Came across this:
http://flipflashpages.uniflip.com/3/23175/133070/pub/document.pdf
- in which the founding Trustee (and Secretary of FTI), Mr Kandpal also features.
Three points caught my attention, and are worth noting – very carefully:
Good leaders get people to believe in them.
Great leaders inspire people to believe in themselves.
Good leaders say ― Watch what I can do.
Great leaders say ― Let me show you what you can do.
Good leaders catch fish for others so they can eat today.
Great leaders teach people how to fish so they can eat for a lifetime.
I came across a lovely article: Talent Isn’t Everything: Persistence Is.
Just one short extract:
“You need to work on your craft, Therese,” a very wise writing mentor told me when he took me under his wing. “And this is how you do it….”
He instructed me to read books on style, take classes, and analyze the technique of writers I respected.
He didn’t sit back in his chair and make fun of me like the arrogant professor I had, like a former boss of mine did, or like a self-absorbed judge does. That’s not helpful at all.
I know I'm a very ordinary writer of the English language (and a miserable writer in Hindi – although I won an across-Hyderabad essay competition in Hindi in high school, long ago!). Thus, when I read my early writings today, I wince. In fact even when I read my manuscript DOF I often wince! I surely can do better. I will do better.
I found the best hint on how to write in one of Gurcharan Das's books in which he wrote about Strunk and White's Elements of Style. That was just a few years ago, and since then I've determined to improve my writing. I haven't yet come even close to my goal, particularly because I write just too much and never have time to revise. But one day I will surely write better.
The point is this: that writing is an ESSENTIAL skill that everyone on FTI must develop. Mastery over the written word is the first step towards mastery over the spoken word.
I know a number of people on FTI with outstanding technical skills (e.g. degrees from IITs/ IIMs, international universities). But some of them may need to upgrade their writing skills if they are to have any serious chance of changing India. To them I'd suggest this: read Strunk and White. And practice writing. Start a blog and try it out. Then write for the newspapers. Write as much as you possibly can.
Also I suggest mastery over at least one Indian language. The best way for that would be to read the most elegant writers in that language. And write blog posts. And in the media.
Leadership is not born. It is developed. Through persistence. Keep doing it!
While returning from a trip to the Melbourne Gurudwara yesterday (at the invitation of a friend) I stopped by at a second hand book shop and bought a copy of Pfeffer and Sutton's excellent (2006) book, Hard Facts. Some of it is available on google books to read (although there is a limit on the number of pages you can so read).
Two things I really liked about the book. It complements Jim Collins's Good to Great (one of my favourite management books) and it acts as a bridge between the science of liberty (classical liberalism) and management.
It complements Jim Colllins's book because it highlights the fact that (a) individuals matter, and so one must aim to hire or work with good people. But in addition to this, (b) it makes abundantly clear that individuals can only do so much on their own. When it comes to large projects and major organisational efforts, it is the SYSTEM that matters most.
Those who have read BFN will note this theme repeating itself in my book, where I show that India has failed NOT because its people are in any way less intelligent or less talented than anyone else, but because its systems discourage good performance and reward populism, incompetence and corruption.
The second point I make about this book is about its acting as a bridge between the science of liberty (classical liberalism) and management. How so?
Because this book emphasises the need for WISDOM which is the common theme of classical liberalism – that we don't know much about anything, and must remain constantly open to new learning. A classical liberal is humble about his deep ignorance but he is always KEEN TO LEARN. This theme underpins BFN but is more directly found in Hayek's writings. It is crucial for us to seek evidence, to keep asking questions even about things we may otherwise take for granted. Acceptance of ignorance is good. It keeps the eyes open.
The result of these two themes is this: that when you have finally built a great organisation/team (by having the BEST people and BEST system), then the team members do the work naturally, without any additional 'motivation'. Leaders of the organisation/nation merge seamlessly with the team/citizens. There is no longer any question about succession planning since the system automatically generates great leaders – there is no shortage of successors. Every team member is a great leader.
