DIFFERENT APPROACHES are needed to solve different kinds of problems and deal with different kinds of persons, was the mantra given by management guru Arindam Chaudhuri.
He was speaking at a seminar on ‘the leader in ‘u’ organised by Hello Hindustan at Abhay Prashal today. Chaudhuri said that Indian companies operating out of India had been unable to make their mark globally as their approach was at fault.
As with everything Indian, the management here tried to blindly ape the west by imitating American system of practice in the local environment instead of producing our very own system of management.
He clarified that, as with individuals the constitutional elements of every country were different, bestowing them with their distinct identity and also making them unique in their own way. The differentiating elements arose from cultural traditions being practiced over the centuries.
Every story of accomplishment has imperatively to take a leaf out of their book enjoining it with their own in order to succeed.
Explaining the concept, he gave the example of the system of management followed in different countries. The American philosophy generating from cut throat competition was based on the policy of ‘hire and fire’.
This country having all material objects of satisfaction in its possession was highly dissatisfied as it was not one with itself and had no peace of mind. The high rates of divorce and break up in society were reflected in the high rate of dismissals and transfers in job.
The Japanese model as with its culture totally differed from that of the US and based their management policy in ‘binding the workforce’. The companies do not set unrealistic goals and hire moderately average people whom they train with great care into skilled professionals. The company takes great care of employees and is reciprocated by the employees in a sense of duty and lifelong commitment.
The Russian and Chinese models arising from authoritarian rule have a forced culture permeating all levels of life be it social or personal.
The government puts society before individual and they have based their management policy on a ‘forced culture’. While, there might have been some drawbacks the former USSR was a super power and China is the only country today emerging as a competitor to every developed and developing nation.
Indians have a rich treasure trove of knowledge and therefore, instead of looking for management and leadership from abroad as in the last few centuries it should develop its own philosophy based on the ancient texts. Of the mythological deities Ram the epitome of a perfect human being is to be worshipped/emulated for self-emancipation and betterment, while Krishna
revered for his leadership qualities is to be worshipped/emulated for becoming a success in life and a good leader.
The Bhagwat Geeta gives the best management skills to be applied in life as it leads one out of darkness to enlightenment. The people have been classified into ‘Tamas’ (lazy), ‘Rajas’ (selfish) and ‘Satvik’ (knowledgeable) based on their inherent qualities. If one was to lead all of them then different approaches suiting their qualities had to be used by the leader changing his colours like a chameleon.
Four ways of leadership are mentioned in the Geeta for doing so, namely- ‘dand’ for dealing with ‘tamas’, ‘sam and dam’ for rajas and ‘bhed’ for ‘satvik’. As all problems of management are basically problems of society ‘Sam’ is management by participation, ‘Dam’ is management by selling, ‘Dand’ is management by telling and ‘Bhed’ is management by delegation.
These principles worked on giving the boot to those who understand nothing but authority, giving incentives for working, delegating authority and giving respect to these four class of people. He ended by saying that Mahatma Gandhi was the only true great leader India had produced in the past few centuries as he had a deep reading of Geeta, which he practiced in life and had Ram on his lips on his death.