How organisations treat support staff is an indicator of leadership empathy

For eighteen days, the kauravas and the pandavas fought on the plains of Kurukshetra. Hundreds of soldiers were killed on either side. In the midst of this massacre one hears a heart-warming tale.

Arjuna, the chief archer of the Pandava army, rode on a chariot pulled by four white horses. His charioteer was Krishna. At one point, in the middle of the war, Krishna said, “We have to stop Arjuna. The horses are tired. They need to rest and be refreshed. Shoot your arrow into the ground and bring out some water so that I can bathe and water the horses. Keep the enemy at bay with a volley of arrows while I do so.” Arjuna did as instructed.

He shot an arrow into the ground, released water and created a small pond where Krishna was able to tend to the horses. Standing on the chariot, Arjuna shot arrows and kept the enemies at bay while the horses rested. Refreshed, they were able to pull the chariot once again with renewed vigour.

The horses pulling Arjuna’s chariot did not ask to be refreshed. Krishna sensed their exhaustion and made resources available so that they could be comforted . Often we forget the ‘horses’ who help us navigate through our daily lives.

Horses are a crude metaphor for those who make our lives comfortable but who do not have much of a voice when it comes to their own comfort. In every office, especially in India, there are a whole host of people who keep the office running — the office boy, the canteen boy, the security guard, the drivers, the peons. This is the silent support staff. They take care of the ‘little things’ that enable us to achieve the ‘big things’ . A simple study of how organisations treat this silent support staff is an indicator of leadership empathy.

Randhir drives his boss to work every day negotiating through heavy highway traffic for over two hours each way. His boss, Mr. Chaudhary, is the partner of a large consulting firm, responsible for over nearly 50 high net worth clients. This means a lot of travel both in the city and outside.

This means early morning airport drops and late night airport pickups. This also means travelling from meetings from one end of the city to another and short trips to satellite cities.

Randhir is frustrated. His boss does not know that he lives in a shanty town an hour away from Mr. Chaudhary’s swanky apartment block. To travel to the place of work, he needs to take a bus or an auto. These are not easily available early morning and late night.

His travel allowance is too meagre to take care of this. When he raised this issue with Mr. Chaudhary, he was told, “This is what the company policy says you should be paid.” Randhir does not understand policy. He serves Mr. Chaudhary, not the company. But Mr. Chaudhary does not see it that way. Then there are Sundays when Mr. Chaudhary visits his farmhouse with Mrs. Chaudhary and the little ones. No holidays for Randhir. “His family is in the village so why does he need a holiday?”

Often there is no parking space at places where Mr. Chaudhary has meetings . Often there are parking spaces but no amenities for drivers — a place to rest or a decent loo.

“You cannot eat in the car; I do not like the smell,” says Mr. Chaudhary, who also disables the music system when he leaves the car, “So that he does not waste the battery.” And when Mr. Chaudhary got a 40% bonus over and above his Rs 2 crore CTC, he very generously gave Randhir a 500 rupee hike. “I am being fair. That’s more than what the other drivers got. I don’t want to disrupt the driver market.”

Mr. Chaudhary’s empathy for Randhir is much less than Krishna’s empathy for his horses. And Randhir is no horse; he is a human being. He is one of the silent support staff without a voice. If he speaks, he will be silenced, or worse, replaced. If he shouts, the management will fear ‘rise of union thinking’ and shoot him down. He is but a line item in the balance sheet, often under “outsourced services” .

One wonders, does Randhir fall in the purview of management? He is neither part of the organisation nor the market. Is he the responsibility of the leader or the administration team? He is neither Arjuna nor Krishna.

Yes, the Kauravas have to be defeated. Yes, the Pandavas have to win. Strategies have to be thought of. Tactics have to be implemented. But surely not at the cost of the silent support staff. They are as much a part of the war as the warriors

Tips on how to deal with employee compensation

The Mahabharata tells the story of two childhood friends who always share what they have and promise to do so even when they are grown up. One friend, Drupada, grows up to be a rich king and the other, Drona, remains a poor priest. Drona, in desperate poverty, visits his rich friend, reminds Drupada of his childhood promise and demands wealth.

Drupada says, “In the past we were equals. Now we are not. So we cannot be friends. Do not ask for wealth as if it is your right. Ask for charity and I shall consider.” This comment angers Drona. He swears to teach Drupada a lesson by becoming an equal.