The best way to illustrate this is through a few key paragraphs from the book:
Changing CEOs at Toyota is like changing lightbulbs: all are equally good
Toyota … consistently achiev[es] lower cost and higher quality than other companies. Toyota's success stems from its great system, not stunning individual talent. This starts at the top of the organization. One study showed that Toyota was the only major automobile company where a change in CEO had no effect on performance.39 The system is so robust that changing CEOs at Toyota is a lot like changing lightbulbs; there is little noticeable effect between the old one and the new one.
Or consider the NUMMI (New United Motor Manufacturing) plant in Fremont, California, a Toyota–General Motors joint venture. When GM closed its Fremont plant in 1982, it was one of the worst plants in the country, producing cars with more defects and at a higher cost than nearly any other U.S. plant. Daily absenteeism was nearly 20 percent. Wildcat strikes and drug and alcohol abuse were rampant. Following an agreement between GM and Toyota, the plant was reopened by Toyota in 1985; 85 percent of the initial workforce was rehired from a pool of employees who worked at the old, awful plant, and who still belonged to the United Auto Workers union. Before the plant was reopened, workers were given extensive training in the Toyota Production System. Over 400 trainers were sent to NUMMI from Japan and over 600 workers were sent to Japan for training. The year the plant reopened, the 6,500 Novas it produced were among the lowest cost and highest quality cars made in the United States. Absenteeism was less than 3 percent. Toyota took a bunch of F players, retrained them, put them into a great system, and magically they became superstars. A better place made them much better people.
I know that Toyota has dropped the ball a couple of years ago, leading to disastrous shrinkage in its sales, but it seems to have recovered now, and it still shows all signs of a learning organisation.
The law of Crappy Systems
"Bad systems do far more damage than bad people.
A bad system can make a genius look like an idiot."
BFN explains India's crappy systems. The same Indians do wonderfully well in the West but pathetically in India. Why so? Because systems can convert geniuses into idiots (and vice versa).
This is something that neither Hazare (a policy innocent and simpleton) nor Kejriwal (who should know better given his intelligence) seem to understand. In their minds, India's problem is Crappy People. They therefore believe that Lokpal (which is supposed to identify Crappy People) will fix India's problems. But they are TOTALLY WRONG. The problem in India is Crappy Systems, not Crappy People. Lokpal will not even remotely fix the systems. Hence it is DESTINED TO FAIL MISERABLY.
The attitude of wisdom
Wisdom means “knowing what you know and knowing what you don’t know.”Behaving with an attitude of wisdom means that you act on your present knowledge while doubting what you know. It means that you do things now, as you keep learning along the way. It means that you compensate for your limited knowledge by building on old ideas and joining communities of smart people rather than relying only on your own insights.Unacknowledged ignorance and arrogance stems from an absence of wisdom.
Articles by Pfeffer for download
Pfeffer has a personal website and blog (I've now subscribed to it) here. Two articles I've downloaded include:
- The Knowing Doing Gap
- Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained (published in a top economics journal: Journal of Economic Perspectives)
Hack management
An open innovation projectThe Management Innovation eXchange (MIX) is an open innovation project aimed at reinventing management for the 21st century. The premise: while "modern" management is one of humankind's most important inventions, it is now a mature technology that must be reinvented for a new age.
Pfeffer on Youtube
Pfeffer is extensively found on Youtube. I'll just link three, below:
This young man on Facebook has spoken like a true leader (I've increased the font size while copying from FB).
I trust Mithun is putting in the effort to study the problem and move into serious reform. That is only possible through politics. But only systematic and strategic politics will get us there. Not half-baked isolated attempts. - and for such systematic effort FTI has been created – for leaders to assemble. Without leaders of high calibre no reform can be expected.
I invite all young men (and I mean women too!) of India to start thinking like Mithun. You have it in you. Just tap into your own capacities.
