N = 193)

Foot Note: * CD = Completely DisagreeMD = Mostly Disagree, SD = Slightly Disagree U =SA = Slightly Agree, MA = Mostly Agree, CA = Completely Agree** Calculated from Measurements based on a 7-point scale

15 New at making 3,1 13,0 13,0 19,2 19,7 21,8 10,4 193 4,46 5transitions intothe unknown

16 Lacks the attention 5,2 14,5 17,6 13,0 23,8 18,7 7,3 193 4,20 4 to essential detail

17 Disorganised 10,9 9,8 10,9 6,2 15,5 27,5 19,2 193 4,64 518 “Speedboats” 5,2 8,8 9,8 9,3 23,8 30,1 13,0 193 4,79 5

along and leavespeople dangling

19 Has not really 6,2 9,3 18,7 16,1 25,9 16,1 7,8 193 4,25 4completed anassignment in detail

20 Too many eggs 3,6 9,3 9,8 13,0 20,7 25,4 18,1 193 4,86 5in one basket


• Managers who do not know how toget the most out of their people.

• Managers who do not resolveconflict.

• Managers who cannot make thetransition to more strategic, complexroles.

• Winning at all costs.

• Managers who do not developsubordinates.

Derailment factors according to genderlines were studied by Morrison et al.(1992). Almost exactly the same reasonswere documented in this study(Morrison et al.) as were found in theMcCall and Lombardo study (1983).There were, however, two additionalreasons given as possible factors for thederailment of women in particular. Table7 shows the findings.

21 Stayed with the 6,2 12,4 16,6 24,4 19,2 16,1 5,2 193 4,06 4same person toolong

22 Never stood alone 8,8 11,9 16,6 20,7 24,4 12,4 5,2 193 3,97 423 Does not know how 4,7 8,3 18,1 17,6 29,5 15,0 6,7 193 4,31 5

to sell a position24 Has to win at all costs 5,2 5,2 7,3 8,3 20,7 25,9 27,5 193 5,21 625 Has difficulty 2,6 4,1 10,9 9,3 22,3 30,1 20,7 193 5,17 6

adapting to thosewith different styles

26 Poor treatment 4,7 7,8 7,3 9,3 22,8 30,1 18,1 193 5,00 5of others

27 Cannot mould staff 4,1 6,7 8,8 8,3 25,9 22,2 13,0 193 4,96 528 Cannot make 2,1 7,3 7,8 6,7 21,8 33,7 20,7 193 5,22 6

the transitionto more strategic,complex roles

29 Lacks 5,2 6,2 5,7 10,4 25,4 31,1 16,1 193 5,02 5follow-through

30 Overdepen- 2,1 4,1 4,7 14,0 29,0 31,6 14,5 193 5,16 5dence on asingle strength

31 Strategic 2,6 5,7 11,9 15,0 15,5 29,5 19,7 193 5,02 5differences withupper management

32 All of the 8,3 4,1 9,3 12,4 22,8 25,4 17,1 193 4,632 5above reasons

33 Derailment 8,8 4,1 9,3 12,4 22,8 25,4 17,1 193 4,808 5is a problem


Derailed women said Derailed men saidto have this flaw to have this flaw

N = 16 N = 20Unable to adapt 8 (50%) 7 (35%)Performance problem 8 (50%) 13 (65%)

Too ambitious/wants too much 8 (50%) 4 (20%)Unable to lead subordinates 7 (44%) 7 (35%)Not strategic 6 (38 %) 5 (25%)Presented a poor image 6 (38%) 1 (5%)Poor relationships 6 (38%) 20 (100%)

Skill deficits 5 (31%) 4 (20%)Not driven to succeed 4 (25%) 2 (10%)Too narrow 3 (19%) -

Table 7: Derailment factors of women versus men

Source: Morrison et al. 1992.

In Table 7 it can be seen that, althoughthe same flaws occur in derailed womenand men, there is a difference in pattern.Men seem to have significantly greaterproblems with relationships than women.Poor performance is also a greater causeof derailment among men. Women, on theother hand, are more guilty of beingoverly ambitious and wanting too much,possibly wanting to prove that they canmake it in a “man’s world”. Womenreport that the poor image they have ofthemselves and narrow businessexperience are areas of concern withregard to derailment. These flaws seemto be absent among men.

Lombardo and McCauley (1988: 3)categorised all the above causes ofderailment among executives into sixdistinct flaws:

FLAW 1: Problems with interpersonalrelationships

This flaw is described by Lombardo andEichinger (1995) as poor treatment ofothers. This flaw is firstly associated withover-ambition. It results in alienating otherpeople on the way up or being moreconcerned about getting promoted thandoing the current job. Secondly, it has todo with needing no-one else. This occurswhen there is excessive self-interest andresults in a know-it-all attitude. Thisfrequently isolates such a person andmakes others feel stupid. Thirdly,abrasiveness leads to bullying, generalinsensitivity and a lack of caring.Interpersonal problems relate to a lack ofcomposure. This volatility andunpredictability normally occur underpressure.


FLAW 2: Difficulty in moulding staff

Firstly, this normally happens when newrecruits are carelessly selected. Frequentlystaff are chosen in the manager’s own image.Being dictatorial with subordinates is asecond problem area regarding mouldingof staff. A third problem is that of notresolving conflict. This normally happenswhen the manager is focused on technicalperformance, which promoted him in thefirst instance. The final problem relatingto moulding of staff is that of being a poordelegator; which is again a major problemarea for the more technically mindedmanager.

FLAW 3: Difficulty in making strategictransitions

This flaw becomes particularly apparentwhen entering the executive culture orswitching to an unknown area (Lombardo& McCauley, 1988: 13-14). Examples arehaving to change from line staff to a newdivision or technical specialty andnormally involves, firstly, succumbingunder the pressure of a new culture or anambiguous and frustrating assignmentand secondly, not being able to handlecomplexity . Such a manager becomesmired in tactical issues or detail orpresents overly simplistic agendas. Inconclusion, when a manager has realdifficulty in making strategic transitions,he/she fails to make the mental transitionfrom doing things himself to seeing thatthings are done. This is an extremelydifficult situation, both for theorganisation and the manager.

FLAW 4: Lack of follow-through

Essentially, there is a lack of attention todetail, thereby creating a trail of smallerproblems and some disorganisation.Secondly, a lack of follow-through islabelled as moving too fast, which oftenresults in not really completing a job orleaving people in mid-air due to unmetpromises. This flaw often results inmanagers being described asuntrustworthy.

FLAW 5: Overdependence

This occurs, firstly, when the individualstays with the same boss or mentor too long.People then begin to wonder whether thismanager can do anything on his own.Secondly, if the person loses a mentor whohas shielded him in order to compensate for aparticular weakness that he/she has, this ineffect means that the derailed personcannot protect himself in respect of oneparticular weakness and relies on thementor for that. Finally, overdependenceresults if a person relies too heavily on aparticular strength such as a skill, naturaltalent or raw energy.

