Indian Managers and Organizations

Boons and Burdens

Ashok Malhotra

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780815350989
• eBook ISBN: 9780429832550
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Culture is critical to individuals and organizations. This book takes a close look into the way Indian managers work, their inner struggles, and forces that shape their behaviour. It presents an original framework developed by the author — the Existential Universe Mapper (EUM), a pluralistic and non-reductionist model of management that uses a new psychometric instrument to map individual and organization identity. The model restrains from placing any phenomenon into frozen categories and enables an understanding of their interplay. The volume points to India's ambivalent relationship with modernity, and the consequent difficulty of Indian managers in embracing the imperatives of the corporate world that are largely based on Anglo-Saxon frames.

This book will be of interest to those in business management, human resource management, leadership studies, corporate governance, industries, education, social sector, governance, psychology, and sociology. It will be particularly relevant for scholars, educators, consultants, practitioners of management and corporate leaders.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Indianness is sometimes glorified and sometimes condemned but rarely understood. Mostly, the discourse around it remains either focused on past greatness or on regressive social practices like the caste system. Hence, one often comes across Indians who love their country but have scant respect for their fellow countrymen and -women. While they take considerable pride in our glorious past, great heritage, ancient wisdom, spiritual values, sophisticated philosophy and so on, this pride is rarely reflected in what they think about the kind of people that we are.

A simple Google search on “Indian character” will throw up many more negatives than positives. Even in casual conversations, there are frequent references to Indian hypocrisy, duplicity, double standards, lack of civic sense, clannish/parochial mind-set, crab mentality, frog-in-the-well attitude, inability to confront directly, cowardice and passive aggression, among others. The list is endless.

While these negative associations exist, there is also the reality that today many large global organizations (e.g., Microsoft, Google, Adobe, Pepsi, etc.) are headed by people of Indian origin. It is not possible to say whether Indianness has played any part in the success of these individuals, or is it simply a matter of coincidence that they happen to be of Indian origin? In fact, the more commonly held sentiment is that it is the meritocratic American culture that has enabled these people to transcend the limitations of their Indian context. However, slowly but surely, a mystique has started to get built around Indian managers.

Several large multinationals have started specifically looking for people of Indian origin for their leadership positions. We were recently told by a senior human resources (HR) professional that the unstated norm is to have at least 20% of candidates of Indian origin in any short list for a senior position.

Thus, it would seem that with all its negative associations, Indianness could also be a resource and, in some inexplicable manner, a contributing factor in leadership and managerial effectiveness.

Whether Indianness is a liability or an asset is a question which would require us to dig deeper into the essence of Indianness rather than looking at it merely as history, traditions and/or personality traits of people living in the geopolitical entity called India. In this book, we have attempted to engage with Indianness as a perspective – as a way of life and as a set of beliefs and assumptions about the human condition. In that sense, it would be fair to say that this perspective is not exclusive to people of India only. In other words, Indians do not have a monopoly over Indianness. The only thing one can say is that this perspective can be discerned more easily amongst people of the Indian subcontinent.

The central questions that this book addresses are, How does this perspective align with the imperatives of the times that we live in? Is it merely a relic of the past, or does it hold something of value in the present context? To begin with, it may be helpful to explore how India has engaged with the pulls and pushes of the modern times.

India and modernity

India’s ambivalent relationship with modernity (i.e., the times that we live in) is visible in virtually all spheres of present-day life. On one hand, modernity is seen as a gateway to techno-economic progress, social justice and individual liberty, but on the other, it is also seen as a destabilizer that uproots individuals not merely from their heritage but, in a sense, from their own emotions and psychological predispositions. Not surprisingly, the ideal state, which many Indians aspire for, is one where the privileges of modernity can be integrated with the traditional Indian ways.

Many a politician, filmmaker, advertiser and so on have found tremendous success through promising this idyllic scenario. Take, for example, the case of Rajshri Productions¹ – most of its blockbusters (Dulhan wahi jo piya man bhaye, Hum aapke hain kaun and Hum saath saath hein, among others) are family sagas of rich business families who enjoy all the modern-day creature comforts and are reasonably progressive in their outlook yet also show strong adherence to traditional Indian values like familial ties, respect for elders, religiosity and so on. The same formula can be witnessed in countless television serials in all Indian languages, which enjoy high viewership and popularity. It would be reasonable to assume that beneath the popularity of these films and serials lies a deeper search to integrate modernity with tradition. In this idyllic scenario, the inherent conflict and tension is either wished away or resolved through vilification of modernity.