[Addendum: Mithun has promptly clarified "by the way I have taken this lines from Decentralized, Non-Violent Resistance group.. They too have some unique ideas about reform on lines of satyagrah. http://www.dnvrm.com/home.html". That, however, in my view, doesn't detract from the thrust of this post. See his comments below. I look forward to great contributions from Mithun.]
Also:
Hey guys.. good question..will change be voluntary or involuntary is the first thing to ponder.. There are many economic, political and social system flaws that in effect compel business to negatively
impact society and the environment. We have a problem which we are facing everyday and getting frustrated. Lets look at our basic lives. What are we doing? We comply to certain things like negotiating on fair wages, over working, following what the media says without questioning or reasoning, not pondering enough to understand the mechanism of politics and socio-economic system. Without proper understanding and leaping in to change things.. will mostly lead to failures.. Things will not change overnight.. Manmohan Singh didn't become PM on Friday and ruined everything on Friday.
Step 1 is how much dependent are we on the Government and Corporate system. Your salary doesn't increase overnight as soon as fuel prices go up but cost of food goes up.. So lets minimize this dependency by imparting ourselves with entrepreneurship skills.. so that we are capable of understanding market situations and adapt.
Step 2. Have local community set up.. Ask your friends family etc to have community clubs.. Harass your local municipal and representatives with the issues ur facing..
Step 3. Be ready to risk and force changes if it comes to a point where it hurts.. Showing up at work with black badges over all the country and ensuring bare bone essential services.. shakes the economy.. I am sounding communist here but I believe civil disobedience as a major weapon with the people..
Step 4.. I do it all the time.. I show my unhappiness to all the major politicians and corporate chieftains what we are unhappy with.. on their official twitter and facebook pages.. Few things to start with.. Liberty is in our hands.. As Lokmanya Tilak said "Freedom is my birthright" I believe I have to safe guard it against all explicit and implicit suppression in any form..
Addendum:
All this – the development and growth of new leadership – is all the more critical given the total vacuum of leadership in India today.
I have recently made a big deal about the concept of courage. I also gave a few examples – of Lajpat Rai, Gandhi, and even Hiteswar Saikia. Let me bring this material together into a single blog post and also provide a few additional thoughts. (My comments made earlier on these three people are consolidated at the end of this post).
Basically, it is major issue for someone who proclaims himself to be a leader to RUN from the field and hide behind women. This kind of behaviour simply doesn't fit my model of leadership.
Compare this kind of behaviour with that of our soldiers. If they were to desert the battlefield, then what would we do to them? Court martial them. They could be imprisoned for life.
I know that there is great power in non-violence. The idea of satyagraha is very powerful. But very few people know how to use this idea properly. Above all, it requires HUGE courage to follow a non-violent approach. Ramdev needs to develop courage and belief in himself. Then all these extra props (of 11,000 people to support him) that he now wants will become totally unnecessary. There is great power in self-belief.
Let me add two more examples of courage here, from my experience with Bodo terrorists in India. Note that I'm not condoning terrorism but I'm talking about courage. And that is something visceral: it is a basic human trait that we can recognise and appreciate even if we detest the goals the person stands for or the methods he uses.
Example 1: In 1989, the northern parts of Barpeta district (map here) came under the influence of Bodo extremists who wanted a separate state for Bodos. My job as Deputy Commissioner was two fold: (a) to ensure that development reached all parts of the district so that the attractiveness of terrorist ideas was reduced, and (b) to ensure that terrorists were identified and captured. As part of the second work, my outstanding friend and colleague, the Superintendent of Police Ajit Das and I had worked out a series of ambushes on routes where we thought, based on intelligence gathered, the terrorists would typically travel at night. These were early morning ambushes. The police would go out to a designated spot before sunrise and wait quietly for terrorists to pass that way in the early morning.