FLAW 6: Disagreements with highermanagement about how the businessshould be run

Strategy plays an integral part indisagreements with higher managementon how the business should be run. In thecase of derailment, however,disagreement becomes a flaw through theinability to sell a position or to adapt to amanager with a different style.


(N = 335) Correlations*

Scale Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Interpersonal 1.96 0.92 (0.94) 0.57 0.47 0.60 0.46 0.35problems

2 Difficulty in 2.23 0.80 (0.86) 0.75 0.61 0.52 0.27moulding staff

3 Difficulty in 2.27 0.82 (0.84) 0.56 0.57 0.31making strategictransitions

4 Lack of 2.00 0.87 (0.84) 0.55 0.28follow-through

5 Over dependence 2.14 0.74 (0.70) 0.316 Strategic 2.34 0.97 (0.91)

differences withmanagement

* p< .001 for all correlationsSource: Lombardo and McCauley, 1988: 21.

Table 8: Flaw means, standard deviations and intercorrelations

From the above flaws it can be seen thatmost of the initial reasons for derailment,which McCall and Lombardo (1983) andBrubaker and Cole (1997) suggested, areincorporated in the six flaws as proposedby Lombardo and McCauley (1988).

These flaws are by no means the onlypossible reasons for derailment. Illegal orunethical acts do occur but are verydifficult to measure and to determine insurveys or questionnaires. These practicesare almost never mentioned in interviews.People also derail simply because of badluck when they are in the wrong place atthe wrong time and because theirsuperiors dislike them. Anotherpossibility is unfair dismissal. Althoughother reasons for derailment exist, the sixflaws mentioned above appear to be the

reasons most commonly cited bymanagers.

When comparing the flaws, scaleintercorrelations indicate that they are notindependent. Table 8 indicates researchundertaken by Lombardo and McCauley(1988: 21) on a sample of 335 managers.

It is evident in the above table that theflaws are not completely independentfrom one another, but are or are not highlycorrelated.

The question now arises which of theflaws pose the greatest danger. To explorethis, a study was undertaken byLombardo and McCauley (1988). Seniormanagers were questioned about thelikeliness of derailment in juniormanagers according to the six definedflaws. Table 9 indicates the results.


It can be seen in Table 9 that all six flawssignificantly relate to derailment,although the strength of the relationvaries. Significance tests showed thatcorrelations for difficulty in mouldingstaff, difficulty in making strategictransitions and lack of follow-throughwere significantly (p<0.001) higher thanthose for problems with interpersonalrelationships, overdependence andstrategic differences with management.Problems with interpersonal relationshipsand overdependence were onlymoderately related to derailment.Strategic differences with managementappeared to be less important as apotential derailing factor.

The importance of the six flaws in relationto each other differed only slightlybetween organisations. However, whencorrelations were studied, very specificorganisational patterns appeared. No twoorganisations had the same pattern ofrelationships between flaws (Table 10).

It can be deduced from Table 10 that formanagers in organisation 1, flaws 2, 3, 4and 5 were problems relating toderailment, while flaws 1 and 6 seemedto be no problem. The derailment flawswithin organisation 1 are more or lessequal as indicated by the r values. Incontrast, employees of organisation 7show a high correlation with flaws 1, 2

SCALE DERAILMENT POTENTIAL1 Problems with interpersonal relationships 0.23**

2 Difficulty in moulding staff 0.35**

3 Difficulty in making strategic transitions 0.36**

4 Lack of follow-through 0.33**

5 Overdependence 0.20**

6 Strategic differences with management 0.11*

(*p<0.05, **p<0.001)Source: Lombardo and McCauley, 1988: 22

ORGANISATIONScale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

N=45 N=78 N=34 N=35 N=30 N=32 N=25 N=54Flaw 1 0.10 0.18 0.06 0.33 0.22 -0.01 0.83 0.18Flaw 2 0.32 0.49 -0.02 0.26 0.44 0.37 0.78 0.27Flaw 3 0.30 0.58 -0.10 0.38 0.45 0.45 0.64 0.19Flaw 4 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.18 0.45 0.10 0.80 0.31Flaw 5 0.30 0.26 0.14 0.06 0.17 -0.17 0.34 0.24Flaw 6 -0.02 0.27 0.08 0.06 0.31 -0.06 0.10 0.00

Table 10: Flaw scale – derailment correlations by organisation

Source: Lombardo and McCauley, 1988: 22.


and 4. The balance of the flaws seemed tohave almost no bearing on the derailmentpossibilities within organisation 7. Fromthis illustration it is clear that no twoorganisations have the same derailmentcorrelation profiles.

7. ANTI-DERAILMENT STRATEGIES

According to Brubaker and Coble (1997)anti-derailment strategies are of the utmostimportance in order to limit the potentialof derailment among leaders. Causes ofderailment include the role organisationsplay (the organisational face of derailment)as well as the role that leaders have playedin causing their own derailment (thepersonal face of derailment). Some ofBrubaker and Coble’s recommendationsare the following:

• People have to ask themselves whatthey are currently doing to avoidderailment. Listen to others’assessments of their own leadershipand seek open and honest feedbackregarding themselves. Firstly, thiswill enable the leader to understandthat a person’s success andderailment cannot be separate fromthe life of the organisation and viceversa. Secondly, a person’s success atone point in an organisation might bea cause of derailment at a later stage.Thirdly, a person’s strength could alsobe viewed as a weakness. Fourthly,events that cause derailment areseldom dramatic, but instead areusually small and cumulative. Fifthly,all leaders leave tracks from whichmanagers can learn.

• Take care to create a culture in whichstaff members feel comfortableentertaining conflicting ideas.

• It can be useful to think about whichsteps managers took as they ascendedthe career ladder, so that they cancapitalise on their ability to make goodchoices. This can be a process that willtell them what they need to do in thepresent. Positive images from the pastcan be inspiring in the present.

• Build a strong support base withfellow employees.

• Build trust throughout theorganisation. Trust is built oncreating an affinity connection. Staffwill perceive managers as beingsincere when they listen actively andwhen they follow through withconcrete steps to assure others theyhave been heard.

• In addition, by always insisting onbeing right, managers could harmtheir credibility.

• Brainstorm with trusted colleagues tofind solutions to hypotheticalsituations that call for difficultdecisions. This exercise will help oneto realise that there are many factorsto consider and that there are morethan one solution for a specificsituation.

• Rely on common sense, because thisis based on many years of experienceand could give managers a goodindication of whether they shouldproceed or not.


