A leaf from the Kurukshetra style of management

Of the 18 days of the Kurukshetra battle described in the Mahabharta, nine days were indecisive. The Kauravas , with 11 armies, outnumbered the seven armies of the Pandavas. For the Pandavas, it was critical that Bhisma, the old but very able commander of the Kaurava forces, be killed. 

So Krishna decided to make Shikhandi ride on his chariot alongside Arjun. Shikhandi was born with the body of a woman which later transformed into the body of a man. Bhisma believed that a creature such as this was a woman and so refused to raise his bow against her. The Kauravas protested her entry into the battlefield but the Pandavas saw Shikhandi as a man. Arjun had no qualms about using him/her a human shield, raising his bow at the invincible Bhisma and pinning him to the ground with hundreds of arrows. 

Bhisma can be seen as a man who is paralysed by his own interpretation of a situation . But any situation can be seen in many different ways. Through alternate interpretation , it is possible to challenge anyone. Defeat is inevitable if one is unable to accommodate an alternate point of view. Had Bhisma accepted that Shikhandi was a man there was no way he could have been defeated. 

Drona, the commander of the Kaurava army after Bhisma, was a ruthless killer, who broke Pandava morale by killing Arjun's son Abhimanyu and even making his soldiers fight at night, against the rule of war. To defeat him, Krishna spread the rumour that Ashwatthama was dead. Ashwatthama happened to be the name of Drona's son and Drona was extremely attached to him. 

Ashwattama was the reason for Drona's life. On hearing this rumour, his heart sank. Was his son dead? Yes, said all the Pandava warriors surrounding him. Yes, said Krishna. Drona turned to Yudhishtira, the most upright Pandava. Yudhishtira knew that the Ashwatthama being referred to was an elephant. Still he told Drona - either a man or an elephant, Ashwatthama is surely dead. 

In the din of the battle, looking at the petrified face of Yudhistira, Drona was convinced that his son was dead and that Yudhishtira gave him the strange answer to break the terrible news gently. He lowered his weapons. Taking advantage of his this, the leader of the Pandava army raised his sword and beheaded Drona. 

Drona can be seen as a man who is extremely attached to something personal . To break such a man down, that which he is attached to must be destroyed. Or at least he must be given the impression that it is destroyed. His obsession will cloud his judgement; he will not bother to delve deeper and check the facts. Many leaders have strong likes and dislikes and this can be used by corporate spin-doctors and gossip mongers to destroy relationships. Leaders have to be wary of this. They must check facts especially if the news relates to those who matter most to them. Otherwise, like Drona, they will end up beheaded. 

Shalya who became commander of the Kaurava army on the last day, had, according to the Indonesian Mahabharata , a demon that came out of his ears every time he was attacked. This demon became stronger if the attack against Shalya became more intense. To defeat Shalya, Krishna suggested that Yudhishtira fight him, not with rage but with love. So Yudhishtira walked towards Shalya with great affection. The demon in Shlaya became so weak that it could not even come out of Shalya's ears. When Yudhishtira came close to Shalya, with no malice in his heart, Yudhishtira raised his spear and impaled the last leader of the Kauravas. 

A powerful lesson here. There are people who become strong in confrontations . Such people must never be confronted. Their point must not be validated through arguments. The best way to invalidate them is to simply agree with them. This unnerves them. They come prepared to face all arguments and, in the absence of any, feel disempowered . Confused, they become vulnerable.

 

Be Good Anyway

People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered. Love them anyway. If you do good, people may accuse you of selfish motives. Do good anyway. If you are successful, you may win false friends and true enemies. Succeed anyway. The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable. Be honest and transparent anyway. What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway. People who really want help may attack you if you help them. Help them anyway. Give the world the best you have and you may get hurt. Give the world your best anyway.
Mother Teresa

Creating generosity, while moving up the ladder

One day, a king named Bhoj was passing near a field outside his city. There he observed something very peculiar. As he and his soldiers 

approached the field, the farmer of the field screamed and shouted, “Stay away, stay away, you and your horses will destroy the crops. Don’t you have any pity on poor people such as me?” Surprised by the behaviour of the cantankerous farmer, Bhoj moved away. 

But as soon as he turned his back, the farmer changed his tune to say, “Where are you going, my king? Please come to my field, let me water your horses and feed your soldiers . Surely you will not say no to the hospitality of this humble farmer?” 

Not wanting to hurt the farmer, though amused by his turnaround, Bhoj once again moved towards the field. Again the farmer shouted, “Hey, go away. Your horses and your soldiers are damaging what is left of my crop. You wicked king, go away.” Bhoj once again turned away. Again the farmer changed his tune, “Hey, why are you turning away? Come back. You are my guests. Let me have the honour of serving you.”

Bhoj wondered what was happening. This happened a few more times. Bhoj observed the farmer carefully. He noticed that whenever the farmer was rude, he was standing on the ground. But whenever he was hospitable, he was standing on top of a mound in the middle of the field. Bhoj realised that the farmer’s split personality had something to do with the mound. He immediately ordered his soldiers to dig the mound in the centre of the field. Naturally, the farmer did not like this and began protesting. But Bhoj paid scant attention to him. 

Within the mound, the soliders found a wonderful golden throne. As Bhoj was about to sit on it, the throne spoke up, “This is the throne of Vikramaditya, the great. Sit on it only if you are as generous and wise as he was. If not, you will meet your death on the throne.” The throne then proceeds to tell Bhoj thirty-two stories of Vikramaditya, each extolling a virtue of kingship, the most important virtue being generosity. Thus through these stories, Bhoj learnt 

what it takes to be a good king. 

The “32 tales of Vikramaditya’s throne” is part of Indian folklore. They are often inappropriately referred to as children’s stories, but in fact they were never meant to entertain children ; they were meant to shape the mind of future leaders. 

And so very few people notice the most interesting part of this story —what does the king’s throne do the farmer? It makes him generous. The farmer is insecure and selfish when on the ground. As soon as he is on top of the mound, he becomes generous. On the ground, he is the common man. On top of the mound, he is what a king should be. 

The second part of the story is equally interesting . The throne does not let Bhoj sit on it. “Are you as worthy and generous as Vikramaditya ?” it asks through its many stories. So we are left wondering — does the throne transform a man into a king, hence generous, or must a man first transform into a generous soul and thus become worthy of the throne? 

Either way, generosity seems to the hallmark of kingship, hence leadership, at least in Indian folklore. 

Animals do not give. They can only take. Through strength and cunning, they take food and shelter, in order to survive. Humans however can give food and shelter enabling others not only to survive but also to thrive. Thus generosity is most peculiar to humans; and the one who displays it most magnificently, is recognised as king. A king or leader is ‘creator of opportunities’. 

Manifestations of power to emerge

What do we seek from an organization? Wealth? Yes. Knowledge and skills? Yes. Anything else? Power? Well...we will never admit it but organisations create the framework that allow for various manifestations of power to emerge. They create bosses and subordinates, team members and team leaders, dotted line and solid line reporting. 