In one of these ambushes, terrorists were found and a gun fight took place. I forget the number who were arrested, but there was one who was badly injured. I got the information early in the morning and rushed to the ambush spot which I reached just about half an hour or so after the ambush. There I found this Bodo terrorist, about 20 years old, with a large chunk of flesh coming out of his thigh, where the bullet had hit him. This terrorist was sitting, handcuffed along with others at the back of a jeep. His thigh bone was visible. It was cold in the morning (near the Manas game sanctuary) and this person must have been experiencing high levels of pain.
However, and this is what I mean by courage, this terrorist was TOTALLY CALM, as if not even an ant had bit him. He would not speak when questioned (that was something for us to deal with later, anyway), but what impressed me was his great courage. He knew what it means to stand for something, even if his methods were wrong. Courage shone through his eyes.
Example 2: The second is the case of another Bodo terrorist (about the same age or younger than the above one) who was captured by the police in Barpeta. This terrorist was involved in planting a bomb on a bus which killed about five people and badly injured many others (I was the first to reach the place – about 5 kilometers outside Barpeta town – upon hearing of the bus attack, and I clearly remember the horrendous spread of body parts, legs, and others; and blood everywhere). The point, though, is that this terrorist, while being caught, received a gun shot in his stomach, and the bullet made a hole from one part of his stomach to the other (not a very big hole for it was near the navel – but a hole nevertheless).
This terrorist was then questioned at the Barpeta Road Police Station and I was present at that questioning (for a while). He was smacked on the bottom of his feet with a thin wooden rod by the police, but despite this hole in his stomach and his feet being smacked he would not tell us how he planted the bomb. Instead he maintained a face of total calm and dignity. He believed in his cause. That was true courage.
I know both these are BAD examples, for it should not be taken to mean that I am glorifying terrorism. But I believe that if someone believes in his cause, then courage will naturally arise. And ultimately, courage is something we all respect, regardless of the cause. We don't respect anyone who runs away from the field.
Mahatma Gandhi
This man ranks below Lincoln because he gave up public life and politics after independence. He also did not fully grasp the concept of freedom and good governance (Lincoln understood these things well); indeed he said he wanted all politics to come to an end, being a semi-anarchist. But note that Gandhi had undaunted, unparalleled courage:
(watch this from 12 minutes to understand what I mean) [Source]
Lala Lajpat Rai
One the one hand we had Lala Lajpat Rai, the LION of Panjab, who died as a result of the lathis of the British police. He would not BUDGE. Lathis or anything. He was a LION. His conviction in his ideas was supreme. [Source]
Hiteswar Saikia
Let me tell you about Hiteswar Saikia in 1990 in Barpeta. This man I condemn as the most corrupt scoundrel ever to govern Assam. But I respect him for BRAVERY. As DC Barpeta I told him that his walking in the streets from the Circuit House to his venue (a school hall) was DANGEROUS because of the Bandh called by AASU. There was every possibility of his being hit by stones on the way. I promised to take him in my car safetly to his venue. But this man was NO COWARD, Harsh. He would not listen. Politely he said he would walk.
The entire town was tense. The students came out to protest his walk. We organised security for him, and on the way some pelting took place, but he took it in his stride. The man knew that in politics, the SLIGHTEST sign of cowardice is SUICIDE.
In 1991 he came back to power, after being thrashed in elections in 1985. [Source]
(Additional notes to the Saikia case): That day was a bad day for Barpeta. Not only did a scuffle occur at the main road crossing opposite the DC office, but AASU boys who were prevented from attacking Saikia ran off and attacked the house of the President of the district Congress Committee. When he refused to come out of his house and fired gun shots at them, these boys went outside his house and burnt his car. The town remained tense for days.
The point being that despite the guarantee that his presence would create tension in the town, and that his life itself could be endangered, Saikia went walking through the streets of Barpeta to the school hall where his lecture was planned.
There has been some dispute about my strong words used against Ramdev's running away, wearing women's clothes, and hiding behind women.
I have a very stringent benchmark of leadership, in which I slot people based not just on their knowledge and capability, but character. I generally rate character (determination) and courage HIGHER than what the person believes in or knows.