• It is important to realise that both theindividual and the organisation canmake mistakes that can lead toderailment. Organisationalderailment could be as a result of:Moving people so quickly that theyare unable to successfully completea job. Moving people vertically fromone low-challenging job to anothercould result in them not learningfrom new experiences. Appointingtoo many self-orientated managers tothe fast track, where theiraggressiveness, arrogance andautonomous styles begin as strengthsbut end as liabilities. Additionally,some managers might be giving toomuch attention during feedbacksessions to what the workers didrather to how they did it – at timesthe most important issue at stake.

• Managers should not forget to be trueto themselves. This could ultimatelybe the only significant benchmark.

However, as a first step it is important thatleaders have a desire to avoid derailment.Thereafter, this desire can be grafted intouseful knowledge that will be extremelyeffective in both avoiding and dealingwith derailment (Brubaker & Coble, 1997:30-35).

8. CONCLUDING AND INTEGRA TINGTHOUGHTS ON MANAGERIALDERAILMENT

In this article it was stated that, as thedemands of leadership have changed, sotoo has the need for leaders to meet those

demands. The balances have shifted awayfrom technical certainties to dealing withcomplex ambiguous leadershipsituations, from independence tointerdependence, and from team buildingand directiveness to mutualunderstanding with a 360-degreefeedback system for all managers in place.

It was also suggested that derailmentamong high-potential managers is still amajor problem. Derailed managers aredefined as those who, having reached atleast general manager level, either leavethe organisation involuntary (throughresignation, being fired or retiring early)or are plateaued as a result of a perceivedlack of fit between personal characteristicsand skills and the demands of theposition. In developing, a manager willneed to learn from previous experienceand develop the ability to adapt tochanging environments and conditions. Indefining a manager profile, more effectiveleaders were found to possess most of thecharacteristics such as handling thedemands of the management job, dealingwith subordinates, and respect for self andothers.

Derailors are often those high inindependence and low in affiliation needs,who tend to be seen as bright, technicallyproficient problem-solvers with poorteam-building skills.

Derailment is not only a personal tragedy,but is also a waste of talent and theorganisation’s investment in time, moneyand human resources. Derailment is stilla problem for managers and persists


across cultural barriers and timeboundaries.

9. REFERENCES

Basile, F. (1997). Derailed managers had peopleproblems. Indianapolis Business Journal, 18, I28.

Bachrach, D.J. 2004. Emotional intelligence isimportant in determining leadership success.[Online] Available: http://www.acphysci.com/aps/resources/PDFs/Jan04_main.pdf 11 March 2006.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performancebeyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Brubaker, D.L. & Coble, L.D. (1997). Staying ontrack: an Educational leader’s guide to preventingderailment and ensuring personal andorganizational success. Thousand Oaks,California: Corwin Press Inc.

Denton, M. (1998). Managerial Degeneration.June, (1998). Paper delivered at the Institutefor Industrial Psychology, Pretoria.

Denton, M. (2000a). Managerial Derailment .Unpublished manuscript, University ofStellenbosch.

Denton, M. (2000b). What makes great leaders:rethinking the route to effective leadership.Unpublished manuscript, University ofStellenbosch.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader?Harvard Business Review, 76(6), November/December, 93-102.

Hauer, S. 2006. Success blind spots: get out of yourown way. [Online] Available: http://www.refresher.com/!srhblind.html 8 March2006.

Joure, S.A. (1996). Coaching executives may halt“derailment”. Triangle Business Journal, 1, 31,33.

Lombardo, M.M. &, Eichinger, R.W. (1995).Preventing derailment: what to do before it’s toolate. Greensboro, North Carolina: Centre forCreative Learning.

Lombardo, M.M. & McCauley, C.D. (1988). TheDynamics of management derailment.(Technical Report Number 34) Greensboro,North Carolina: Centre for CreativeLearning.

London, M. (1983). Development for newmanagers. Journal of Management Development,2 (4), 2-14.

McCall, M.W. Jr., & Lombardo, M.M. (1983).What makes a top executive? PsychologyToday, February.

McCall, M.W. (1998). High flyers: developing thenext generation of leaders . Boston, Mass:Harvard Business School Press.

Mcnamara, P. 2006. Our “blind spot” may be apowerful obstacle to our success. [Online]Available: http://www.speaking.com/articles_html/PeggyMcnamara_1023.html 8March 2006.

Meiring, N.F. (2000). Developing andimplementing a successful planning processwhich contributes to business objectives as partof re-engineering process : a case study ,Unpublished MBA study report, Universityof Stellenbosch.

Morrison, A.M., White, R.P. & Van Velsor, E.(1992). Breaking the glass ceiling: can womanreach the top of America’s largest corporations?Updated edition. Reading, Massachusetts:Addison-Wesley.

Raffals, R. 2006. What is coaching? [Online]Available: http://www.awakenthemagic . com/coach/whatis.html 8 March 2006.


Savage A. 2002a. Enron, Worldcom and the rest.[Online] Available: http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp 11 March2006.

Savage A. 2002b. Corporate fraud: examiningdysfunctional strengths. [Online] Available:ht tp ://www.thewisemarketer .com/features/read.asp 11 March 2006.

Simmons, K. 2000. Take a closer look at your blindspots. [Online] Available: http://centeronline.org/knowledge/article.cfm 11March 2006.

Turner, F. 1998. Are blind spots hurting your career?[Online] Available: http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/climbing/19980902-turner.html 8 March 2006.

Van Zyl, J.H.C. (2000). Executive derailment.Unpublished MBA study report, Universityof Stellenbosch.

Willmore, J. 2000. Stormy weather: creating strategyfor uncertain times. [Online] Available: http://centeronline.org/kmowledge/article.cfm11 March 2006.

1. INTRODUCTION

The term “social entrepreneur” hasgrown in popularity and usage over thelast few years. In many managementschools and literature socialentrepreneurs are being seen as a newkind of business hero, celebrated asAmerica’s best leaders providing ‘newengines of reform’. These leaders arebeing seen as showing a way out ofstories on corporate scandals andrapacious CEOs and providinginspiration to many managementstudents and practitioners (Tyson 2004).Harvard has started a fellowshipprogramme for social entrepreneurs, andone of the largest student clubs at itsbusiness school is devoted to social

Perspective

Changing the World through SocialEntrepreneurship*

Inir Pinheiro 1 and C. Shambu Prasad 2

Abstract

There has been a spurt of interest in social entrepreneurship in recent years. The study and support ofsocial entrepreneurs has found increasing acceptance amongst foundations, business schools, journalsand competitions. This paper uses David Bornstein’s book ‘How to Change the World’ to revisit andreflect upon some of these concepts. It explores traits of social entrepreneurs and provides a model forsocial entrepreneurial mapping. In the conclusion the discussion focuses on the need to contextualisesocial entrepreneurship by connecting with existing traditions of looking at the peoples sector in Indiaand elsewhere.