But power is one thing we never discuss openly. We shy away from it — perhaps because it is not tangible or measurable. Yet empowerment and disempowerment can make or break an organisation, making it perhaps more powerful than economic and intellectual resources. 

In Hindu mythology, all that which can be transacted between two human beings takes the form of three goddesses: Laxmi, Saraswati and Durga. Laxmi is the goddess of wealth; Saraswati is the goddess of knowledge. Durga is Shakti, the goddess of power. 

The first two goddesses are easy to identify and well acknowledged by organisations. Lakshmi appeals to the wallet and Saraswati to the head. One manifests as topline, bottomline , growth, equity, market capital, payslip, perks and reimbursements while the other manifests as intellectual property, formulas, methods, processes, training, learning and experience. Lakshmi can be given and taken ; Saraswati can be given but not taken. But what about Durga? Can she be given or taken? 

Durga is shown killing a buffalo and typically we are told that she is killing the demon, the bad guy, the villain, the evil person and some say, the ego. So Durga then becomes about courage and bravery to protect ourselves from threats. 

But why do we need protection? What are these threats? Implicit in the idea of protection is the idea of fear. The existence of Durga pre-supposes that all humans are afraid, and hence are in need of security. For that we need power — weapons to make us feel safe. 

Power then becomes the antidote to the poison of fear. In fact, it transforms itself into the currency of all emotions. Give it to create security, take it away to create insecurity. Give too much power and the secure can get arrogant. 

Everyone knows how power has made people corrupt. Everyone knows how organisations become dysfunctional when employers and employees start playing power games. The craving for wealth and the control of information then becomes rather outrightly just an ugly manifestation of underlying power games. 

When asked what they seek from bosses, most employees admit it is not money or knowledge: it is usually emotional comfort, a sense of security. In other words, they seek power. Likewise, what do bosses seek from employees — respect , obedience, creativity, involvement. Both sides seek power. This is one transaction where each one has the infinite capacity to give, and take. 

All over India, Durga is worshipped as mother, a term rarely associated with the goddesses of wealth and knowledge. She is Amman in the South, Ma in the East, Ai in the West, Mata in the North. In Tamil Nadu, in temples such as Kamakshi of Kanchi and Meenakshi of Madurai, she is depicted holding not weapons but sugarcanes and a parrot. 

Sugarcane and parrots are symbols associated with Kama, the god of love and desire. Why is the goddess of power holding the symbol associated with Kama? What is the relationship between the trident-bearing mother and the sugarcanebearing mother? Are they the same? What has love got to do with power? 

In love, we feel secure, unthreatened. In love, we don’t feel invalidated or insignificant . We feel we are allowed to be ourselves . We feel powerful. In other words, love happens when the power games stop. Then there is intimacy, a willingness to accept and admit the truth. There is no need to be afraid. There is no desire to destroy anything. In love, the trident is lowered and the sugarcane is raised. 

This is most evident in Paradise Cafe, a small restaurant next to the Central Bus Depot. The Café has a workforce of seven — two cooks who prepare the tea, coffee and simple snacks, two cleaners, two waiters and one manager. The manager is in charge of purchase, cashiering and overall administration. 

The tasks are well known and the pay is minimal. But the working conditions were very different when Sandeep was the manager as compared to now, when Dinesh is the manager. In Sandeep’s time, everybody hated the job. It was a day filled with screaming, shouting, swear words. 

They were kicked awake in the morning and they were abused right until it was time to sleep. Life was hell. But with not many options in the neighborhood, all six employees clung to the job and carried out their duties, accepting that this was their lot in life. Then Sandeep had to move back to his village; his father was ill. The proprietor appointed Dinesh as the manager. 

At first Dinesh was met with hostility and suspicion. But then, things changed. Dinesh had a way with words. He cracked jokes, made everyone feel valued and important. He praised the cooks, the cleaners, the waiters. He admonished them when work did not happen, but never in a way that took away their dignity. 

Every evening after work, they sat together and chatted about their lives and dreams. Sometimes they even sang songs. The pay was still minimal, the tasks still the same, the work back-breaking . Yet, it was a happy little organisation. What changed? Lakshmi ? No. Saraswati? No. Durga? Yes. 

Suddenly, the organisation was filled with a sense of emotional security. People felt safe and loved and protected. Dinesh would take care of them. He held the sugarcane and the trident – with the sugarcane he attracted positive vibes; with the trident he kept away negative vibes. No one in his team felt invalidated, insignificant or vulnerable. 

Organisations often forget that at the core of the human being is fear — fear of invalidation, fear of impermanence, fear of insignificance. It is this fear that propels us to be who we are. It influences our behavior. Makes us ambitious, clever, cunning, generous, stingy for wealth and knowledge and affection. Emotion, not wealth or knowledge, is what makes and breaks relationships. 

Organisations need to ask: what makes a boss rude and obnoxious? What makes him considerate and kind? What makes a subordinate proactive? What makes a subordinate shirk work? Usually answers are sought in measurable things — earnings and trainings. But the answer perhaps lies in the Durga being transacted between people.

