Mahabharata: A Case in Leadership Succession Planning

The First Case

•King Bharata was the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant.

•Through valour and leadership Bharat conquered the whole of “modern day indian subcontinent” .•

The land was renamed as “BharatVarsha”

•King Bharat had three sons

•When the time of succession came , he did not choose any one of them.

•He instead brought in “Shantanu” who was not his lineage

•King Bharat chose Shantanu over his three sons, thus establishing an important aspect of leadership planning.

•Lesson :A leader must be selected from a larger pool than from one’s family reservoir.

The Second Case

•King Shantanu had a son named “Devavratha ” (Bhisma) with Ganga

•Devavratha is an able and a just leader and is perfectly suited for succeeding Shantanu

•King Shantanu falls in love with a fisherwoman called Satyavati

•Satyavati’s father imposes a condition that Shantanu-Satyavati’s natural son will be the heir and not Devavratha

•Devavratha pleadges his right to the future Shantanu-Satyavati’s natural son and also life long celibacy

•Shantanu even though reluctantly concedes his son’s pledge

•Lesson : A kingdom or an organization is nobody’s family fiefdom where emotions can be transacted for the benefit of each other , it plays havoc in succession planning. When planning leadership succession keep emotions out of the window, if “you” feel you deserve a leadership position for the benefit of the organization, strike your claim, no sacrifice is worth it for its not greater than the future of the organization. Recognize your ability to achieve a larger goal.

The Third Case

•Shantanu-Satyavati had two sons Chitrangada and Vichitravirya

•Chitrangada died early (before getting married)

•Vichitavirya (married to Ambika and Ambalika), died shortly after his marriage of tuberculosis.

•Vyasa (Satyavati’s son prior to being married to Santanu) was requested to beget sons from Ambika and Ambalika

•Vyasa told them that they should come alone near him.

–First did Ambika, but because of shyness and fear she closed her eyes. Vyasa told Satyavati that her child would be blind. Later this child was named Dhritarāshtra.

–Thus Satyavati sent Ambālika and warned her that she should remain calm. But Ambālika's face became pale because of fear. Vyasa told her that child would suffer from anaemia, and he would not be fit enough to rule the kingdom. Later this child was known as Pāndu.

–Then Vyasa told Satyavati to send one of them again so that a healthy child can be born. This time Ambika and Ambālika sent a maid in the place of themselves. The maid was quite calm and composed, and she got a healthy child later named asVidura

•Now when the time of succession came , Bhisma did not follow his grandafther’s (Bharata’s) tradition of “not picking a leader based out of clan but out of merit “, the ideal choice for leadership was Vidhura, technically he was also half brother of Pandu and Dhritrashatra

•Bhisma chose Pandu who in turn died early and relegated the throne to his brother Dhritrashtra

•Vidura is never considered for throne coz of his mother’s lineage even though he was a brilliant strategist and political mastermind. Author of famous political science commentary called Vidhur Neeti

•If Vidhura would have been the king this mess probbaly would never have occurred

•Lesson : Sometimes previous modus operandi of succession planning or decisions in general serve as valuable lessons , examples and benchmarks. Everytime a new thinking may not be needed. Putting on oneself in the previous leader’s shoes may help us to face current dilemmas. I am reminded of a famous decision of Lous Gestner who turned around IBM when it was about to collapse. One of the most significant decision he took was to ask the employees to “not to have a dress code”. He actually did what the founder Thomas Watson Jr had done decades Thomas Watson had imposed this dress code because customers during that time dressed that way. Gestner’, just applied the same thinking in a renewed context by not having the dress code which was the norm of his day

The Fourth and Final Succession

The crux of Mahabharta is a situation wherein Dhritrashtra is accused of not allowing Yudhistra (Pandu’s son) to become his successor. Let me put some researched facts before you . Some facts which are unknown , courtesy our televised “versions” of epics which present only one version of the story.

Duryodhana’s Case

•Duryodhana was a powerful and capable king who governed his subjects fairly (when he ruled as a crown prince of Hastinapur post kingdom division of Hastinapur and Indraprasth)

•When the argument was presented that his father was a stop gap for Pandu, Duryodhana made a strong case of argument that Pandu’s sons were not Pandu’s sons but out of Kunti and Various Devatas like Indra, Vayu etc.

•Bhim's unrestrained, brutal beatings during childhood left psychological scars on him stemming the deep hatred for Bhim

•Duryodhana was well-versed in religious knowledge

•Vidura and other elders were extremely partial towards Pandavas

Yudhistara’s Case

•Universally Respected

•Pious and able administrator

•Righteous and Virtuous

•Well versed in Dharma Shastra

The Question

•If you could time travel and we were given the chance to decide the succession of undivided Hastinapur ? Whom would you choose and why ? Remember the aftermath (war etc) happened due to the division of kingdon?

•Intricate Lesson : Many a times to please or to have “best case” scenarios organizations are divided amongst two able successors ?. This creates more problems than solutions as temptation to transgress each other’s boundaries is highest in such cases. Its imperative in powerful organizations to have only one full authority successor than two organizations with two successors many a times?

•A question to ponder….

•