* Received June 28, 2006, Revised August 22, 20061. Entrepreneur, “Grassroutes” Web: www.grassroutes.co.in e-mail: [email protected]. Associate Professor, Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, e-mail: [email protected]

enterprise. The World Economic Forumnow invites social entrepreneurs fromaround the globe. Many top businessschools have both courses and studentprojects on social entrepreneurship.Stanford University had started a newjournal in 2003, the Stanford SocialInnovation Review which was seen as thefirst publication by a leading school ofmanagement to promote innovativesolutions to social problems. The GlobalEntrepreneurship Monitor, a worldwideconsortium of academic institutions,chaired by London Business School andBabson College, carries out surveys tomeasure social entrepreneurship aroundthe world. There are also Global SocialVenture Competitions that actively


support and promote the creation andgrowth of successful social venturesaround theworld.3 To add to these newerdevelopments focused at business schoolsis the existing foundations such as TheSchwab Foundation for SocialEntrepreneurship, Skoll Foundation,Ashoka and others. Clearly socialentrepreneurship is a very active conceptand network that is growing across theglobe and something that managementschools need to be aware of and relate to.

2. WHAT IS SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP?

The definitions of this are varied andrather than define the concept universallymost groups have preferred to have aworking definition that helps themcommunicate with others. At the broadestlevel, a social entrepreneur is one drivenby a social mission, a desire to findinnovative ways to solve social problemsthat are not being or cannot be addressedby either the market or the public sector.Gregory Dees (2001) has explored themeaning and its evolution. He sees socialentrepreneurship as a phrase ‘best suitedto our times’, carrying the passion of asocial mission with an image of businesslike discipline and determination. Deessees the new language as important, forit implies the blurring of sectorboundaries and argues that the newlanguage helps to broaden the playingfield. Dees reviews the ideas on

entrepreneurship of Say (notion of valuecreation), Schumpeter (innovation andchange agents), Drucker (opportunitypursuit) and Stevenson (resourcefulness)and defines social entrepreneurship thus.

Social entrepreneurs play the role ofchange agents in the social sector, by:

• Adopting a mission to create and sustainsocial value (not just private value),

• Recognising and relentlessly pursuingnew opportunities to serve that mission,

• Engaging in a process of continuousinnovation, adaptation, and learning,

• Acting boldly without being limited byresources currently in hand, and

• Exhibiting heightened accountability tothe constituencies served and for theoutcomes created.

He uses these to point to differencesbetween business and socialentrepreneurs and maintains that they area rare breed of leaders. For socialentrepreneurs, the social mission isexplicit and central. This obviously affectshow social entrepreneurs perceive andassess opportunities. Mission-relatedimpact becomes the central criterion, notwealth creation. Wealth is just a means toan end for social entrepreneurs. Dees addsthat markets do not work well for socialentrepreneurs and suggests that evenwhen improvements can be measured the

3. A social venure is defined as an enterprise that has both financial and social goals integral to itspurpose. Each year, entrant teams from aournd the world compete for over $ 45,000 in cash andtravel prizes. See www.socialvc.net . There are Indian variants to this with Avishkarwww.aavishkar.org and National Innovation Foundation conducting similar competitions.

253

value created by social entrepreneurscannot be captured easily (Dees, 2001).

To this idealised definition there aredefinitions by Ashoka and others that gofurther in explaining social entrepreneurs.The founder of Ashoka Bill Draytondistinguishes social entrepreneurs fromothers primarily in their committed visionto persist until they have transformed anentire system. They do not rest until theyfundamentally change communities,societies, the world. Scholars rest whenthe idea is expressed, professionals whenclient’s problems are solved, and managerwhen his organisation succeeds.4 Schwabfoundation’s definition bears closesimilarity to Dees’s meaning of socialentrepreneurship and focuses on theinnovativeness of the social entrepreneurin creating social value. 5 A simplerdefinition that we use in this paper andhave found useful in the Indian context isthat a social entrepreneur is “a personwho facilitates economically, physicallyand socially challenged people to create,access and effectively utiliseopportunities”.

To the plethora of definitions andunderstanding of social entrepreneurshipBornstein’s book How to Change The World(2004) offers greater insight and we brieflyreview the book in the next section.

3. HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD?

Situating social entrepreneurship in theWest probably arises out of the ratherlimited autonomous space for the what isnow called the citizen sector. The westsees this space as being in between thegovernment public space and the privatemarket space. For many in the third worldthough the peoples space is much biggerthan either the government or marketspace. The categorisation of the words ofthe non-profit world and the earlierAmerican hype on social entrepreneursbeing the leaders of the future does seema bit remote in Indian and third worldcontext. It is in this sense that Bornstein’sbook How to Change the World is indeedrefreshing. Bornstein follows the casestudy approach and reviews ten socialentrepreneurs from across the globeincluding two from India - Jerry Billimoriafounder of Childline and Javed Abidi whofought for disability rights. Despite richcontextualisation in India withdiscussions on Buddha, Gandhi, VinobaBhave and others and a large presence inIndia of Ashoka the book does not seemto have received sufficient attention inIndia even as it is widely being discussedelsewhere. 6

How to Change the World seems to takefurther Bornstein’s earlier insightful

4. www.ashoka.org5. “A pragmatic visionary who achieves large scale, systemic and sustainable social change through

a new invention, a different approach, a more rigorous application of known technologies orstrategies, or a combination of these.” www.schwabfound.org

6. The Indian edition brought out by Penguin India has a foreword by Narayana Murthy and hada slightly delayed launch due to Ashoka seeking to use the book to promote the concept of socialentrepreneurship. Even so it appears that the book has not been reviewed in more than one ortwo newspapers though it is being widely read by students, activists and academics.

Pinheiro et al, Changing the World :Through ...


study of the Grameen Bank (1997). Thetwenty two chapters in the book have tencase studies of social entrepreneurs.Bornstein weaves into his case studiesbased on rich and meticulous researchthat situate the cases in context chaptersthat attempt to synthesise runningthemes that draw out successful bestpractices. While an academic readercould fault Bornstein for not havingdrawn sufficient generalisations from therich case studies, such a view precludesrevisiting and reinterpreting the conceptof social entrepreneurship. 7 What setsBornstein’s book apart from the growingliterature on social entrepreneurship isthe use of cases from Latin America andIndia where the concept undergoestransformation in context. Bornstein issensitive to this possibility and therebyhelps in reinterpreting, if not revising,the largely North American scholarshipon social entrepreneurship. He not only

recognizes the concept in other regionsbut pushes us into asking the question‘what can US organisations learn fromBrazil and India’?8