Management Advise from the World Chess champion Vishwanath Anand

Vishy has the moves for biz pawns too The King Of Chess Gives Readers Of ET Seven Lessons: Simple & PowerfulIT is not everyday that the world's greatest in the most popular gameof the mind lets you in on moves that will help you excel in thebusiness world. So pause and take a deep breath. Be prepared to chewon every word said, for every sentence could be a rung to rise in thecorporate world. Viswanathan Anand, the just crowned king of chess,gave a master class to ET on how to become the best in business byusing some of his strategies and tactics.Vishy Anand occupied centre stage in the Indian chess scene when hebecame the youngest Indian to win the international master title atthe age of 15 years, in 1984. He went on to win more titles since. Thecrowning glory came this year in Mexico City, when Anand became theundisputed world chess champion. One would expect a sportsperson touse the most eloquent terms to weave business and chess. However,Anand chose to bring out the parallels in a simple, straightforwardmanner frequently interspersed with examples and anecdotes.Some of them might seem counter-intuitive. Take for example: "A lot ofchess players get too absorbed in the game, and try to get to thebottom of it. But, that's essentially a distraction." This might flyin the face of perfectionists — it's not the perfectionists who getthe market share, but those who give the right stuff at the righttime. Or take his views on tension — it helps you concentrate and bealert. Those who espouse relaxation and wellness classes mightdisagree. But it's the likes of Anand who keep chanting 'I should notrelax' who manage to conquer world championships. For those of youwondering why some of the best laid plans go awry, his tip toconstantly think in terms of opponents — what will 'he' do, how will'he' react — might throw some light.It's also about your competitor's plansBUSINESS is not about your plans; it's also about your competitor'splans. The practice of going back home and analysing the game —objectively, by casting a cold eye on your advantages, 'by beingmerciless to yourself' — is how you become a better chess player, andhow you become a great manager or a businessman.Anand gives the readers of ET seven lessons — simple and powerful.Know what your goals are — seeking perfection might be a distraction:In chess, you have to learn what your goal is. Win the game, scorepoints. It is a fascinating game and you can get lost in it. But thegoal is not to make the perfect move, not to get into the bottom of aposition. It's simply to trick the opponent to win the game. Again,you have to make your best decisions in two hours. A lot of chessplayers get too absorbed in the game and try to get to the bottom ofit. But, that's essentially a distraction.Strive for objectivity — you may be optimistic or pessimistic, but berealistic: In chess, two players can look at the same position andcome up with completely different ideas. But, if you are excessivelyoptimistic or pessimistic, you will lose a lot of points. Some chessplayers tend to feel lucky, and decide they can take a gamble. Buteven then, you must know where you stand. First analyse your positionand get an objective feel of it. Objectivity is not the face you showto outside world — it's a face you show to yourself. If I am cheatingmyself, it's not going to work. Still in the heat of the game, it'sdifficult to be objective. You tend to get emotional. So, it'simportant to develop the habit of analysing after a chess game. Now,your information is complete. You cannot hide anything. Remember, anadvantage need not be an advantage at all times. Being realistic isnot easy. It demands constant analytical work. Be merciless withyourself. That is when you grow as a chess player.Feel the pressure, but don't worry about things you can't control:Tension helps you concentrate well. Being relaxed might be dangerous.Often, after a wild success you will have a failure. Winning the fifthround recently, an important game, relaxed me so much that I lost thenext two games. You might say to yourself, I shouldn't relax. But it'sdifficult. Performance goes down with satisfaction. When you have thatfeeling, you will not think of the optimal move. You will make easymoves. When you are relaxed, you are off-guard, your sense of dangercomes down. After every success you should be wary of becoming toorelaxed. The way out is to be engrossed in your subject. There is nopoint in worrying about things you can't control. That's wherephysical exercises help. But before the game is when you worry most.That's where sleep helps. Right before game I have a nap. I wake up,have a shower, and go to the board. Then I am relaxed, but not in abad way.Know your opponent — what is his goal, what are his favourite lines,is he deviating, why? Look beyond the board for information: Chess isall about applying game theory. You always think in terms of what youropponent will do, how he will respond to your moves. Again, in chess,most people specialise in something. Nobody does everything.Understanding that is important. If your opponent does something outof his normal range, ask yourself why? And the answer could be — he'snow trying to specialise in a new area; he's trying to expand hisgame; his favourite line, at the moment, is in trouble and he's notdone repair work or he could be bluffing. So even if the lines thatare not my favourite ones , I keep a bird's eye view. When he makes achoice you don't expect, you have all this extra information. When thegame is on, don't look just at the board, also look at your opponent.You get a lot of information from the body language of your opponent,and that could be important. But you must not become obsessed withthat. Analysis and sharpen intuition: Intuition is often used as asubstitute for calculation. If there is some move that's winning, andyou know it's winning, that's not intuition. Intuition is when youmake leaps into the dark. But it's very difficult to draw linesbetween intuition and strategic thinking. If you calculate a lot, evenif you don't get till the end, your guess is going to be better. Expand your horizons — there might be some gems in the garbage youhave discarded: In chess, we humans generally analyse two positionsper second. Computers can analyse two three million positions persecond. Even at two positions per second, we can compete withcomputers. But at some point, the number gets so large that we missall the exceptions. If something doesn't work six out of 10 times, wediscard it. But computers constantly look for unusual moves — and canbeat us on the exceptions. We discard the rubbish efficiently. Butthat rubbish is not all rubbish. There could be a lot of gems in that.Very often a computer will tell you something that challenges youropinion. Computers can help you expand your horizons. Also, you needto collaborate. Ten people will always have more ideas than one. When you lose, move on to the next battle: Handling defeat isusually just impossible. You are totally depressed and the defeat isgoing over and over like a tape in your head. It's useful to learn tobe disciplined and put it out of your head. Perhaps it's in businesslife as well. You have to say 'okay, this battle is over' and move onto the next one.

Mahabharata inside the house

When a family business breaks down, one is reminded of an old Indian tradition: never read the Mahabharata inside the house, always the Ramayan. For the Mahabharata is the tale of a household divided while the latter is the story of a household united. The Ramayan speaks of three sets of brothers: those of Ram, those of Sugriv and those of Ravan. An exploration of the relationship of these three sets of brothers throws light on that one principle which can make or break a household or indeed any organisation. Ram is asked to give up his claim to the throne and go into the forest so that his younger brother, Bharat, can be king in his stead. Ram does so without remorse or regret. Bharat, however, refuses to take a kingdom obtained through this mother’s guile. He chooses to serve as regent until Ram’s return. Another brother, Lakshmana, follows Ram into the forest to share his suffering and give him company. Sugriv is driven out of his kingdom, Kishkinda, by his own brother, Vali. The two brothers were supposed to share their father’s throne but following a misunderstanding , Vali is convinced that his brother wants the kingdom all for himself and in fury, drives away Sugriv, ruling out all possibilities of reconciliation . Ravan too drives out his brother, Kuber , to become king of Lanka. But neither has he any inheritance rights over Lanka nor is there any misunderstanding between him and Kuber. His is an action purely motivated by sibling rivalry. When Ravan abducts Ram’s wife, Sita, one of his brothers, Vibhishan, turns away from him on moral grounds but another brother, Kumbhakarn, stays loyal to him. The epic asks: who is the good brother ? Is it the selfless Ram, the upright Bharat or the obedient Lakshman? Who is the bad brother – Sugriv who uses Ram to kill Vali ? The ambitious Ravan, the traitor Vibhishan or the loyal Kumbhakarn? The answer is not simple as it first appears. Ram gives up his claim to the throne not out of brotherly love but because dharma demands he respect his father wish that he give up his claim to the throne. Bharat returns Ayodhya not out of love for Ram but because dharma frowns upon trickery. Yes, Lakshman follows Ram out of filial love but later in the epic Ram teaches him a tough lesson. One day, Ram asks Lakshman not to let anyone enter his chambers as he is giving a private audience to Kala, the god of time. Lakshman obeys saying , “I shall kill whoever tries to d i s t u r b you.” No sooner is the door shut than Rishi Durvasa, renowned for his temper, demands a meeting with Ram. Lakshman tries to explain the situation. “I don’t care,” says an impatient and enraged Durvasa, “If I don’t see the king of Ayodhya this very minute I shall curse his kingdom with drought and misfortune.” At that moment Lakshmana wonders what matters more: his love for his brother which manifests as obedience or a royal family’s duty to protect their kingdom? He concludes that Ayodhya is more important and so opens the door to announce Durvasa, interrupting Ram’s meeting, an act for which he has to, to be true to his own enthusiastic declaration, kill himself. Inside, Lakshman finds Ram alone. No sign of Kala. Outside there is no Durvasa . Lakshmana realises this was Ram’s way of saying that dharma matters more than filial love or obedience . But what is dharma? It is often translated to mean duty or r i g h t e o u s c o n d u c t . But at a fundamental level, dharma is what disting u i s h e s man from animals; it is what makes man human. All other living creatures subscribe to matysa nyaya or law of the jungle: might is right. But man is capable of reversing the law. In human society might need not be right. The weak can have rights too. Even the feeble can thrive. An ideal human society is one based not on power and domination as in nature, but on the very opposite — love and generosity. Vali does not display this love and generosity when he is eager to believe the worst about Sugriv. Ram does not tolerate this. When Ram kills Vali, Vali says, “I could have saved Sita from you because I am stronger than Ravan.” To this, Ram replies, “I killed you not to gain an ally in Sugriv but to establish the law of Bharat.” Bharat here refers to Ram’s brother, temporary regent of Ayodhya and ‘law of Bharat’ means dharma , the code of civilisation, that Ram’s family has subscribed to for generations. Vali then accuses Ram of killing him unfairly while he was engaged in a duel with Sugriv. In response, Ram says, “Fighting for the dominant position is the way of animals. Those who choose to live by the law of the jungle must allow themselves to be killed by the law of the jungle, which makes no room for fair play. By destroying you I will, through Sugriv, institute the law of Bharat in this land so that henceforth the mighty do not dominate the meek.” Ravan, though highly educated, also does not subscribe to dharma when he drives his own brother out of Lanka and claims his throne. This behaviour of domination and force, suitable for animals but unsuitable for humans, is repeated when he abducts Ram’s wife, Sita. Loyalty to Ravan is not about loyalty – it is about rejection of dharma. That is why Ram kills Kumbhakarn and makes Vibhishan king of Lanka. Ramayan is an epic about what humans can be. By destroying Vali and Ravan, Ram destroys the animal instinct of domination . That is why Vali is called a monkey and Ravan a demon while Ram is purushottama , the perfection of man. The epic never makes a virtue of brotherly love or loyalty. It transcends such myopic views on relationships and prescribes dharma to truly binds a family together. And dharma is all about giving, not taking . It is about duty to the world, not individual or family rights. It is about love for all, not power for a few. It is about affection not domination. The epic indicates that the pressure of love and loyalty cannot bind family businesses and organisations . True unity can happen only when one abandons the power hierarchy , when one neither dominates nor gets dominated.