He trains a hundred and five princes of the Kuru clan in the martial arts and asks as tuition fee one half of Drupada’s kingdom. This is done much to Drona’s pleasure and Drupada’s rage. Drupada conducts a sacrifice and obtains from the gods a son called Dhristadhyumna who will kill Drona and a daughter called Draupadi who will divide and destroy the Kuru clan.
The Bhagavata also tells the story of two childhood friends who always share what they have and promise to do so even when they are grown up. One friend, Krishna, grows up to be a rich king and the other, Sudama, remains a poor priest. Sudama, in desperate poverty visits his rich friend.

Despite his poverty, he carries a gift for his friend, a fistful of puffed rice saved by starving for a day. Krishna showers Sudama with affection and lavish hospitality. Sudama, unlike Drona, is unable to ask for wealth. He feels it is inappropriate to trouble Krishna with his problems. Krishna, however, senses Sudama’s poverty and without him knowing, ensures vast amounts of wealth reaches his friend’s house before his arrival.

The Mahabharata story is one of conflict while the Bhagavata story is one of love. The two stories reveal what causes conflict and what results in joy. In the former case, the poor friend demanded wealth and the rich friend refused to give in to a demand , preferring to give wealth in charity.

Challenging loyalty

Ramayana speaks of two brothers: Vibhishana and Kumbhakarna.

Vibhishana refuses to support his elder brother Ravana who abducts the wife of Ram. Kumbhakarna, however, stands by his brother, even though he does not agree with Ravana’s actions. Vibhishana is a disloyal defector while Kumbhakarna is a loyal brother. The scriptures celebrate Vibhishana while every year, during festivals, the effigy of Kumbhakarna is burnt alongside his brother.

In the Mahabharata, Karna owes his meteoric rise in station, from charioteer to warlord and king, to Duryodhana, who refuses to return the land of the Pandavas. Karna stays loyal to Duyodhana till the very end, refusing the most tempting bribes offered by Krishna. For this he is ruthlessly killed under the instructions of Krishna.

The scriptures challenge the traditional notion of loyalty. Loyalty is not seen as an end in itself. It is seen merely as a means. If the end is not noble (as in case of Karna and Kumbhakarna) it is not venerated.

In the modern corporate world, what matters more: talent or loyalty? What affects the balance sheet?

During the annual appraisals, Madhukar was furious. He had received the same bonus as Champaklal. But he had done so much more work. He had turned around a loss-making unit into a profitable one in less than a year. He had cut costs and acquired new customers. Thanks to him, the company was on an accelerated growth curve. In comparison, Champaklal had done nothing but sustain a marginally profitable unit. That unit had so much potential that Champaklal refused to tap. Why couldn’t the owner of the company see that?

But the owner of the company saw things differently. He told the CFO as they were finalising the bonus, “Madhukar is an MBA, a professional. Sooner or later, he will leave us and go to another company where he will be paid more. We will never be able to match the competition. Champaklal will never leave us. He may not be a great stallion but he is a dependable donkey. Horses will come and go, adding bursts of success, but donkeys grant us sustainable slow growth. We must reward both equally.”

In the uncertain world of business, loyalty offers comfort to owners. This is an emotional need whose value is not understood by professionals. Champaklal will never be as smart as Madhukar but he is able to satisfy an emotional need of the owner. Madhukar’s brilliance makes the owner insecure. Retaining talent is not easy.

In Madhukar’s case, the owner has to make active efforts to retain him. In Champaklal’s case, the owner is passive; he knows that Champaklal’s mediocre talents ensure he will never look out for another opportunity. Champaklal’s low returns are compensated by the high assurance he offers. And this matters in the owner’s strategic long-term balance sheet.

The owner sees Madhukar as Vibhishan and Champaklal as Kumbhakarna. Some of the practices that the owner follows are not quite ethical. He knows that Madhukar will shy away from these practices or at least demand a hefty pound of flesh in exchange.

Champaklal, aware of his low-market value, will do the unethical tasks quietly and will ask for no extra reward. Champaklal may not be as talented, but like Karna he will not be tempted by a Krishna and like Karna he will be ready to die on the battlefield. For this he needs to be rewarded.

Best leaders nurture independent decision makers

In the Ramayana, Hanuman, the monkey-god, is known as the greatest devotee of Ram. It was he who located Ram’s wife, Sita, in Lanka, after she was abducted by the Rakshasa-king, Ravan.

The story goes that after the discovery of Sita’s whereabouts, Hanuman, of his own volition, set aflame the city of Lanka. This had displeased Ram as he had no desire to hurt the residents of Lanka for the crime of their king.

Not want to displease Ram ever again, Hanuman swore never to take any decision without consulting with Ram.
This absolute obedience became so intense that it alarmed Jambuvan, the wise bear, who also served in the army of animals raised by Ram to defeat Ravan and liberate Sita.