It is this possibility of a two way flow ofideas that could be missed out in recentattempts to quantify and make theconcept more academic, a trend thatseems to be emerging with increasingspecialisation of the concept as anacademic discipline. At the same timeBornstein is critical of social scienceapproaches that have ignored the powerof ideas. He laments that social changetheories have more often than not lookedat how ideas move people rather thanhow people move and have been movingideas. The emphasis of much socialchange has been on giving primacy toideas and less on how to make ideasmove. Ideas, he argues, need champions- obsessive people who have the skill,motivation, energy and bullheadedness to

7 Richardson (2005) criticizes the book (unfairly) as being disjointed and for a muddied centralmessage and also for not finding sufficient commonality amongst the ten social entrepreneursand methodology and a process that is rigorous and participatory. Ashoka has been able toinclude the ethical dimension as critical in its choice of fellows and how rigour can and shouldbe combined with courageous judgement. Bornstein’s eminently readable book we believe needsto be seen in its potential for bridging the gap between theory and practice and between academicsand practitioners in looking and working with evolving concepts. We now extend Bornstein’sinsights by seeking to apply and understand social entrepreneurship by looking at some traitsof social entrepreneurs and offering a framework for social entrepreneurial mapping.

8 This reminds us of one of the more famous social entrepreneurs of the last century and aninspiration to Drayton, Mohandas Gandhi. In 1904 welcoming the visit of the members of theBritish Association for the Advancement of Science to South Africa, Gandhi commended theassociation’s efforts in popularising science and in bringing Britain and the colonies closer toeach other. He suggested that the association should meet in India and be renamed as the ‘BritishEmpire Association for the Advancement of Science’. Such a visit, according to Gandhi, wouldbe greatly to the advantage not only to India, but the association as well. Quoted in ShambuPrasad, 2001.

255

move them forward: to persuade…. andartfully maneuver them through systems.9

Bornstein’s use of the case study approachenables him to draw greater insight ratherthan stating propositions. He shows howgood ideas need to be shared across timeand space, but then must be adapted tolocal conditions and that the socialentrepreneur has a critical role in doingso. Bornstein’s explanatory chapters onthe role of the social entrepreneur,practices of innovative organisations, sixqualities of successful socialentrepreneurs etc are intersting withoutbeing definitive and overly prescriptive.They are critically linked to the cases andthe flow of the book. At the same time theyare also insightful on methodologies andprinciples that need to be applied. Thechapter on Ashoka’s method of selectingfellows indicates for instance the focus ona non quantifiable

4. SIX TRAITS OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS

One of the useful summaries inBornstein’s book is the attempt to identifytraits of social entrepreneurs.10 Many ofthe traits observed in social entrepreneursare common with the well documentedtraits of business entrepreneurs.However, keeping in mind that the socialentrepreneurs work in the citizen sector(along with many NGOs, fundingagencies and governments) these areworth mentioning. These traits enablechange agents to endeavour successfully.

• Willingness to Self-correct

Because of their motivation, highlysuccessful entrepreneurs are highly self-correcting. The entrepreneur’s inclinationto self correct stems from the attachmentto a goal rather than a particular approachor plan. For example when VeronicaKhosa, a social entrepreneur from Africa,started an innovative care for AIDSpatients, she learnt that the people ofMamelodi would not accept Tateni HomeCare as AIDS only service, she wastedlittle time reframing the agency as ageneral home care service.

Interestingly the inclination to self correctis a quality that seems to distinguishyounger entrepreneurs from their olderand better established counterparts. It isa quality that seems to diminish with timeas entrepreneurs become increasinglyattached, or even chained to their ideas.

• Willingness to share credit

For entrepreneurs a willingness to sharecredit lies along the “critical path” tosuccess, simply because the more the creditthey share, the more people will want tohelp them out. Like the “willingness to selfcorrect, this quality too stems from self-motivation. If the entrepreneur’s trueintention is to “make a change”, thensharing credit comes naturally”. JerooBillimoria, the founder of Childline, ahelpline for street children in India; in aninterview remarked that she would spendhalf the time explaining the contributionsthat others had made to Childline.

9 Bornstein 2004: 92.10 Bornstein 2004: 233-241.



• Willingness to Break Free of EstablishedStructures

Social entrepreneurs in devising costeffective ways to deliver basic services,have intuitively turned away fromprofessionally intensive models in favorof models that mobilize ordinary citizensto reach underserved markets at scale. Forexample in the field of health, VeraCordeiro has demonstrated that nonprofessionals can assist families in avariety of health related matters. In Indiathe comprehensive Rural Health Projectfounded by Raj Arole in the state ofMaharashtra, trains “village healthworkers” to provide prenatal care tohundreds of thousands of villagers,significantly reducing the infant andmaternal mortality rates.11

Also social entrepreneurs who initiatetheir ideas while teaching inuniversities—Muhammad Yunus,founder of the Grameen Bank,Bangladesh and Jeroo Billimoria usuallystepped outside the academia to buildtheir organisations. In doing so, they oftenassume considerable financial andprofessional risk. What they gain is thefreedom to act and the distance to seebeyond the orthodoxy in their fields. Thisis critical because all innovation entails theability to separate from the past.

• Willingness to cross disciplinaryboundaries

Social entrepreneurs approach the state oforder with a need to engage the world in

its wholeness. As Jeroo Billimoriadiscovered, it made little sense to run anemergency phone service for streetchildren if the hospital and policewouldn’t corporate. The Ashokafoundation began by applying a wellunderstood business concept to socialpursuits. Childline brings together streetchildren, citizen groups, businesses andgovernments. The result is a network witha wide reach, brand recognition, streetsavvy and influence.

• Willingness to work quietly

A person must have very pure motivationto push an idea so steadily for so long withso little fanfare. In his memoirs JeanMonnet, the architect of Europeanunification, observes that “one cannotconcentrate on an objective and on oneselfat the same time.” To Monnet, people ofambition fell into two groups: those whowanted to “do something” and those whowanted to “be someone”.

The main concern of many veryremarkable people is to cut a figure andplay a role. They are very useful to society,where images are very important and theaffirmation of character is essential to theadministration of affairs. But, in general,it is the other kind of people who getthings moving- those who spend theirtime looking for places and opportunitiesto influence the course of events. Theplaces and not always the most obviousones, none of the opportunities occur

11 See http://www.jamkhed.org/ for details on Schwab fellow Raj Arole.

257

when many people expect them. Anyonewho wants to find then has to forsakelimelight.

• Strong Ethical Impetus.

It is meaningless to talk about socialentrepreneurs without considering theethical quality of their motivation: thewhy. In the end, business and socialentrepreneurs are very much the sameanimals. They think about the problems,the same way. They ask the same types ofquestions, the difference is not intemperament or ability, but in the natureof their visions.

5. SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL MAPPING

Based on Bornstein’s book we haveattempted illustrating the process of socialentrepreneurship through a model thatmight explain some of the ways that socialentrepreneurs work. While the modelpresented is again not definitive, it hopesto draw out some ideas and insights onsocial entrepreneurship.

The figure illustrates various phases ofhow a social entrepreneur goes about her/ his mission. In the figure the darkerboxes are clamps that reduceopportunities for individuals and is truefor most human beings. What separatesthe social entrepreneur from others is theirability to use a critical incident to workwith and against constraints to increasethe space available in the citizen sector.Sometimes these critical incidents aremore than one and can form a series ofevents that lead to a social entrepreneurchoosing to connect them towards change

or social transformation. They persist withexpanding the clamps till drops ofindividual and collective experiencesbecome a movement towardstransformation of the externalenvironment. This involves consolidationof ideas, creating networks and policychanges as well.

Individuals, possessing the traitsmentioned for social entrepreneurs byBornstein, move through life,experiencing, thinking and interactingwith the external environment. They areoften disturbed by certain aspects, thoughtheir thoughts and talents are now beingfocused towards addressing a particularproblem. The constraints of personalpriorities, financial constraints andresistance to change or the “status quo”holds them back. This dilemma ofwhether to engage towards building upof the institution is finally taken after the“critical incident.” This critical incidentcan be a particular incident or a series ofincidents. After this incident, the socialentrepreneurial traits are only reinforcedin an individual, and this boosts his/hermotivation to “make a difference”.

Things are however not smooth and thereis opposition to the process of change. Theopposition to the desired change comesfrom these several fronts: financialconstraints and personal priorities,governmental inertia, establishedprofessionals and obsolete laws. Thepressure from these constraints or values,are released by success met by theendeavour, people’s (beneficiaries and



volunteer’s) acceptance, lessons learnt,market intervention, enthusiastic keypersonnel, institutional support (includesAshoka/ Schwab Foundations) andnetworks of support and change.

6. EXPLAINING THE CHILDLINE CASESTUDY THROUGH SEM

Jeroo Billimoria, the founder of Childline,a helpline for children in distress, grewup in a prominent Bombay family, andaspired to undertake a profession inaccounting and not follow her motherwho was a social worker. However, the

Fig. 1: Phases in the Social Entrepreneur’s Mission

death of her father and the recognition ofhis core values of giving, which sherealised quite late, made her take stock ofher priorities and rework them. This canbe seen as one critical incident or definingmoment in her life. She joined the TataInstitute of Social Sciences (TISS), andlater followed it with a course on nonprofit management from New School forSocial Research, New York where she was‘moved by the spirit of survival of thehomeless’. She Joined TISS, as aninstructor in 1989, and used to frequentBombay’s shelters: her students’ project

259

areas and was naturally drawn towardsstreet children.

The street children started calling her“Didi”, and she in turn found herselfdeveloping strong protective feelings forthem. She gave out her phone number, tothe street children indicating a willingnessto be reached hoping that they would foremergencies, but she was soon receivingcalls on a daily basis. Though Bombay hadmany children agencies, there was nomechanism for coordination with oneanother or with the government. Further,Jeroo found that it could take days to findthe necessary assistance for a child. Heridea of coordinating services had fewtakers amongst the NGOs that wereworking with children. In 1991 shefounded Meljol, to bring together children,from diverse backgrounds to work, sideby side, on projects, with tangible socialbenefits. By 1993, the increasing frequencyof the late night calls only strengthenedJeroo’s call for a coordinating emergencyservice for street children. To get this ideain motion, she turned her efforts towardsconvincing the Bombay police, when theirdoors shut; she repeatedly knocked on theDepartment of Telecommunication’sdoors. This time to preset a convincingcase, she armed herself with survey dataon the late night callers, as well as theusage of public telephones by streetchildren.

Her determination and persistence topush forward the idea started yieldingsome result largely due to increase insupport base. Jeroo recruited a team of

students to compile a directory of childservice organisations in Bombay. Theylisted a hundred organisations, including24 hour shelters and long term residentialinstitutions; organisation that offeredlegal, health, psychological andeducational services, organisations thatprovided disability rehabilitation,vocational training and treatment foraddiction and many others. Next Jeroo setup meetings to encourage participationsin a new network: Childline She puttogether a budget and set out to raise start-up funds. Initial support came from SirRatan Tata Trust and the Concern IndiaFoundation. In May 1996 the governmenttelecommunication department grantedChildline use of the telephone number1098. And a month later, with 14organisations having signed on, Childlinewas officially launched.

Childline’s telephones are housed inorganisations with 24 hours shelters foremergencies, and many of thesetelephones are manned by former streetchildren. During the first year, Childlinefielded 6,618 calls. More than 70% camefrom children and youth. Many called tochat, sing songs, ask questions, sharefeelings and offer insults. The opportunityto make a free phone call was itself a majorattraction. The first year was all aboutmaking mistakes and correcting them,identifying gaps and filling them. Eachmonth children were invited toChildline’s “open House” about theservice and suggest improvements.Eventually Childline and the BombayPolice established a partnership. Tata



consultancy Services, was roped in todesign a database to track calls.

In 1997 Jeroo was elected an AshokaFellow. By then critical incident hadalready taken place. The support wasmore to enable Jeroo scale up operations.Following interactions with the Ministryof Social Justice and Empowerment in1998 Childline was extended to cities witha population above 190 lakhs. Jeroo’splans for national expansion envisionedChildline to operate as franchise, withdecentralized management, but with auniform brand, operating procedures andstandards. Each city would have thefreedom to select the organisation basedon the local needs, but conform to auniform structure. TISS would be thenodal agency would facilitate operations,training, documentation and advocacy. Itwas a conscious decision not to beginworking in a city until the policecommissioner and senior healthcareofficials had furnished writtencommitments of cooperation. Anotherpolicy that Jeroo adopted was that anybusiness that wanted to publicly associateitself with Childline at the national levelwould have to commit to a fullpartnership. It would have to offerbusiness expertise and ongoing assistance- not just write cheques.

Childline is still evolving, constantlyanswering “how to ?” questions. Theway Jeroo Billimoria and Childlineanswer some of these ‘How To’questions actually translate intoinnovations. These innovations were

technical (the novel use of telephones)but a lso inst i tut ional (creat ing acoordinating centre, havingbeneficiaries participate in running theprogram and even its design, andchanging the way stakeholders perceiveeach other by creating platforms forcooperation instead of conflict, gettingcorporates to be actively involved,adopting franchisee systems to reachscale). Jeroo Billimoria to use Dees’sdefinition created social value, wasinnovative, resourceful, accountableand possessing heightenedaccountability to the constituencyserved.