Managing multiple bosses, Lesson from Draupadi.

Draupadi, the great heroine of the Mahabharat, never really chose her husband. Her father, king of Panchal, had organised an archery contest and she was the prize. She thought she was marrying a rishi with archery skills (the Pandavas were in disguise) and so it came as a pleasant surprise when the man who she married turned out to be a prince called Arjuna. Just as Draupadi did not choose her husband, most of us do not choose our bosses. What is presented during the interview may not be what emerges post induction. Things may either be a pleasant surprise or a rude shock. Whatever be the case, one has to find a way to work with the boss. Failure to get along with bosses remains one of the main reasons for attrition. But while divorce is an option in the corporate world, it reeks of poor management skills, on the part of both, the ‘husband’ and the ‘wife’. We might resent the equation of boss with husband — it is sexist for it assumes a power play with the husband in a dominant position. But political correctness aside, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are functional role assignments that makes understanding easier. Besides it is better to assume that the world is patriarchal and feudal, and navigate successfully through it, rather than wish the world was otherwise, and end up sinking in frustration. In deference to his mother’s wishes, Arjuna agreed to share his wife with his four brothers. And so, Draupadi became the wife of the five Pandavas. The excuse given for this is that Arjuna obeyed his mother who, thinking her son had brought home a ‘fruit’, asked him to share ‘it’ with the brothers. But an implied reason for this is that the mother did not want a beautiful woman like Draupadi to spawn jealousy and rupture the bond between her five sons. A talented individual in the corporate world, whether he likes it or not, does become a shared resource between many teams and many departments and it bodes him well to recognise he is a Draupadi with many ‘husbands’ – there is the reporting boss, then there is the super-boss, the dottedline boss, the de jour boss and the de facto boss. He has to manage all the ‘husbands’ as Draupadi managed her five.
In the Vana Parva of the Mahabharata, Satyabhama, wife of Krishna, asks Draupadi, “Most women can barely manage to get control of one husband; you have managed to secure the affections of all five. What is your secret? Is it magic? Is it a spell?” Draupadi replied, “It is not magic. It is not a spell. It is hard work. I wake up before them and sleep after them, and spend every waking hour taking care of them, serving them, solving their problems, meeting all their needs, making sure they want for nothing. It is I who manage their affairs. It is I who manage their cows, their servants, their fields, their forests, their treasury and their wealth. It is I who take care of their mother, their guests, their friends and their sons. I do everything they ask me to do. I do things for them even before they ask for it. With me around, they need worry about nothing. I never nag or complain. That is how I have managed to earn their devotion and their affection.” Draupadi made her husbands dependent on her. She was the reliable one, consistently trustworthy. With her around, they had to worry about nothing. With her by their side, the Pandavas gathered the courage to ask the Kauravas for their half of the family property. In exchange Draupadi got what she wanted: absolute control over the Pandava household; no other woman (each Pandava had many wives) was allowed to live in their palace or enter her kitchen. A successful subordinate is like a Draupadi, who ensures that the boss does exactly as he wishes — all the while making the boss feel it is his decision. Each of Draupadi’s husbands had a different personality: Yudhishtira was self-righteous, Bhima was volatile, Arjuna was insecure, Nakula was narcissistic and Sahadeva, intellectual. That each one was devoted to her indicates she was successful in being what each one of them wanted her to be. She could not have done this if she behaved the same way with each one. She clearly flexed her style repeatedly, behaving in five different ways for the five very different brothers. But how she did what she did is never revealed, for Draupadi never let anyone, not even the storyteller, into her bedchambers when she was with one husband. What transpired between her and each of her husbands was not meant for public consumption. Secrecy in a boss-subordinate relationship is critical; no one else, least of all other bosses, must know how the others are being managed. One can only assume that Draupadi adored her husbands for what they were, as a good subordinate is supposed to adore even the most insufferable of his bosses.

The Virata Parva is the chapter describing the final year of the forest exile, when the Pandavas and their common wife had to live disguised as servants in the palace of king Virata. In it, one discovers how Draupadi used the different personalities of her husbands to her advantage. Virata’s lout of a brother-in-law, Kichaka, publicly abused Draupadi but Yudhishtira, witness to his wife’s humiliation, refused to help. “Be prudent,” he said, “We cannot risk discovery till the year is over.” Draupadi was not angry with her first husband; he had behaved predictably. She went to another husband who would avenge her humiliation. Not her favourite, Arjuna, who would never disobey the elder brother, but the powerful Bhima. Bhima would, when goaded enough, do whatever Draupadi asked him to do, even kill Kichaka, or drink the blood of the Kauravas, paying little heed to Yudhishtira, or rules of social propriety.

