The biggest lesson for Tata today: The institution is bigger than individuals
Globally, the corporate world is seeing early signs of shared power rather than a single all-powerful CEO. Future CEOs may be less able to exercise unidimensional power than their predecessors did
There is magic in the journey from conflict to conversation, and on to convergence and commitment. In every case, the institution should be treated as bigger than the individual leaders.
Also by Noshir Soonawala
Many are sad that Tata is facing internal conflict. As retired directors, who together served Tata for many decades, we feel enormous pain and also that the dispute is existential.
Differences are common, but leaders can rely on proven methods to resolve disputes. The Mahabharata and Ramayana, among others, suggest the method: One, apply rajdharma; two, seek compromise before conflict; three, protect both the institution and the weak; and four, use wise advisors.
Tata’s enterprise and philanthropy institutions must align to avoid losing the plot. Together, they are collaborators; individually, they become competitors. American investor Ray Dalio’s formula for nations applies equally to companies: Educate your people, earn more than you spend, and avoid internal and external fights. The late Ratan Tata transformed a tradition-bound Tata into a growth-oriented, entrepreneurial organisation. Based on what they read, however, the modern commentariat makes its own sombre prognostications.
Globally, the corporate world is seeing early signs of shared power rather than a single all-powerful CEO (See Pilita Clark, ‘Why co-CEOs might suit our tumultuous times,’ Financial Times, May 3). Future CEOs may be less able to exercise unidimensional power than their predecessors did. The styles of Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca have a lower chance of success nowadays. Shared leadership styles must complement rather than compete.
Though leaders will seek power and glory, they must combine adaptiveness and humility. There is no magic formula to reconcile ambiguities. However, there is value in a self-questionnaire: One, do I listen enough? Two, do I shun cliques and gossip? Three, do my actions convey that the institution is bigger than myself? Four, are responsibilities clear so that there is tight accountability for results?
Our own epics suggest native wisdom regarding the resolution of disputes.
In the Mahabharata, Krishna undertook a peace mission to resolve the Pandava-Kaurava dispute over the rightful inheritance of the kingdom. Krishna proposed a compromise that the Pandavas would accept even a modest five villages. Duryodhana was adamant and arrogant. When disputes cannot be resolved by any means, undesirable war and annihilation follow. Peaceful negotiations should never be abjured.
In the Ramayana, Sugriva complains to Rama about his brother Vali’s unjust act of taking away his wife and kingdom. As a mediator, Rama listened to Sugriva, verified his claim, and took steps to restore the throne to him. Unfortunately, this meant killing Vali.
King Shibi’s story from the Mahabharata and the Jataka tales is redolent of a Biblical story (Book 1 Kings 3:16-28), in which King Solomon intervened in a dispute between two mothers claiming the same baby as their own. Shibi offered his own flesh to a predatory hawk to protect a fleeing, innocent dove. The denouement of the story demonstrates Shibi’s personal sacrifice to protect rajdharma.
Tata faces the Thucydides trap, whereby the very acquisition of power by two parties increases their chances of conflict. Herein lie the dilemmas for the Tata enterprise and philanthropy leaders. Our memories are jogged by two long-forgotten Greek and Turkish stories.
Emperor Darius II ruled the Persian Empire for 17 years, from 421 to 404 BCE, with two sons, Artaxerxes the Elder and Cyrus the Younger. Artaxerxes had the credential of primogeniture and was named as successor to Darius II. Cyrus was born after Darius II became king, hence he was “born into the purple”. Persian scholars opined that Cyrus could succeed Darius II. Both felt entitled. Cyrus mounted a battle against Artaxerxes by recruiting Xenophon, along with 10,000 mercenaries. Xenophon was a great warrior, strategist, and philosopher. However, Cyrus died in battle. Artaxerxes ruled Persia for four decades.
What is relevant in this story is how conversations, congruence, and commitment proved fruitful among people with low spirits and strongly held differing opinions when Xenophon led his fractious men out of enemy territory. He reframed the narrative, invoked ancestral pride, and encouraged rich conversations to achieve convergence and commitment. He was scholarly and had been a student of the wise Socrates. He was selfless but understood that it takes more than altruism to be an effective leader. That is how Xenophon learnt the 4C lesson on conflict resolution — converting conflict into conversations, convergence, and commitment. How can opinionated leaders converse or converge while deeply embedded in power, ambition, and glory? History is useful only if we heed the lessons.
Among the Ottomans, the temporal and the spiritual were combined in one leader, who acted as Sultan-cum-Caliph for centuries. The temporal had to succeed for the spiritual to be effective. During the 1914-1918 war, Sultan Mehmed VI was Ottoman Sultan-cum-Caliph. The temporal failed; Turkey became a republic and ceased to have a Sultan. Thereafter, Abdulmejid II became Caliph, but only for a short time. The lesson is that there is strength in unity, and the success of the temporal is a sine qua non for the spiritual to be effective.
In the 1990s, Lou Gerstner arrived at IBM with a hugely adaptive and inclusive approach; however, Carly Fiorina is held out as having the right strategy but being less inclusive. The lesson for leaders is that they must combine the skills of heart and mind artfully because one or the other skill alone has less chance of success. Hubris poisons the minds of leaders. Gerstner captured his experience through Who Says Elephants Cannot Dance, and Fiorina through Tough Choices. Xenophon wrote Anabasis, from which I quote: “Your obstacles are not rivers or mountains or other people; your obstacle is yourself.”
Conflicting opinions and resultant conflicts have tested leaders forever. During the US President’s visit to China recently, following several months of aggressive statements, both leaders opted for “constructive strategic stability”. The 4Cs of conflict resolution always help in reducing differences of opinion and personality, though with no guarantee of results.
Recall Plato, “Opinion is the lowest form of knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding… highest knowledge requires purpose larger than the self.” Many centuries later, Ernest Hemingway famously said, “It takes two years to learn to speak and sixty years to learn to keep quiet.”
Although what we write appears simple and obvious, think about how often leaders ignore such obvious simplicity. There is magic in the journey from conflict to conversation, and on to convergence and commitment. In every case, the institution should be treated as bigger than the individual leaders.
The writers were both directors of Tata Sons and its several companies, both together for over seven decades
Share