What we need to emphasise here is thatthe distinguishing feature of socialentrepreneurs is their ability to makemore sense of existing situations, usecritical incidents and experiences tofurther change. This suggests thatattempts to quantify impacts of socialentrepreneurs can often miss the contextof action which is often person andlocation specific. It is in this sense thatthe case study approaches are morefruitful in understanding change. Thisis also the reason why Bornstein’s workperhaps though not written for anacademic audience has greater insightsthan some of the studies on socialentrepreneurship. This also suggeststhat a better engagement of research onsocial entrepreneurship is in furtherexplicating contexts and thickdescriptions of critical incidents and theinterpretations of these by socialentrepreneurs.

261

7. CONTEXTUALISING SOCIAL ENTRE-PENEURSHIP & CONCLUSION

Bornstein’s last chapters seek to expandon the emergence of the citizen sector inthe world. By the late 1980’s the world’sleading international developmentfunders including the World Bank, theUnited Nations and USAID were comingunder fire from critics who charge thatforeign aid had degenerated into awasteful and unaccountable industry. Thechannelling of aid through largebureaucracies often left international aidmired in poor performance. To beeffective the resources would have to beplaced into the hands of the people whoreally used them well.

Local social entrepreneurs, whorecognized the problem; understood thepolitical and cultural environment; andwho had a special talent for spottingopportunities, crafting solutions andbuilding organisations; and weredetermined to pursue their work overdecades, came to be recognized asappropriate change agents. Bornsteinpoints out that the Ashoka foundationwas one of the first organisations to adoptthis approach in the early 80’s. Theirexperience has proved the relevance,importance and effectiveness of a networkof social entrepreneurial change agents.They realised that social entrepreneurs

have the innate ability to turn away fromprofessionally intensive models in favourof models that mobilize ordinary citizensto reach underserved markets at scale.This addressed the problem ofdistribution of social and medicaladvances which until then had bypassedmajority of the world’s population.

We could summarize the discussion onsocial entrepreneurship broadly under thefollowing three thoughts.

1. The power of an idea is one of themost powerful forces ever know toman. However, many a times thereneeds to be support systems to ensurethe incubation of the idea andpromotion of the idea. The conceptand evolution of support foundationsfor social entrepreneurs looks atcatering to this need.12

2. “Perseverance does pay.” This holdstrue for both a social entrepreneur aswell as a successful social enterprise.What counts is the engagement inanswering the “how to’s?” is whatpays off, and not the perseverance tochange the world, or rid the world ofall its woes. Social entrepreneursknow that they are making adifference in particular aspects ofpeople’s lives. This motivates them toendeavour further without beingoverwhelmed with disparity.

12 To need to gain credibility for ones’ idea and vision. “I used to run from pillar to post.” Said Mr.Paul Basil, CEO of Rural Innovation Network and an Ashoka Fellow, “now that I’ve become anAshoka fellow, many more doors are opened for me and my vision.” This only goes to highlightthe importance of networks like Ashoka Foundation: Paul Basil on social entrepreneurship in aclass at XIM in September, 2005.



3. “How to’s?” are important aspect ofa social entrepreneur’s thoughtprocess. It is this obsession withanswering the “how to’s?” that makesthe social enterprise adapt to everchanging environment, meet everychallenge and still reach out to morepeople. To be a social entrepreneurone should start asking “how to’s?”

The concepts of social entrepreneurshipand the citizen sector needs greaterexplication in third world contexts.Bornstein explains how Bill Drayton anAmerican consultant who foughtconservative views on the environment atthe Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) found inspiration in the ideas ofGandhi and Buddha. As Bornsteincomments what drew Drayton to Gandhiwere his ‘how tos’. How did Gandhi crafthis strategy? How did he build hisinstitutions? How did he market hisideas? Drayton insightfully recognizedthat despite other-worldly experienceGandhi was fully engaged in the detailsof politics, administration andimplementation. Gandhi’s contribution toDrayton was the recognition of the needfor a new ethic for the emerging world.An ethics grounded not in rules, but inempathy. A change necessitated by thegrowing complexity of human society.13

This insight about the Gandhian methodhas strong parallels with some recentunderstanding of Gandhian literature and

a revisiting of the Gandhian archive.14 Pastattempts in Gandhian studies havefocused too much on his political strategyand even his religious philosophy and lesson the critical ‘how to’ questions.Bornstein does not refer to ThomasWeber’s excellent book on the Salt Marchof 1930 but does raise the question ‘howdid Gandhi carry out the Salt March – thegreatest example of his strategy in action?’Weber’s fascinating anthropoliogical andarchival research which involved himcarrying out the March several years laterat the same period provides tremendousinsight into the strategy and meticulousattention to detail that has escaped mostscholars. We would like to end this paperby focusing on two aspects of socialentrepreneurship that we feel is importantin future studies on the subject.

The first is about the need for studies onsocial entrepreneurship to be rooted inethics mentioned above. Here a morefruitful engagement with differentcultural contexts is useful. The plethoraof business competitions and academicextensions of gaps in existing socialentrepreneurial activities with regard tofunding and a focus on venture capitalwhile welcome also run the danger ofdistorting what social entrepreneurship isall about. It is quite probable that the waysocial entrepreneurship is seen by theWest and people in the Third World withregards to its focus etc. might be very

13 Bornstein 2004: 48-4914 See Shambu Prasad 2001 & 2002 for more on the gandhian method.

263

different. Web based competitions canalso bring in their own biases on whovotes and who does not. Academicresearch that is not sensitive to some ofthese questions and possibilities mighteventually turn out to be restricted inscope to a few specialised discourses insome B schools. One is reminded of asimilar turn in the science studiesmovement that arose from concerns thatwere rooted in dissenting views onscience and technology and peace in theWest but soon turned out to be specialisedacademic disciplines that were insularand separated from their originalcontexts. Martin’s (1993) poser to fellowacademicians on whether science studieswas getting separated from crucial socialissues and movements is worthconsidering in this context. It is thusimportant that studies on socialentrepreneurship engage with thesequestions as well.

Secondly the attempt by Bornstein inpositing the citizen sector is indeed verytimely. Ashoka has also played a role inpopularising the citizen sector and gettingout of either the American ‘non-profit’ orthe European ‘non-governmental’definitions of this sector.15 The need for adifferent categorisation of a sector bywhat it is rather than what it is not (profit,government) raises important questions.We believe that this discussion on the

citizen sector needs to engage withdebates within development and some ofthe concerns that people like Gandhi hadin creating institutions and movementssuch as khadi and village industries.Gandhi is particularly insightful on whatcommunity workers and satyagrahiscientists, the earlier versions of socialentrepreneurs should do. In a letter toMaganlal Gandhi, a much forgotten figurein the freedom movement and the manbehind much of the success of the khadimovement who answered many of the‘How To’ questions for Gandhi, Gandhiremarked, ‘the Congress can concern itselfonly with the things that need tendernursing.’16 For Gandhi and his co-workersthere was this clear identification of the‘citizen sector’. It was the duty of thesatyagrahi scientist to work only on thoseareas that required tender nursing whichneither the state nor the market couldinstitutionally provide for.