Is Draupadi the ideal subordinate? Every boss will say, “No”, for who would want an intelligent, manipulative and powerful subordinate? People always prefer a subordinate like Sita – the faithful and submissive wife of Ramayan’s Ram, who endures all silently and never speaks against her husband, a contrast from Draupadi who screams when abused, who demands vengeance, who publicly humiliates her husbands when they do not come to her aid and who does not shy away from telling her five husbands they have failed to satisfy her, individually or collectively. So if you feel, at the end of this article, you want to manage your boss or your bosses, as Draupadi managed her husbands, there is one golden rule you must keep in mind – be like Draupadi, but always behave like Sita.
_____________

Difference between Focusing on Problems and Focusing on Solutions

Case 1
When NASA began the launch of astronauts into space, they found out that the pens wouldn't work at zero gravity (ink won't flow down to the writing surface). To solve this problem, it took them one decade and $12 million. They developed a pen that worked at zero gravity, upside down, underwater, in practically any surface including crystal and in a temperature range from below freezing to over 300 degrees C. And what did the Russians do...?? .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They used a pencil.

Case 2
One of the most memorable case studies on Japanese management was the case of the empty soapbox, which happened in one of Japan's biggest cosmetics companies. The company received a complaint that a consumer had bought a soapbox that was empty. Immediately the authorities isolated the problem to the assembly! line, which transported all the packaged boxes of soap to the delivery department. For some reason, one soapbox went through the assembly line empty. Management asked its engineers to solve the problem. Post-haste, the engineers worked hard to devise an X-ray machine with high-resolution monitors manned by two people to watch all the soapboxes that passed through the line to make sure they were not empty. No doubt, they worked hard and they worked fast but they spent a whoopee amount to do so. But when a rank-and-file employee in a small company was posed with the same problem, he did not get into complications of X-rays, etc.,
You Know what he did
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . but instead came out with another solution. He bought a strong
industrial electric fan and pointed it at the assembly line. He switched the fan on, and as each soapbox passed the fan, it simply blew the empty boxes out of the line.

Moral : Always look for simple solutions.

Devise the simplest possible solution that solves the problems. Always Focus on solutions & not on problems.
At the end of the day, what really matters is HOW ONE LOOKS AT THE PROBLEM….good perceptions can solve tough problems.

Good HR Management Lesson

When Alpesh took over as the manager of a huge multiplex in a Tier 2 Indian town, he suddenly found himself heading a team of forty people.Some he liked instantly. Some he did not. Some he found positivelyrepulsive. But he did not have the luxury of firing anyone. He had towork with all of them. And he wondered how? And strangely he found hisanswer in astrology. Not in the content, but in the structure.As a child he was taught that in Hindu mythology, Devas are good andAsuras are bad. But whenever his mother made him visit the shrinededicated to the Nava-Grahas , the nine gods of Indian astrology , hefound there not only Devas and their guru, Brihaspati, but also twoAsuras, namely Rahu and Ketu, and their guru, Shukra. In all prayersand rituals, the two 'demons' are acknowledged and included as equals.He was told that all Grahas matter. Good or bad, they formed a teamand none could be excluded. It dawned on Alpesh that before him werehis Nava-Grahas (not nine but forty) and he had to find a way to workwith all of them. Exclusion was not an option.Alpesh knew that each Graha had a particular characteristic and thiscould not be changed. Like the Grahas, every member of his team had apeculiar characteristic that did not change no matter how many timesthey were counselled or trained. Some were like Surya, the Sun,radiant, glorious, and attention grabbing. Some were like the Moon orChandra, highly emotional, with moods constantly waxing and waning.Some were aggressive like Mars or Mangal. Some were sharp,intelligent, good in communication, but slippery like Mercury or Budh.The Jupiters or Brihaspatis were rational, scientific , evidencedriven and boring. The Venus or Shukras were sensual , creative,intuitive, creative and crazy. The Saturns or Shanis were brilliantbut cynical, hence lacking a sense of urgency, testing Alpesh's patience.Alpesh did not like the Rahus of his team, who hid things, blockedideas, created darkness and spread confusion. He did not like therestless and nervous Ketus either because they had no sense ofdirection. Like the Grahas, Alpesh has to either enhance or neutralisethe traits of his people as the situation demanded.Alpesh began to see his organisation as the sky, divided into lunarhouses (nakshatras) and solar houses (rashis or the zodiac). Thefinance , HR, marketing, sales, research , service and housekeepingdepartments were starry constellations inhabited by his Grahas. Justas a Graha exerts its influence on the house it occupies, and by doingso influences a person's fate, Alpesh's team members exerted theirinfluence on their respective departments and thereby affected theoverall working of the organisation.If his cashier was a Brihaspati then everything was donesystematically and rationally, if he was a Shurka then the work wasassociated with great ingenuity. A Shani cashier never did things ontime while a Ketu cashier was always nervous and restless.The question that naturally emerged in his mind was — which Graha wasgood for a job? The answer depended on the outcome he desired and therole a department had to play. There were times he needed a Rahuheading the HR department to hide the actual goings on and there weretimes he needed a very transparent Surya.Initially he wanted his promotions to be managed by an aggressiveMangal who could get things done. Later he needed a more sensitiveChandra, who understood the needs of the consumer. Situations , Alpesh realised, madea Graha good or bad. He stopped judging people. He focused onanalysing situations and fitting people to the problem at hand.In astrology, great value is given to the relative position of Grahasto each other. Sometimes a Graha can enhance the power of another Graha and sometimes they can negate each other and sometimes theentire combination has an overall positive or negative effect. This iscalled yog, an understanding of which helped Alpesh in designingteams. Homogeneity was out of the question.A team full of creative Shukras or full of detached Shanis led todisaster. Heterogeneity was critical but careful attention had to paidto inter-team dynamics. Keeping an aggressive Mangal with a restlessKetu was nothing short of a prescription for disaster. For ideas,Alpesh needed creative Shukras but for implementation he neededorganised Brihaspatis. For vendor negotiations, the intelligent andsweet talking Budh helped and for crowd management teams he reliedonly on powerful Mangals.Success then was a combination of several factors. First, the natureof the Graha. Secondly, the house that was occupied by the Graha.Thirdly, the relative position of the Grahas. Finally, and mostimportantly , the problem at hand and the outcome desired. No teamcould solve all problems. The team that could handle the weekend rushwas unable to cope with the weekday monotony. The team that came upwith innovative ways to solve the water crisis in the multiplex wasunable to solve the problem of irate customers.Alpesh noticed that much of his success depended on his power ofobservation — of people, relationships and situations. He was becomingIndra, the god of the sky, the one with a hundred eyes. Hisobservations helped him determine the role and responsibility of eachperson. It helped him determine team composition.It helped him take calls and know who had to be a leader and when. Herealised there was no perfect horoscope with the perfect placement ofGrahas. It was all contextual and it was all ever changing. Sometimes,despite all cautious moves, things went wrong. At those times, he found someone always came up with an upaay, that trick astrologersalways have up their sleeve to counter the malevolent influence of anyGraha to resolve any crisis.Thanks to this visualisation of his organisation as the sky with fixedstars and floating Grahas, Alpesh stopped getting annoyed with theShanis and Mangals in his team. He found value in each one. Demons inone situation were gods in another . It made sense to worship thecollective and celebrate diversity.

