The Indian way of working is more intuitive

Q. Please take us through your experience of working with two big conglomerates – Unilever and Tata Group. What is the difference in terms of their organizational DNA, culture and what the companies stand for? How does that impact the overall business and their approach to talent?

A. If you look at the history of both organizations, there are some commonalities. Both the founders – Jamsetji Tata and William Hesketh Lever – were fairly entrepreneurial. Around the 1870s, both managed to establish the basis of their future wealth. Lord Liverhulme learnt that if you put a piece of paper around a soap, you could retain its moisture and freshness and even add some fragrance to it. In the case of Jamsetji Tata, he learnt that textile manufacturing could be a lucrative business.

They both had a deep philosophical belief about the existence of their companies. Jamsetji Tata believed that the community was not just one of the stakeholders of the company but the reason why the company exists. This profound statement from the late 1800s is a true depiction of what we call as sustainability, stakeholder value and CSR in the current times.

In the case of Unilever, William Hesketh Lever believed that the company’s job is to serve people in a manner that adds value to them and for Unilever, since they started as a soap manufacturing company, he said its mission was ‘to clean the teaming millions around the world’. Espousing this view, both ensured an action around the same, leaving their wealth in trusts for public benefits.

Besides the similarities, there are a lot of divergences also. While Unilever is an Anglo-Saxon company with a British culture, Tata is very Indian in its approach and that translates into their work practices as well. After William Lever died, his son declared he didn’t want to be the CEO and remained a shareholder. So, the professional line of managers began as early as 1926-27 but in the case of Tata, at least at the chairman level, only the family lineage has retained the position. As a result of the same, every seven-eight years the chairman at Unilever changes, while at Tata the average tenure of a chairman is about 25-30 years.

Q. When it comes to the DNA of the organization and importance of people on the overall business strategy, how different is the Anglo-American way of thinking than the Indian way of thinking?

A. The Anglo-American way of thinking has a process-oriented approach towards talent management. They tend to look at people’s discipline and behavior through a very rational lens using terms like leadership, pipeline, supply etc. At Tata, they look at it with a fuzzy, heart-oriented approach rather than a head-oriented approach. They would hesitate to fire a person even if his services are not required and do not believe in treating people as though it’s a talent pipeline; instead, they see it in a more human perspective. At Unilever, the talent system is like a budgeting process, that’s well laid out but at Tata, it is an effort to put such systems in place and in spite of these differences both have been equally successful in producing good leaders.

Q. Is it that the same processes cannot be used in different environments? Is it context dependent? What system works better, or is it that everything works well based on the respective environment?

A. Well, you can put the same processes and systems everywhere but their practice will be different. You can set the same rules but the way they’re practiced can vary. The Tata way of working does well in India, but the same may not work in UK. Conversely, Unilever goes to a new place and adjusts itself to the environment. Still the basic characteristics stay.

Q. When you look back, what are the leadership lessons that could help create a truly sustainable and long-lasting organization?

A. The first lesson is that behavior largely depends on the cultural heritage one belongs to and it can be modified only up to a point. In Unilever, a manager would be rewarded for showing an Anglo-Saxon behavioral pattern, which could be something like sorting out the essential from the non-essential, defining the problem and then acting on it. The Indian outlook would be that it is not so easy to separate the facts as it’s all interconnected, so let’s look at the totality. The Anglo-Saxon tradition abhors ambiguity, while in India there is a lot of ambiguity. These two cannot be declared as right or wrong, but these are just different ways of doing things. At Unilever, I had to display that kind of behavior for over 30 years, but coming back to Tata, I had to unlearn and relearn to adapt to the Indian way of working. Indians, not necessarily polite people, are very indirect, while the Dutch people, not necessarily rude are very straight forward and direct.

Q. How do you see talent management becoming more important at the board level? Is it something that the CEOs or the board members are worried about?

A. It is very important. The Anglo-Saxon way of looking at it is that if you cannot measure it, you cannot do anything about it. Therefore, they devise processes, metrics and systems to work on it with action checklists and review it at the end, doing it in a much more planned way. In an Indian company, they believe that it can be done but not specifically measured. The executive incentive system in Unilever was designed, experimented, adopted and followed wherein, one’s KRAs and respective weightages could be clearly defined and bonus easily calculated. In Tata, they would sideline the calculations and decide on a person’s performance level on an intuitive basis. The same applied in terms of discipline as well where the two cultures defined the final decisions of the management. In Unilever, any case of indiscipline or fraud would face the consequences of being sacked immediately. While at Tata, such cases would be looked at as a human mistake, with the concerned person being issued a warning letter and to the maximum, being punished in some form but not sacked.

Q. If you look at the HiPos, how has it manifested differently in the two setups?

A. In an Anglo-Saxon setup, one gets to know quite easily that he/she is a high potential. From the start, there is a clarity on certain metrics like what trainings or courses one has to go through in a certain time period, what kind of movements can one expect every three years or that one must work on a foreign location within the first 10 years. These are simple examples of metrics that ensure everyone understands what is expected out of them to be HiPos. In contrary, in Indian organizations, nobody is told about such things. Therefore, there are high potentials in organizations but they don’t know of it, which could be very depressing or enriching at the same time. It works for those who are not HiPos and can easily churn around for a long time, without getting noticed, while in an Anglo-Saxon setup, such a person is very likely to be squeezed out quickly.

