Institution building & self-centred leaders
To what extent are leaders committed to the mission they are expected to accomplish without being influenced by some personal agenda, asks the author in the concluding part of the series
Will the Tatas survive this storm? Many, who have looked up to the Tatas as an icon of institutions are worried about the fallout of the ongoing internal battle. At the fundamental level, there is yet another question: To what extent are leaders continuously committed to the mission they are expected to accomplish, without being influenced by some personal agenda?
Institutions are organisations transformed over a long period with a unique identity. They undergo constant process of evolution and revolution while continuing to be relevant to all the stakeholders. We feel proud to be associated with them. It is not for a moment in history that they shine, but they continue to shine, spreading light of guidance, inspiration and leadership across centuries.
It is worth recalling the vision Jamshedji Tata, the founder of Tata Group, and his successors continued to pursue for about 150 years. Jamsetji wanted to provide Indians with an opportunity to rebuild the nation. To quote JRD Tata, “With that object in view, he decided, almost single-handed, to launch India on the path of modern science and industry and to risk his fortune in the process. That the great projects he conceived and his sons carried through were successful is less important than the motives with which they were launched, than also the sense of social consciousness and trusteeship which Jamsetji inculcated in his two sons and my father, R D Tata, and which have continued to this day to inspire and guide his successors and, through them, the management of the various enterprises which they promoted” (Source: The Creation of Wealth by RM Lala). People associated with such institutions feel responsible and delighted to contribute to their efforts to accomplish the vision. This is precisely the reason why people seriously are concerned now about the Tatas.
The institution of Tata is known for explicit and implicit set of values such as fairness, transparency, social good and custodianship. Such values are identified and nurtured carefully as the building blocks of the institutions and preserved carefully by great institutions. These values are imbibed not only by the owners, board and top management, but also by the human resources pool across the group. Once lost, it is difficult to recreate. It is soft, delicate but very powerful. Institution builders constantly evaluate all their decisions against the possibilities of hurting the institution they were entrusted to lead, may it be Ratan Tata or Mistry.
Fundamental to all efforts at institution building is the presence of high quality of leadership. It is not just about one leader at the top and a number of soldiers ready to take instructions but about a family of leaders, including independent directors and well-wishers with different levels of involvement and responsibilities. Leaders feel like servants with a role to play until they hand over responsibilities to another capable person.
There are not many multi-generational institutions in the country. One such, incidentally, is the 116-year-old Murugappa Group, where leaders have practised values of trusteeship and ethics, among others, vigorously. They have been following a retirement age of 65 for the chairman for long, and towering figures of the group like M V Subbiah also voluntarily stepped down at that age. Subbiah not only left the board at the age of 65 after comprehensively strengthening the board and the group’s operations, but also went away to the US for a year, to be also physically away from the scene. The Murugappa Corporate Board is the custodian of the economic, social and reputational wealth of the group. It has always ensured that the board has eminent personalities who preserve and grow the wealth they are entrusted with.
Do we have leaders who forget that protection of the institution at any cost is their ultimate goal, especially when their egos are hurt? Remember Mahatma Gandhi’s simple but powerful rule of institution building: “Recall the face of the poorest and weakest man you have seen, and ask yourself if this step you contemplate is going to be any use to him”. Recent events on the Tata front raise questions about the maturity of our corporate leaders to think beyond themselves and repeat the epic war in public.
It is relevant to recall an incident that involved Chanakya, the all-powerful strategist of ancient India. One evening, when he was writing down accounts for King Chandragupta Maurya, a visitor appeared at his doorstep with a request for an immediate meeting to talk to him something personal. Chanakya asked him to be seated; he then stood up, took inside the house the oil lamp he was using, and returned with another oil lamp. The visitor was puzzled and enquired why he changed the lamp for their meeting. Chanakya replied, “The lamp I was using when you came was meant for official use with oil bought using public money. Our meeting is private and personal for which I should use my personal oil lamp, and not that of the king”. Leaders driven by values of institution building would never budge from their values even if they have the powers to do so or threatened by egos.