The situation gets a lot more complex when we move out of the social/familial realm and enter the world of work organizations and corporate offices. Since the basic foundation of these systems rests on Anglo-Saxon frames of management, leadership and nature of systems, it is neither possible to deny the tension nor to resolve it through vilification of modernity. Consequently, often the individual tries to resolve the tension and resultant ambivalence, by repressing his or her Indianness (civilizational predispositions) and/or treating it as a liability to be overcome. In other words, the individual begins to believe that while his/her Indianness has a legitimate space in familial/social systems, his or her engagements with task systems should be governed by notions of “professionalism” that are largely Anglo-Saxon in nature.

Civilizational predispositions are not a piece of clothing, which can be changed or discarded at will. These have come to us over generations both through the genetic codings and the processes of socialization and acculturation.

Simultaneously, these are not tight prisons, which leave no room for individual freedom and volition. Each one of us has considerable freedom to choose what we wish to do with our civilizational heritage, but this choice can only be exercised meaningfully by first understanding and acknowledging it.

When it is repressed, or denied, it does not go away but only becomes invisible to us and thus casts its shadows in ways, which we remain largely unaware of. Thus, many Indian managers overtly subscribe to the norms and practices prescribed by these systems, but their intrinsic psychic disposition keeps pulling them in another direction.

For example, at the rational level, they may accept that authority relationships should be configured on “adult-to-adult” basis, but in their emotive maps, the relationship remains configured on a “parent–child” frame.

When this schism (between the cognitive and the emotive) is seen through frameworks that are reductionist and based on Aristotelean binaries² of “either–or”, all we can see is a host of inconsistencies and contradictions. Thus, if faith and reason are seen as mutually exclusive categories, then it becomes difficult to understand as to how a person with scientific temperament can also consult an astrologer to find an auspicious date for starting a new venture.

In order to understand how these seemingly contradictory positions are negotiated in the Indian mind, we require a framework that is holistic, which does not place phenomena into frozen categories, and which enables an understanding of the interplay between different variables rather than studying them in isolation.

As we shall see in the next chapter, these have been the most important considerations in the evolution of the EUM Framework, which has been used for our empirical data. Consequently, this book is as much about the lens as it is about the phenomenon, which is being observed through the lens.

Lens and phenomenon

All frameworks/lenses rest on some basic assumptions and consequently determine what are the relevant facts to be taken into account and how they are to be interpreted. For example, a framework, which is based on the belief that human beings essentially operate from the principle of “rational self-interest”, will primarily focus on the tangible costs and benefits of a transaction and ignore the dynamics of feelings and relationships. Similarly, phenomena such as love and compassion have a very different meaning from an evolutionary perspective as compared to a religious/spiritual perspective. From an evolutionary point of view, they can be treated as “reciprocal arrangements” that have helped human beings to survive and evolve. However, from a religious/spiritual perspective they are more likely to be treated as “virtues” that are required for human salvation and/or dictates from the Almighty.

Most frameworks (though by no means all) tend to use mutually exclusive categories. This is particularly applicable to frameworks, which are binary in nature (e.g., introversion–extroversion, dominance–submission, masculine–feminine, etc.).

While the placement of people/phenomenon in clear categories/types helps in a broad and general appreciation/understanding, it also undermines their uniqueness and finer nuances. We believe this is particularly so when the framework is incongruent with the salient features of the culture in which the phenomenon is taking place. Thus, deference towards age/seniority may be regarded as a sign of “dependency” in a framework where the basic assumption is that each individual is an autonomous being and generational conflict is seen as an inevitable component of the maturation process. However, the same behavior will have a very different meaning in another framework, which looks at the individual as a relational being and looks at the maturation process in terms of extending the traditional values rather than rupturing them. In such a scenario, equating deference with dependency can be misleading.