Gandhi’s letters to his co-workers arerevealing for insights on several ‘How To’questions. These letters are shorn ofideology and are focused on the mission.For example Gandhi believed thatbuilding of new institutions requiredinputs from several people outside and itwas often his task to try and bring thesepeople together. At the launch of the AllIndia Village Industries Association in1934, a sequel to the All India Spinners

15 See No to NGO, Nonprofit! New Language for the Citizen Sector http://www.ashoka.org/news/04november/citizen.html

16 Gandhi to Maganlal Gandhi. A Danger’. Young India. July 17, 1924. For more on the socialentrepreneur Maganlal Gandhi refer to Shambu Prasad’s article in Bindu Puri’s (2001) edited volume



Association, Gandhi remarked, ‘Here thefield is so vast, there is such an infinitevariety of industries to handle andorganise, that it will tax all our businesstalent, expert knowledge and scientifictraining. It cannot be achieved withouthard toil, incessant endeavour andapplication of all our business andscientific abilities to this supremepurpose.’ The sensitivity of Gandhi to theimportance of need for business talent cannever be underscored and is often a goodreminder to many vocal activists indevelopment circles. Gandhi for instancewhen asked about the functioning of theAll India Spinners Association hadremarked that it was a businessorganisation meant to strengthendemocracy and had to run on differentprinciples from those of the Congress.That was in fact the reason he separatedits activities from the Congress.

Gandhi’s work and his institutions weargue has a clearer elaboration of thecitizen sector before the debates on NGOsand the State and PPPs (public privatepartnerships) were in vogue. Bornsteinperhaps invites us to explore the citizensector further. This concept we argue isnot necessarily new but presents thepossibility of reengaging with some olderdebates. One such is the debate indevelopment and the increasing literatureon what Gustavo Esteva calls‘regenerating peoples spaces’. Socialentrepreneurship needs to be situatedwithin these broader concerns ondevelopment and social change for someof these ideas seems to us to suggest a

possibility wherein the ‘lost decade ofdevelopment’ can be retrieved andalternatives to economic globalisationexplored. It is of course too early tosuggest that social entrepreneurship canindeed be a fruitful alternative to some ofthe ills of economic globalisation but whatDavid Bornstein reminds us is that thereare indeed many insights on ‘How toChange the World’ that need to be exploredif we believe, to use Walden Bello’s andthe Social Forum’s phrase, that anotherworld is possible.

This is best summarised by three differentsocial entrepreneurs who lived before theconcept got popularised.

“We are trying to save the world fortomorrow. To hell with the rules…”

David McTaggart, one of the founders ofGreenpeace

“ First they laugh at you, Then they ignore you,Then they fight you, ..then you win.” M.K.Gandhi

“The purpose of any endeavour is never to win,but to get people to join you.” Martin LutherKing

REFERENCES

Bello, Walden, (2002), Another World Is Possibleh t t p : / / w w w . y e s m a g a z i n e . o r g /article.asp?ID=505 accessed Aug 8, 2006.

Bornstein, David, (1997), The Price of a Dream: TheStory of the Grameen Bank Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Bornstein, David, (2004), How to Change the World:Social Entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas .New Delhi: Penguin Books.

265

Dees, Gregory, (2001), The Meaning of SocialEntrepreneurship . http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf accessed Aug 8,2006.

Esteva, Gustavo, (1997), “Regenerating People’sspace” in: Saul H. Mendlovitz and R.B.J.Walker eds. Towards a Just World Peace .London: Butterworths. pp.271-298.

Gergen, David, (2006), The new engines ofreform. U.S. News & World Report, 00415537,2/20/2006, Vol. 140, Issue 6.

Martin, Brian, (1993), The Critique of ScienceBecomes Academic. Science, Technology, &Human Values. Vol. 18(2): 247-259.

Richardson Y.C, (2005), And those who shall leadwill be determined by the examples they set.Review of Bornstein’s How to Change theWorld. Foundation News and Commentary. May– June. P 61.

Shambu Prasad, C., (2001), ‘Gandhi andMaganlal: Khadi Science and the GandhianScientist’. In Bindu Puri ed. Mahatma Gandhiand his Contemporaries . Shimla: IndianInstitute of Advances Studies.

Shambu Prasad, C., (2001), ‘Towards anUnderstanding of Gandhian Science’.Economic and Political Weekly. Sept. 29. 3721-32.

Shambu Prasad, C., (2002), Exploring GandhianScience: A Case Study of the KhadiMovement. PhD Dissertation, Department ofHumanities and Social Sciences, IndianInstitute of Technology, Delhi.

Tyson, Laura D’Andrea, (2004), B-schools are nowfostering ventures with a social mission . BusinessWeek. 5/3/2004 Issue 3881, p32.

Weber, Thomas, (1997), On the Salt March: TheHistoriography of Gandhi’s March to Dandi. NewDelhi: HarperCollins.



INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEhttp://www.ximb.ac.in/cfex/conference.php

Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Agenda for the 21st Century.

12th January 2007 to 14th January 2007

Venue: Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, INDIAThis international conference is co-sponsored by the Center for Closely Held Firms atthe Sellinger School of Business and Management, Loyola College in Maryland, USA.

The conference is organized around the broad theme of Entrepreneurship andInnovation. We welcome previously unpublished papers as well as case studies thataddress general/theoretical concepts and issues in the field of entrepreneurship. Allsubmissions will be peer reviewed. Papers can be either conceptual or empirical. Atleast one author must attend the Conference. Accepted papers will be published inthe Conference Proceedings and a few selected papers will be published in“Vilakshan”, The XIMB Journal of Management

• Last date for submission of papers and cases is 31st October 2006

• Authors will be notified of the acceptance by 24th November 2006

The conference fee is Rs 7500/- per person for Indian participants and US$200/- per person for foreign participants and includes:

• Twin sharing a/c accommodation with attached bath, cable TV and high speedinternet connectivity (Conference fees for single room accommodations are atRs. 10000/- or US$250/- per person)

• All breakfasts, lunches and dinners during the conference

• A sightseeing tour which will include the world famous temples of Puri andBhubaneswar

Email: [email protected] for Entrepreneurship XIMB

Xavier Institute of Management BhubaneswarXavier Square, Bhubaneswar – 751013, Orissa, INDIA

Conference coordinator:Prof. Rajeev Roy, email: [email protected], Ph No: 91 – 674 – 3012345 Ext: 969

Documents

Managerial Derailment* Derailment... · to the rank of senior leadership in major organisations. The strengths that made the derailers successful had a darker side as well (see Table