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….

•

Deccan Herald Article

In debt we rise

By S Nagendra

As America continues to borrow from China, the rationale of economic superiority in the longer run for it would be in serious decline.

The current debt crisis in Greece reminds one of Kautilya’s perceptions about debt. He considered debt to be ‘instruments of decline’ for kings and governments alike. But modern governments seem to have come a long way and the Chanakyan prescription has truly become outdated. Today, good economics and good politics have become mutually exclusive. At least, so it seems. Sound economic policies need not necessarily yield political dividends to incumbent governments. Conversely, leaders and political parties may actually win renewed political mandates to government on the ‘strength’ of their ‘bad’ economic policies. Thus, it is no secret that modern day governments ‘stimulate’ the economy by spending more and more and earning less and less to ensure their political continuity. In this ‘debt ridden world’, according to ‘The Economist’ magazine, the total current global debt is around $32 trillion. Based on the total world population of around 7 billion, this amounts to an average debt of around $4,600 or around Rs 2 lakh on every human being on this planet. Recently the Indian government sought approval to spend an extra $6.6 billion in part to subsidise food and fertilisers and to halt the inflation. The average debt of an Indian citizen is nearly equal to his 10-month income, which on an annual basis has recently been estimated at Rs 38,000 by the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) for a population of 115.4 crore. With the government adding about Rs 3,00,000 crore (Rs 3,000 billion) to the public debt annually in the last few years, the total public debt is estimated to zoom to a whopping Rs 34,06,322 crore (Rs 34.06 trillion) by March 2010, nearly double the amount recorded seven years ago. This initiative to spend more than planned is affecting the yields on benchmark 10-year bond. Among the top 10 local-currency debt markets in Asia last year, Indian bonds were the worst performers (except Japan), handing investors a 5.1 per cent loss, as the government spent Rs 1.86 trillion to shield the economy from the global recession. India’s current public debt to GDP ratio is 58.2 per cent — almost close to the US position of 60.8 per cent — and we have much to learn from Uncle Sam. Lessons from US debt Backed by the US Congress, President Barack Obama recently signed into law an increase in the US national debt limit to $12.4 trillion. The US government posted a record $1.4 trillion deficit in the fiscal year ending Sept 30, 2009. The US government needs to spend more or ‘stimulate’ its economy. To facilitate this spending, it needs to borrow more and more to cover its deficit. Historically, the lone super power has been living well beyond its means. Public debt in dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992, and remained at about the same level by the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. The most important legacies of President George W Bush have been the rise in total public debt from $5.6 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008. This was the quintessential lesson that the Bush Junior learned from the Bush Senior as the latter lost his re-election bid to Clinton purely due to his attempt to trim the US National Debt by increasing taxes, a far departure from his stated election promise. The trend is expected to continue as Barack Obama intends to spend more on war, health care reforms and social security, leading to a projection of total national US debt of around $20 trillion by 2015. So who is funding this enormous US debt? In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion. It also owed substantial money to others like Japan and Saudi Arabia. In reality the money that a Chinese saves is spent by an American. This has definitely posed critical economic and political risks for the United States. As America continues to borrow more especially from the Chinese, the rationale of economic superiority in the longer run for America would be in serious decline. China doesn’t intend to fish in the troubled waters at least for now purely due to lack of substantial alternative currency to the US dollar. However, even this is changing as seen from recent increase in diversifying its non US dollar based securities by oil rich countries and also by countries like India, China and Russia. Cumulatively, this poses an enormous challenge to the US dollar in the longer run. The US has been able to withstand its national debt purely due to its economic and political dominance and the power of US dollar so far. But what about India? Obviously, the American approach cannot be blindly followed. Indeed, it is high time that our economic planners adopted a balanced approach which would require them to decrease deficits and trim our national debt. In the urge of economic prosperity we cannot go on borrow from others to spend at home, even if it means sacrificing some growth targets. Our fiscal discipline is quintessential to our long term national and economic security. Its time that we look ourselves as a post-developing nation and make sound economic choices, though that may be politically very hard to accept. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of ‘Black Swan’ recently said in a blog that “A lot of the growth (of America’s) of the past few years was fake growth from de

Deccan Herald Article

Quantity sans quality

By Prof Nagendra

Indian professors are more inclined towards teaching post-graduate students than the ones in the undergraduate level.