The EUM lens

The emphasis in the EUM framework is on PLURALITY and INTERPLAY. Its central premise is that all human beings are remarkably similar and yet unique. Each one of us is born with unique genetic codings in a unique family/community. In the process of growing up we receive our own specific messages and have our unique life experience to which we give our unique meanings and make our individual choices. All this and more makes us the unique person that each one of us becomes. Yet behind this uniqueness, all human beings are remarkably similar. We are all governed by laws of nature and by biological/psychic imperatives of being human. We all seek fulfillment of our physical needs, safety of belonging, personal freedom, control over our destiny, warmth and intimacy, meaningful purpose for our lives and so on. Needless to say, the configuration of these different elements varies from person to person, but the essential elements remain the same.

Thus, for some of us personal freedom may be more important whereas others may place greater emphasis on the need to belong. Similarly, the way we engage with these elements may differ. Some people may deal with their need for safety by running away from danger whereas others may become aggressive and prefer to take it head-on. Irrespective of whether one responds to danger through “flight” or “fight” and in some rare cases through “equanimity” we all have to come to terms with and learn to live with our need for safety.

In this sense, every human being can be regarded as a unique but dynamic configuration of same basic elements. Consequently, it is futile to put people into different categories. Instead it would be more meaningful to understand the nature of their unique configurations and the interplay between the different aspects of themselves.

In the EUM framework, these different aspects are seen in terms of six Universes that reside within each person. Each Universe is seen as a composite set of values, beliefs, needs, behaviors and so on. The detailed description of these Universes is provided in Chapter 3.

As we will see later, what the EUM lens focuses on is the following:

1. a The multiplicity which resides within each person
2. b The interplay of these multiple parts and the resultant configuration
3. c The dynamics of relatedness between the Self and the situation

Our approach

As mentioned earlier, all human beings are alike and unique. Between the two extremes of absolute uniqueness and complete commonality lies a huge middle ground. This middle ground is formed by the “collective context” that we share with other human beings to varying degrees. Thus, with people who belong to the same socioeconomic ethnic group, we may share much in terms of our basic socialization and acculturation. Similarly, with people who belong to the same professional group as us, we may share several beliefs and perspectives. Needless to say, these commonalities are not linear in nature. It is not unusual to experience great affinity with someone who may have very little in common with us.

In case of Indian managers, the two main determinants of this common ground are (a) civilizational predispositions and (b) corporate imperatives.

Civilizational predispositions

Like human beings, civilizations also differ from each other. While every civilization needs to deal with the same basic issues of human existence, there is considerable variance in the ways of their engagement. These variances arise from their unique life conditions including geopolitical history, culture, technology of living, social structures, religious practices and host of such factors. Over time, its basic way of living gets codified in the form of values, beliefs and predispositions that are passed on from generation to generation both through genetic codings and processes of socialization and acculturation. Needless to say, each individual person will have unique genetic codings as also unique experiences of socialization and acculturation. The civilizational context merely provides the broad container in which these individual experiences are held.

Corporate imperatives

Like all social arrangements, the world of corporates also has its unique imperatives and therefore fosters certain beliefs, values and behaviors that are most conducive for its needs. While each organization has its own unique culture, history, requirements, leadership/managerial orientations, they are held within a broad container, which may be called “the corporate way”. Thus, themes like meritocracy, achievement orientation, teamwork, growth and continuous improvement, among others, are likely to be assumed as “self-evident” virtues in most organizations.

Therefore, characteristics, which are seen as helpful in this endeavor (e.g., ambition, assertiveness, effective interface management etc.), are likely to be valued by people who are part of the corporate world.

These two common grounds, that is, the “civilizational predispositions” and the “corporate way” have an interesting relationship with each other. The corporate way has largely evolved in the context of what may broadly be termed as Western civilizations. Consequently, it is likely to align well with the civilizational identity of people in those societies. However, in case of other societies (like India) the situation is a lot more complex. Several aspects of the two may align well with each other, but there may also be dissonance and areas of tension. It is important to recognize both the resonances and dissonances between the two so that these tensions can be meaningfully engaged with. In absence of such an understanding, the civilizational identity is likely to be repressed/suppressed leading to a large gap between espoused values/beliefs and actual behavior.

The book aims to look at the interplay...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of appendices
• Acknowledgments
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Evolution of EUM: a personal journey
• 3 The EUM: framework and tools
• 4 Findings from EUM data
• 5 An uneasy relationship
• 6 Civilizational codings of Indian managers
• 7 Leadership polarities and Indian managers
• 8 Two perspectives
• 9 Integrating the two perspectives