Invoking the Goddess *****

According to the Puranas, when Brahma creates the world, the Goddessappears as Saraswati, embodiment of knowledge, serene and aloof,dressed in white, holding a lute and a book, riding a heron. WhenVishnu sustains the world, the Goddess appears as Lakshmi, stunningand alluring, dressed in red, bedecked in jewels, holding a pot thatpours out gold and grain, riding an elephant that rises from a lotuslake.When Shiva destroys the world by shutting his eyes to it, the Goddessbecomes Shakti – alternating as the naked and bloodthirsty Kali, who danced on his still body, and as the demure and maternal Gauri, whomade him open his eyes with her affection.Saraswati, Lakshmi and Shakti are the three forms of the Goddess. They embody knowledge, wealth and power. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the three forms of God who create, sustain and destroy.

Now observe carefully.
The Goddesses are associated with nouns:knowledge, wealth and power.
The Gods are associated with verbs:creating, sustaining, destroying . Knowledge/wealth/power can becreated/sustained /destroyed. Knowledge/wealth/power provides thecapability to create /sustain/destroy. Action is with the Gods — theresult of the action is the Goddess who in turn provokes more action.God is the subject; Goddess the object. Before we jump to outragedgender-based conclusions (" the scriptures are patriarchal and that iswhy they portray God, hence men, as active and Goddess, hence women,as passive" ), note that Gods and Goddesses are embodiments ofnongender based concepts that seek to enlighten, enrich and empower. Aleader, whether it is a man or a woman, is God — the organisation isthe Goddess.The reason why the world/organisation is visualised in female form isbecause just as a woman creates life inside her body, aworld/organisation creates knowledge/wealth/power inside itself. Man creates life outside his body; therefore man is the bestrepresentation for the one who creates, sustains, destroys thelife-giving organisation.God and Goddess, leader and organisation , cannot exist without theother. Without either there is neither. He or she can only create,sustain or destroy . What is created, sustained or destroyed isknowledge , wealth and power, which in turn offers more opportunitiesto create, sustain and destroy.Typically, in the corporate world we assume that a leader exists tocreate wealth — he is Brahma creating Lakshmi. But a Brahma creatingLakshmi will fail, in the long run, because he is too busy creating tobother with sustenance.We often find fly-by-night operators in the business world who findvalidation in making that quick buck. These are the Brahmas of theworld, desperate to get rich quick, without thinking aboutsustainability.A good leader is a Brahma who creates Saraswati — knowledge. Knowledgemanifests as innovation and ideas and inspiration . That is whySaraswati holds not just books and memory beads but also the lute withwhich she makes music. Knowledge appearing as insight provokes asystemic transformation in people. A good leader is constantly seekingwisdom, within himself and others.Once Chandragupta was very hungry. The moment rice was served, he puthis hand right in the centre of the pile. His fingers got singed andhe withdrew instantly. "Never from the centre, child," said his guru,Chanakya. "Always from the sides where it is cooler." Chandraguptarealised his master was not telling him about rice alone. He waswarning him against his planned attack on Pataliputra , the capital ofthe Nanda Empire. It was a well guarded fortress. Better to go fromthe sides, conquer the surrounding , less formidable territories and gradually move in on the centre of power.This insight made Chandragupta a great general. He was able tooverthrow the Nandas and become ruler of the Magadhan Empire. It wasknowledge that made him king of a prosperous king. His hunger forwisdom made knowledge appear before him. By becoming Brahma, hediscovered Saraswati and so was able to become Vishnu with Lakshmimanifesting as his crown and kingdom.It is said that Vishnu keeps Saraswati on his tongue. This makesLakshmi jealous. She rushes towards him and plants herself in hisheart. Vishnu knows that the fickle Lakshmi will leave as soon asSaraswati leaves his tongue. Thus to sustain Lakshmi, he needsSaraswati. Good leaders know that to sustain their business theyconstantly need to inspire, motivate people and at the same timeinnovate new products and services that will delight the customer.Lakshmi will come into the company where Saraswati thrives.Knowledge management systems, databases, research documents, patentsare all tangible forms of Saraswati. A good leader focuses on them,rather than on account books. He ensures the Saraswati that isgenerated within the organisation stays within the organisation. Inother words, by being Brahma who creates Saraswati he remains Vishnuwho sustains Lakshmi.With knowledge and wealth, comes power and arrogance . The belief thatone is invincible and capable of doing anything. When this happens,the organisation becomes naked and bloodthirsty – provoking the leaderto act rashly and indiscriminately, indifferent to all rules ofconduct, making him believe that he is above the law. In other words,the organisation becomes Kali. A good leader recognises this rapidlyand becomes Shiva.He has to destroy the rising ego and arrogance that blinds goodjudgement. He shuts his eyes and lies still, allowing the Goddess to dance on him but refusing to respond to her. Only then the Goddessbecomes Gauri — dressed in green, she becomes maternal andaffectionate , and with gentleness she requests Shiva to open his eyesand become Shankar, the benevolent, boon-bestowing , wise ascetic.Thus a good leader has to be fully sensitive to the corruptinginfluence of power — and try hard not to succumb to it.Ultimately to establish a knowledge, wealth and power generatingorganisation, a leader has to be a teacher, a king and an ascetic allrolled into one.

When the three Gods thrive inside, the three Goddess will thrive outside.

We are our own worst enemies

By whom, consciousness (mind, senses and body) of the self has been conquered by the self, his consciousness is a friend, and for whom, who has not conquered the consciousness, his consciousness remains an enemy of the self", says Bhagavad Gita. So what should one do? "One should deliver the self by the self; shouldn't degrade the self, because a person is a friend of the self as well as an enemy of the self". (Gita, 6.6 &6.5)

But what do we generally see? Many persons reach high levels of excellence in different fields and attain wealth, fame, power, etc, but succumb to the temptations of flesh, pride, vengeance and so on. One famous example comes readily to the mind. Ravana was a very accomplished brahmin. It is said that Lord Shiva had personally honoured Ravana besides giving him an important boon. Ravana, however, became very proud, so much so that he decided to kidnap Sitaji. Later on he was advised by nearly all his near and dear ones, but he wouldn't retract. We know what happened to him ultimately. What is there to learn from this famous example? There are two parts in becoming successful. The first part is to put the necessary hard work, which many are able to do. The second part is the more difficult of the two, that is to stay on course. Any success, including in the spiritual field, gives the feeling of invincibility and a sense of superiority.