When Hanuman was being given instructions of where he would find the Sanjivani herb that could save Ram’s brother, Laxman, from certain death after being injured in battle, Jambuvan told Ram, “Make sure to clearly tell him to come back with the herb after he finds it. Otherwise, he will find the herb and simply wait by the mountain, in complete compliance.” This was not good, Ram realised. The situation had to be rectified.

And so it came to pass, as retold in the Adbhut Ramayana, during the course of the war, Ravan’s cousin, Mahiravan, a sorcerer, managed to abduct both Ram and Laxman, and take them to Patala, his subterranean kingdom. Only Hanuman had the intellectual and physical prowess to rescue them.

He had to rely on his own wits; there was no Ram around to instruct him. He was on his own. Jambuvan realised this situation was of Ram’s own making; Hanuman was being forced to rise up to the challenge.

At one point of the rescue mission, Hanuman had to simultaneously blow out five lamps located in five corners of Patala. He solved this problem by sprouting four extra heads: that of a boar, an eagle, a lion and a horse. With five heads he could blow out five lamps located in five directions easily.

Eventually, Hanuman succeeded in rescuing Ram. He had transformed from an obedient servant to an astute independent decision-maker. He had transformed from Rambhakt to Mahavir, from god (in lower case) to God (in upper case), worthy of veneration in his own right. Ram had thus created a leader.

A time comes in every leader’s life when he has to create leaders around him. This involves making people around him competent enough to take independent decisions. But this is not easy. Every decision has consequences, not all of them acceptable to a leader. It demands tremendous restraint and maturity on a leader’s part not to intervene and change the decision made by a junior.

Hanuman’s decision of burning Lanka displeased Ram. And so after that, Hanuman stopped taking decisions. To rectify the damage done, Ram had to remove himself from the scene so that Hanuman could rediscover his decision-making abilities. A leader need not agree with a junior’s decision.

They are two different people and so may not see the same situation in the same way. But to imagine that the junior will think just like them, is many a leader’s folly. Sanjeev is one such leader.

Sanjeev’s brilliant decision making abilities have resulted in his becoming a partner in a consulting firm at a very early age. Now he has to nurture his managers and nudge them to take more responsibilities.

One manager, Sebastian, on his own decided to follow up on the status of a business proposal with a client. “Why did you do that?” shouted Sanjeev, “It can put them off.”

Another time, Sebastian gave a half day off to a management trainee who was feeling unwell. “Why did you do that?” screamed Sanjeev, “There is so much work to do.” After this, not wanting to upset his boss further, Sebastian stopped taking any decisions.

He just did what Sanjeev told him to do. During appraisals, Sanjeev said, “You need to be more proactive,” to Sebastian’s astonishment, and great irritation.

Sanjeev wants Sebastian to be proactive but any signs of proactive behaviour is immediately reprimanded. As a result, Sanjeev is surrounded by obedient followers and no leaders. Sanjeev does not trust his managers unless they think exactly like him, which is impossible.

Potential leaders, unable to handle Sanjeev’s demand for proactive behaviour followed by reprimand of all independent decisions, have left the organisation. Sebastian is planning to leave too. And he will, unless Sanjeev realises that to groom leaders he has to allow them to take decisions and stand by them, no matter what. This indicates trust. Only in trust does growth happen.

The author is the Chief Belief Officer of the Future Group who has just written Jaya: an illustrated retelling of Mahabharata (Penguin India).

Cos must realise individuals possess different skill sets, aptitude

It was a rare occasion when the Pandava brothers fought amongst each other. It began when Arjuna claimed that his weapon, the bow, was the most sophisticated weapon in the world. Bhima argued that it was his weapon, the mace, which was the most sophisticated. Yudhishtira joined in; he felt his weapon, the spear, was the best weapon created by the gods. Finally, the twins, Nakula and Sahadeva, had their say: the sword they said was the ultimate weapon. The arguments went on for days and nights, each brother defending his weapon passionately. Their teacher, Drona, watched in bewilderment.

When all the brothers were exhausted from not being able to convince others, they turned to their teacher and asked him to act as judge. “The contest reveals nothing about the weapons but it does reveal a lot about you. You are claiming what is best for you is best for the world. You are turning subjective reality into objective reality.”
Arjuna was good with the bow and so became a great archer. That does not make the bow the greatest weapon in the world. Bhima was good with the mace and so became a great mace-warrior. That does not make the mace the best weapon in the world. Each one was presenting their natural strength as an objective choice. They were functioning in hindsight – a mistake that is commonly made in companies.

