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   :(

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.