Let me therefore provide a few examples of the various "levels" of leaders, and you'll soon figure out why Ramdev ranks so poorly. (Btw, if you are interested in an article on this subject that I published in 1982, please read these scanned pages from the newspaper: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4)
Level 5 leaders
a) Abraham Lincoln. This man not only stood for freedom, but fought one election after another. He lost most of them before winning the presidency of USA. Then he performed his duties in an exemplary manner – which included fighting the divisive forces in the US. He was never a coward. When he went to visit the battlefront, he would stand right in the front of the troops. They loved him. And on top of that he liberated all slaves in US.
(This is a pen sketch I made in 1982. For slightly bigger image, click on the picture)
b) Mahatma Gandhi. This man ranks below Lincoln because he gave up public life and politics after independence. He also did not fully grasp the concept of freedom and good governance (Lincoln understood these things well); indeed he said he wanted all politics to come to an end, being a semi-anarchist. But note that Gandhi had undaunted, unparalleled courage:
(watch this from 12 minutes to understand what I mean)
Level 4 leaders
a) Lala Lajpat Rai. This man is lower in the hierarchy to Gandhi, but he comes pretty close, due to his valiant fight against the British. Many other leaders of India's independence movement come close to Lajpat Rai, as well. Indeed, had Nehru not become India's prime minister and harmed India badly, he would be here as well.
b) Rajaji, Masani and some of the other founding members of Swatantra Party are level 4 leaders. These people were socialists at one time, then changed their mind and started advocating freedom. The main thing is that they TRIED to make India a free country by joining politics and leading India. They did not merely preach.
c) Vivekananda. This man went about transforming the very way in which we see ourselves, at a time when India was in its lowest mental condition, being curbed by British rulers for over 150 years. His words are stirring at a level that few can compare: Arise, awake, and stop not till your goal is reached. There were others like him (Dayanand comes to mind, but also Ram Mohun Roy and Aurobindo) who were fearless and went about their business without the slightest concern about what others might think of them.
d) Bhagat Singh and terrorists of the Indian independence movement are also level 4 leaders, despite my disagreeing entirely with their methods. The main thing why they rank so high is that they were brave at a level that is exemplary. We would all do well to imitate their bravery.
Among non-Indians, Edmund Burke and Thomas Jefferson (and other leaders of the American independence movement) come to mind. All were DOERS. And they were good and competent.
Level 3 leaders
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan come to mind. People with MODEST intellectual means, but determination to bring greater freedom into the world.
Level 2 leaders
The typical political leader of an average Western nation today (like Obama, Cameron, etc.) would qualify as a level 2 leader. These are not necessarily bright, nor particularly focused on freedom. But they bumble their way to a modestly good society.
Level 1 leaders
Nehru: He ruined his "ranking" because of his socialism. As I said, he was a good man and fought very well for India's independence. He also helped strengthen democracy in India. He was a doer. For these things we are eternally grateful to him. But unfortunately, being a socialist, he deeply harmed India's governance.
Level 0 leaders
Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh: These are/were corrupt, weak leaders, but they at least brought a semblance of good policy to India.
Level -1 leaders
Narendra Modi. He is a strong leader with a few good economic policies. But he doesn't support freedom. And he got his hands sullied in the way he handled Godhra.
Level -2 leaders
Indira Gandhi and Hiteswar Saikia: These were extremely corrupt people, and socialists to boot. They harmed India badly, but at least they kept the country together.
Level -3 leaders
Baba Ramdev, is a coward who neither knows what is good for India nor could avoid hiding amongst women when the police came to disband his camp.
A person like Rahul Gandhi also ranks, in my view, at this level. He is totally unfit to govern India.
Level -4 leaders
The typical Indian intellectual, journalist, "educated" person comes into this category. This kind of person does not even TRY to change things. He merely preaches. He ranks BELOW BABA RAMDEV.
Addendum
There needs to be one more category:
Level -5 leaders
And this is the category where people like Hitler and Osama bin Laden would fit.








Recent Comments