No wonder Lord Krishna has warned in the Bhagavad Gita, "Out of thousands, hardly anyone strives for perfection. Out of those striving, hardly anyone reaches perfection". (7.3) Why is it so? Because success, any success has the potency to make one proud, to look down upon others, and in many cases to become revengeful; that is how one makes progress and spoils it. Why? Because one is deluded into believing that one is highly intelligent. "How else could such success have been achieved?" one thinks. Then one assumes that he or she can get away with such transgressions. Even pseudo-spiritualists do this.

So what should one do? Be like a tree which bears fruits: the more laden with fruits it is, the lower its branches will bend. Become humble and stay humble. And better still, surrender to God. He shall be one's guide. God promises such help. Lord Krishna has declared in the Bhagavad Gita: "Those people who worship Me with undeviated attention, meditating on Me, of those regular practitioners of yoga, I undertake attainment of what one does not have and security of what one has."

Don't be paralysed by fear

Last friday, Shivkumar got his transfer orders and he is upset. For years he has served the company loyally, not taken a single day’s leave, made it to office even when he had fever. He has worked diligently and never been late to office, doing all his work, even that of others, staying back in office and leaving only after his boss had left, making sure that everything is in order. All his life he had stayed in Lucknow, in his family house. He walked to work and enjoyed the neighbourhood. Now this! How could they do this to him? How could they transfer him to Allahabad ? Yes, the new office needed to be set up, but why him? Surely they could send someone junior, or someone more experienced in setting up new offices? He had not taken a promotion so that he could stay here. He was willing to take a pay cut to stay here. He just did not want to go to Allahabad. But the new boss, who has came from Delhi, is a scoundrel. He will just not listen. “You must go to Allahabad , Shivkumarji. The company needs you to do this. And I need you to do this. And it is for your own good.” Your own good? How can it be for his good? Moving to a new place, a new neighbourhood, a new house, the headache of school admissions , the pain of shifting furniture. And who would look after his family house while he was away? And his parents ? Would they also have to move? His mother would never agree. Shivkumar does not know this, but he has become what Kaliya had become to Yamuna — poisonous. There was a bend in the river Yamuna near Vrindavan that was shunned by all the cowherds and cows. The water there was lethal. Even a blade of grass that fell into these waters shrivelled in an instant . This was the result of the poison that a great serpent called Kaliya spat out each day. When Krishna learnt of this, he decided to tackle the serpent. “Don’t !” shouted his friends, but Krishna would hear none of it. He jumped into the river and began splashing about in glee, laughing at his friends who stood on the river banks begging him to come back. The disturbance caused Kaliya to stir and rise up from the riverbed. He sprang up and grabbed Krishna in his coils. He spread his hood and prepared to strike the young lad, but to his astonishment, Krishna turned out to be a nimble fighter, slipping out of his coils with ease and striking him hard on his hood. Before Kaliya could react, Krishna had leapt on his hood and was dancing on it. No, that was no dance; he was being kicked into submission. “Go, go, go,” Krishna said. Kaliya resisted. He thrashed about, swung his tail like the trunk of an elephant and shook his hood, he hissed and he bared his fangs, he twisted and turned, rose up and went down the water, determined to shake Krishna off. But Krishna stood firm on his hood and grabbed his tail. He kept kicking Kaliya’s head, shouting, “Go, go, go.” Kaliya refused. “Why?” asked Krishna in a voice that was kind but firm.

“Because,” said Kaliya, “I am afraid. Beyond this bend lurks the hawk, Garuda. I am terrified of him. If he sees me, he will swoop down from the skies, grab me by his talons and make a meal out of me. Here, I am unseen. Here, I am safe.” Krishna smiled and said, “Life is about movement, not stagnation. You cannot let fear paralyse you. The more you stay here, the more you poison the waters. Go, don’t be afraid. Have faith. You will survive. Just move. You will find a way to outwit Garuda and overcome your fear of him. You will. Trust me.” In images, Kaliya, the serpent, is shown with a hood. A cobra spreads its hood only when it is stationary. When it is mobile it does not have a hood. The hooded Kaliya thus represents stillness. When Kaliya refuses to move, the water around him becomes poisonous. This clearly is a metaphor for one’s refusal to change out of fear — the refusal to move out of the zone of comfort, because exploration of the unknown terrifies us. Kaliya is terrified of Garuda. Garuda is at once a real fear and an imagined fear. Garuda is the bottleneck to Kaliya’s movement, to Kaliya’s growth, to Kaliya’s conquest of his own insecurity. What seems like punishment to Kaliya, is actually a lesson in wisdom. “Go,” says Krishna, “Move on, face life, don’t hide. Swim in the river as you are supposed to. The more you hide, the more you harm yourself and others around you.” Shivkumar believes his boss from Delhi is Kaliya who needs to be kicked back by Krishna. But in fact, he himself is the Kaliya. His boss has recognised his potential — his ability to contribute so much more, not just to the organisation but also to himself. Shivkumar short sells himself, even to himself. He hides behind apparent contentment. Yet, he is envious of the young ones in the company who have been promoted and who have been given better bonuses and incentives . He resents other people’s success . He wants success to come to him, but he refuses to change anything in his life. He will not compromise on his routines , in his working style or in his dealings with people. He likes things to stay the way they are. He gets upset when bosses accept transfers, when the houses in the neighbourhood are broken down to make way for new structures. He loves telling all those who are willing to hear, “Those were the days!” Things are changing every day around Shivkumar. But Shivkumar is refusing to adapt. Before him is an opportunity to experience something new. A transfer, a new city, a new job, new friends, new opportunities. But he is afraid. Garuda lurks beyond the bend of his river. He is angry with Krishna. He does not want to go. But Krishna’s dance will not stop. The transfer order will not be revoked, and he will be told, “Go, go, go.”

Points To Ponder
Yamuna is the world around us, full of possibility, moving without pause Kaliya is our refusal to move out of our comfort zone which pollutes the neighbourhood Krishna dancing on Kaliya’s head forces him to find the courage to move on

Narad or a Garud, who you are?

Read the story fully, conclude only after completing it.
One day, Narad asked Vishnu, with a bit of hesitation, “Why do you insist that the image of Garud be placed before you in your temples? Why not
me? Am I not your greatest devotee?”

Before Vishnu could reply a crash was heard outside the main gate of Vaikuntha. “What was that?” asked Vishnu. Narad turned to look in the direction of the sound. Garud, Vishnu’s hawk and vehicle, who usually investigated such events, was nowhere to be seen. “I have sent Garud on an errand . Can you find out what happened , Narad?” asked Vishnu. Eager to please Vishnu, Narad ran out to investigate. “A milkmaid tripped and fell,” he said when he returned. “What was her name?” asked Vishnu. Narad ran out, spoke to the maid and returned with the answer. “Sharada,” he said. “Where was she going?” asked Vishnu. Narad ran out once again, spoke to the maid and returned with the answer. “She was on her way to the market.” “What caused her trip?” asked Vishnu. “Why did you not ask this question the last time I went?” said Narad irritably. He then ran out, spoke to the maid once again. “She was startled by a serpent that crossed her path,” he said on his return. “Is the pot carrying broken ?” asked Vishnu. “I don’t know,” snapped Narad. “Find out,” said Vishnu . “Why?” asked Narad. “Find out, Narad. Maybe I would like to buy some milk,” said Vishnu. With great reluctance, Narad stepped out of Vaikuntha and met the milkmaid . He returned looking rather pleased, “She broke one pot. But there is another one intact. And she is willing to sell the milk but at double price.” “So how much should I pay her?” asked Vishnu. “Oh, I forgot to ask. I am so sorry,” said Narad running out once again. “Do not bother. Let me send someone else,” said Vishnu.