Yogesh and Shailesh were having a fight. They were childhood friends. Yogesh worked in a multinational company and had done very well, rising to the rank of a director. Shailesh had started his own business and it had done very well. Yogesh felt that working in a multinational company is the best thing in the world. Shailesh felt running one’s own business is the best thing in the world. Each one argued his case logically without realising that neither possessed the other’s skill sets .

Had Yogesh started a business, it would have in all likelihood failed and Shailesh would have not survived a day working in another man’s organisation. Yogesh was great at working in an organisation and getting people to follow processes, while Shailesh was great working on his own and leading people independently. Each one was presenting his natural strengths as a rational choice. They were making these claims post-facto (after the success) but declaring it to be pre-facto (decisions taken before success).

During recruitment, young interns are placed in various departments and each departmental head declares their department to be the best department. Few sit back to wonder, is it good for the intern? Does he have the attitude and the aptitude for that department? Are we unknowingly putting the bow in Bhima’s hand and the mace in Arjuna’s? That would not lead to success.

Without either there is neither

In South Indian temple walls one often finds a character called Bhringi looking adoringly at Shiva dancing. What distinguishes Bhringi from the rest of the followers of Shiva is that he looks emaciated, just a skeleton in fact. And he has three legs, not two.

The story goes that Bhringi was a devotee of Shiva. One day, he came to Mount Kailas, the abode of Shiva, and expressed his desire to go around Shiva. As he was going around, Shiva’s consort, Shakti, said, “You cannot just go around him. You have to go around me too. We are two halves of the same truth.”

Bhringi, however, was so focussed on Shiva that he had not desire to go around Shakti. Seeing this, Shakti sat on Shiva’s lap making it difficult for Bhrigi to go around Shiva alone. Shiva, determined to go around Shiva took the form of a snake and tried to slip in between the two.

Amused by this, Shiva made Shakti one half of his body — the famous Ardhanareshwar form of Shiva. This was God whose one half is the Goddess. But Bhringi was adamant. He would go around Shiva alone. So he took the form of a rat, some say a bee, and tried to gnaw his way between the two.

This annoyed the Goddess so much that she said, “May Bhringi lose all parts of the body that come from the mother.” In Tantra, the Indian school of alchemy, it is believed that the tough and rigid parts of the body such as nerves and bones come from the father while the soft and fluid parts of the body such as flesh and blood come from the mother. Instantly, Bhrigi lost all flesh and blood and he became a bag of bones. He collapsed on the floor, unable to get up.

Bhringi realised his folly. Shiva and Shakti make up the whole. They are not independent entities. One cannot exist without the other. Without either there is neither. He apologised.

So the world never forgets this lesson, Bhrigi was denied flesh and blood forever. To enable him to stand upright he was given a third leg, so that his legs served as a tripod.

The idea of mutual inter-dependence is a consistent theme in Hindu mythology. There is no one; one is a sum-total of two. The same principle applies in the business world. It is a lesson that Ranbir was taught by his father who ran the magazine business for 30 years before retiring.

“Son,” said Ranbir, “Remember, you do not exist without the organisation and the organisation does not exist without you. Remember, your production team does not exist without your distribution team and your distribution team does not exist without the production team. The marketing team does not exist without the sales team and the sales team does not exist without the marketing team. The strategic arm does not exist without the operating arm and the operating arm does not exist without the strategic arm. One does not exist without the other. Without either there is neither.”

Unfortunately, the reality in most business houses is that the two complementary arms often become competitive. Each arm wants to prove it is more critical than the other. As a result there are silos and inter-departmental warfare. The harmony represented by Ardha-nareshwara was being lost. Arguments were about whether Shiva mattered or Shakti. More critically, who is Shiva and who is Shakti.

The Rishis represented the two halves of the universe’s male and female form to indicate mutual inter-dependence. But society engineered gender politics. The same is true for business houses. Anyone who has a bird’s eye view of the business knows the criticality of each and every arm. But those down below have an obsession of valuing one arm over the other, like Bhringi, creating imbalance to the peril of the organisation

Advise..... should be like adding salt to the dough

Today I had a wonderful experience and learnt some of the basic thing ... which I new it, but today experienced it...

Advise should be like adding salt to the dough. If you add the right quantity then the bread would taste good. If it is less then it could be eatable and one can take some thing else to compensate it ( for some this may not be required) but ..... if we add more salt then it becomes very difficult to swallow it.... this may end up in adding more wheat flour and time to compensate it. if we do not have more flour or time then the dough would be thrown in the dustbin   :(