The second aspect is that Anglo-Saxon organizations attribute their successes or failures to the CEO, while the Indian organizations look at everything in a collective manner. Prima facie it may seem the CEO is the highlight, but in reality everyone would know who is responsible for what and attribute the success or failure to a larger team or group on the whole and not just the CEO.

Q. How do you identify HiPos? Please share some examples of how have you in the past groomed people who you identified as HiPos?

A. Without any negative connotations, I would use the metaphor of a ‘dog on a leash’. You know when a dog on a leash is pulling hard and almost making you run after itself is one with a high potential. On the other hand, if the leash is saggy, you wonder whether it is a high potential. In a management perspective, the HiPos come forth as imaginative hungry people, which is equivalent to the situation when the leash is tight. People who don’t seem that inquisitive or imaginative would come through as the ones with a weak leash.

It is very important to identify the doers and the thinkers. Thinking is crucial, but without doing, it’s of no use. I look for people who can take that extra load and manage to carry it off with the same tight leash. They are the actual HiPos.

Q. How do you support such people in their journey, who may be high potentials, more of a thinker than doer and unsure of how to navigate themselves in the operational world?

A. I believe one should not mollycoddle the HiPos. Instead, having identified them and loaded them up with expectations, one should let them know that they can come back for any advice whenever required. Usually, HiPos who are self-assured will come up in case they need any advice, while those who are not so self-assured would hesitate to ask for advice. Tugging at the leash demonstrates intellectual capability; operational excellence demonstrates itself in the kind of role they are given; and self-assurance or self-esteem are the three best indicators of high potentials.

Q. Looking back at your own career, could you share examples of leaders or mentors who identified you as a high potential and provided you the opportunities to grow.

A. Your real mentors would not necessarily be your immediate boss. The real mentoring, advice and support comes like little raindrops from heaven and when it falls on you, you need to realize their worth rather than wipe them off. For example, at one point of time, I was being transferred to different locations very frequently, which was in a way affecting my personal life. So, I went up to one of the top bosses and asked why they were moving me so fast. He explained that they would not have done it until they saw some special spark in me and they would respect it if I said no, but I would miss on some really good opportunities. I reflected on it and decided to go. Later, I realized why they had sent me there as it was a challenging opportunity and I could survive it. This is one example of how someone can coach you without intending to actually coach you.

Another interesting example is of an instance when there was a fraud in my department and I didn’t know what to do. If I admit it, I would be seen in a weak light; if I waited for more facts to surface, there was no certainty I would get them; and if I waited too long, it would be seen as me suppressing it. I went up to my mentor and sought his advice. He told me to come clean as it’s better to be seen as a person who has a weakness in his department rather than being blamed a fraudster. It’s better to have the organization to work with you on solving the problem rather than against you. So tell your boss that something has gone wrong and seek his help for sorting it out. That’s what I did and it worked very well. A few months later, in my own guilt, I went up to my boss and offered to resign as I let the fraud happen. He gave me another advice and said “if you’ve created a mess, you should stay back and clean the shit rather than just leave”. It helped me a lot and kept me going without affecting my career.

Q. Tell me about what you teach as ‘learning what’s not taught’

A. I wrote my three books, with one of them centred on intuition, that everything is not rational. For example, marriage and even at work and life you use your experience, but only up to a point where experience can teach you, and after that, you use your intuition. So I teach how to balance that in my first book. The second book is about who’s your biggest enemy in your happiness and career. It’s yourself and that you must become more self-aware. The third is about the fact that the world doesn’t know you are living, you have to earn yourself a living in this world. Remember your boss has outsourced some of his work to you, so there is no point in cribbing about it; rather give customer service to your boss. A cluster of these books is called ‘learning what’s not taught’ – intuition, self-awareness and service before self.

Q. What is your teaching methodology?

A. It is mostly anecdotal, where I usually tell stories from my own career and sometimes I use mythological or historical figures from Indian or Greek mythology. The approach is mainly story-telling since people respond to it very well.

Q. When did you realize that you wanted to put all these stories and experiences into a book?

A. When I was the Chairman at Unilever Arabia, I found that a lot of CEOs were getting fired. Until then, I had a very mechanistic view of talent management. I wondered why these people, who had excellent appraisals, were getting fired. I later found out that their ego, envy and jealousy got the better of them. That’s when I got interested in intuition and self-awareness. Since a lot has already been written and preached on these concepts, I looked at examples from nature and things around me, picking up stories and quoting benefits of sharing knowledge etc. That’s how I wrote my first book.

I have just signed my next book which is about leadership and life, looking at the balance between work and family not through a mechanistic lens, but taking into account the dilemmas faced in day- to-day working life, integrity, courage and trust. I am analysing the virtues we look for in our lives, which we think are very clear, but are actually not so clear, how they affect our lives and how do we manage them.

Q. Do you feel such dilemmas are increasing in the corporate environment?

A. Absolutely. Young people are extremely stressed nowadays and such dilemmas are increasing as they have convinced themselves that they don’t have the time to think about these things. So, I am bringing out a concept, that there are two kinds of time; one is the ‘clock time’ when I know its 20 minutes and it’s over. But, sometimes when you are doing something very interesting the 20 minutes seem like 2 minutes, while when you’re doing something really boring, the same 20 minutes seem like it’s been two hours. This is the second kind of time the ‘psychological time’. I am trying to help young people release their psychological time and not just go by the clock time. It’s a self-help book as I don’t believe in giving a roadmap but providing a compass so that you can figure out your own way.