Just then, Garud flew in. He had no idea of what had transpired between Vishnu and Narad. Vishnu told Garud, “I heard a crashing sound outside the main gate. Can you find out what happened?” As Garud left, Vishnu winked at Narad and whispered, “Let us see how he fares.” Garuda returned. “It is a milkmaid called Sharada. She was on her way to the market. On the way, a snake crossed her path. Startled she fell back and broke one of the two pots of milk she was carrying. Now she wonders how she will make enough money to pay for the broken pot and the spilt milk. I suggested she sell the milk to you. After all, you are married to Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth.” ”And the price of the milk?” asked Vishnu. Pat came Garud’s reply, “Four copper coins. One actually but I think she hopes to make a handsome profit when dealing with God.” Vishnu started to laugh. His eye caught Narad’s and Narad understood at that instant why Garud’s statue and not his is always placed before the image of Vishnu in Vishnu temples.
Narad had behaved like a reactive subordinate. Very obedient, doing what the master told him to, leaving all thinking to the master.

Garud behaved like a proactive subordinate, anticipating all his master’s moves and preparing for it. That ‘ability to aniticpate’ made Garud more efficient and effective and hence more valuable in the eyes of Vishnu.

Mr. Kapur, senor vice president Operations, at a telecom firm has a simple method to distinguish the Garud from the Narad in his team. During all his meetings he assigns tasks to all team members. He observes who comes to him with an update without his asking and who provides updates only when asked. He likes those people who approach him and give him feedback on projects proactively. They do not wait for a crisis. They don’t wait for meetings. They don’t wait to be asked. Some of the best secretaries in the world are Garuds – they know what their bosses want even before the boss asks for it. They know that when they say, “Book me a ticket to Jaipur,” they are expected to make the hotel bookings, the car pickups, update the blackberry with the appointments and reminders and alarms. They know what bills need to be processed at the first of the month, on the first Monday of every month, on the last day of every month. They know when the stress levels shoots up and when the bosses are more relaxed. They are sensitive to the rhythms of the boss, the rituals they follow. And all this comes from the ‘ability to anticipate’ . Of course, insecure bosses can get annoyed, even threatened, by subordinates with the ‘ability to anticipate’ . They feel that if he knows my every move, he may one day overshadow me. This is what happened to Jiten who went out of his way to update his boss on every thing he did, not waiting for his boss to ask him for updates. He knew the answers to every question asked by his boss. He seemed prepared for any argument or objection made by the boss. The boss said to himself, “This man does everything so brilliantly. It is almost that he does not need my help. He is merely informing me of developments . He seems to know what I will approve of and what I will not.” It was only a question of time before Jiten found himself being sidelined and ignored in team meetings. The least intelligent but most obedient Narads moved ahead of him. To Jiten, Garud would say, “While it is good to anticipate your master’s every move, it must never seem like you are one step ahead of the master. That would make you look like an oversmart upstart. Remember, your master needs to feel that you need him, that your existence and validation comes from him. Never forget that you are the cog in his wheel, he is not the cog in yours.”

Andheri Nagari

Unfortunately Jacob’s concept of nobility is exactly that – Jacob’s concept. It has no takers in the rest of the teams. The rest of the team wants differential treatment. Some want a higher bonus, some, more attention, and some, the best corner in the office space. Jacob argues, “If I create differentiation, then someone will be at the bottom of the pile. In a pyramid, there are always few who benefit and many who don’t . That’s not fair.” No pyramid for Jacob, a round table it must be. The result , Kevin leaves. Jacob’s beliefs do not give him the desired outcome. His idea of perfection remains on the design board — in reality it leads to the collapse of Camelot. And he blames Kevin for it. For not aligning for what he believes is a nobler (and the correct) worldview. Jacob’s friend then told him a folktale from India based on a famous verse: Andher Nagari Chaupat Raja, takey ser bhaji, takey ser khaja, which loosely translated means ‘In the dark kingdom of a flat king, you can get a measure of vegetables for a rupee and the same measure of sweets for a rupee.’ Is that good or bad? One young man thought this was a very good thing. “Let us stay here,” he told his guru when they were passing through this kingdom. “No matter what you buy here, it costs a rupee per measure. A measure of gold costs the same as a measure of rice as a measure of cloth as a measure of hay. It is wonderful ! Paradise indeed!” As soon as he said this, the guru said, “Lets get out of here immediately . Run!” The student did not understand. He felt this was the best place on earth. Everyone , even the poorest man here, can live like a king. He fought with his guru. In the end, he refused to leave the dark kingdom of the flat king and the guru proceeded without him. Life for the student was good. Despite earning a very low salary, he could afford all the luxuries of life. All for a rupee per measure. He could not understand his guru’s behavior. Months passed. Then one day a murder took place in the kingdom. After an intense search, the murderer was caught. The king ruled that the murderer must be hung by the neck from a tree till he was dead. The whole kingdom gathered to witness the punishment . Unfortunately, the rope for the noose turned out to be too short. “Get a longer rope,” said the king. The whole kingdom was searched. But a longer rope could not be formed. Everyone turned to the king for a solution.

The king said, “Simple, get a taller man.” Scouts were sent out and they brought the student before the king. “Sir,” said the soldiers, “He is
tall enough.” “Hang him for the murder,” said the king. The student protested, “How can you do that? I did not commit the crime.” The king replied, “A crime has been committed. A punishment must be given. Since the murderer is too short, we must find a taller man.” “But he is the murderer, I am innocent,” shouted the student. “We know,” said the king sounding impatient, “But he is short and you are just the right height. Can’t you understand?” As the student was being led to the gallows, he saw his guru in the crowd and the guru said, “If the king finds no difference in value between a measure of vegetables and the same measure of sweets, then he finds no difference in value between a murderer and an innocent man. Everything has the same value in the dark land of the flat king. That is why I asked you to run.” Jacob wants to create a world of equals. A noble thought. But do the knights want to be equal? A Kevin does not. And there are many Kevin’s out there.
Points To Ponder The notion of Camelot, where the king is first amongst equals, is imagined perfection. People want to be differentiated from others and differentiation invariably creates hierarchy. If one attempts to equalize unique features of team members, one ends up becoming Chaupat Raja of Andher Nagari.