There is a striking similarity between the just-released blockbuster movie ‘3 Idiots’ and the Yashpal panel report on ‘higher education’ in the country: they speak the same language. Both the film and the report are refreshingly innovative and yet convincing in their message regarding the need for rejuvenating the entire higher education system in the country. Consider this critical paradox in higher education policy in India: much has been written and discussed on how the policy-makers have tilted public spending towards higher education at the cost of primary and secondary education; but very little is actually spent on higher education. The 10th Five Year Plan (2002-2007) had envisaged an expenditure of 65.6 per cent of the total education budget on elementary education, 9.9 per cent on secondary education; 10.7 per cent on technical education, 2.9 per cent on adult education and the planned spending for higher education was just 9.5 per cent. Even if we combine technical and higher education, the spending accounts for just about 21 per cent. Even after a big increase in the expenditure for higher education in 2007-08, the fact remained that the country continues to lag behind in terms of per student public spending on higher education, compared to its Asian counterparts. At the moment, public spending on higher education per student in India stands at Rs 18,000. According to United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) data, India had the lowest public expenditure on higher education per student among developing and developed countries. Yet, for the record, India’s higher education system is the third largest in the world, after China and the United States. As of 2009, India has 20 Central universities, 215 state universities, 100 deemed universities, five institutions established and functioning under the State Act, and 13 institutes which are of national importance. Other institutions include around 21,000 colleges, including 1,800 exclusive women’s colleges. But only three Indian universities have been listed in a recent list of the world’s top 200 universities. While we go gaga over the 8 per cent GDP growth, there is actually a crisis-like situation in the higher education sector. But it is hidden and is systemic in nature. The situation calls for serious interventions from the government. The ‘Indian growth story’ could be a bubble as the country will be unable to meet the human capital demand for a sustained transition from a developing country to a developed country. Indian universities lack multi-disciplinary approach to education and research. In fact, universities have been reduced to mere affiliating entities. The Yashpal panel has questioned the logic of granting university status to specialised entities, be it technology, management or industrial labs like CSIR. Out of the three Indian universities named among the 200 global best, two are IITs and IIMs which are super specialised entities in education and only one — Jawaharlal Nehru University — is a full-fledged university in the true sense, which means the third largest higher education system in the world has only one university of any quality! Multi-disciplinary approach The Yashpal panel emphasises the need to promote multi-disciplinary approach. It questions the logic of eliminating the need for subjects like economics, philosophy, etc in professional courses like engineering and medicine. It makes no sense to produce truck loads of engineers and doctors without any basic background in economy, society or liberal arts subjects. The US has a pre-med degree, where students opt for a variety of courses before beginning their medical education. The committee quotes a fantastic example of students pursuing mathematics opting for philosophy and vice versa. This can’t be underestimated as the whole branch of logic and induction and other epistemological subjects have been synthesis of mathematics and philosophy. University of Penn, Stanford, and New York University are some of the many top universities that boast of research and teaching in these areas. India needs to integrate such wide disciplines qualitatively in universities as opposed to merely proliferating centres of higher education and research that offer narrow areas of specialisation. A part of the problem, perhaps the most important part at that, is that Indian colleges are no more than super schools where rote learning is continued and reinforced. That is what the Yashpal report has pointed out. A very important aspect covered in the report is the role of undergraduate education. While universities stress on post-graduate education, the undergraduate is the business of ‘affiliating’ colleges. This creates a great impediment in overall quality drive in renewing and reuniting higher education. Barring some centres of excellence, Indian professors are inclined to teach only post-graduate students and not prefer to teach at the undergraduate level. The report recommends mandatory teaching for undergraduate students by professors, who have been more or less confined to post-graduate departments. Finally, the most critical, perhaps also controversial, recommendation of Yashpal committee is its prescription of subsuming entities like UGC, AICTE in one National Commission for Higher Education and Research — which will be a grand overall authority reporting directly to parliament. The report is not only critical about the functioning of higher education regulatory agencies but asks a fundamental question of the need of uniformity as against diversity. Diversity doesn’t mean decrease in standards, it means enabling of setting up of standards where universities can adhere to. Diversity will help institutions of higher learning to come up with their own syllabus, the students to opt courses of their choice, etc.

Uncertainty Principle in Organizational Strategy

When the new particle collidor was commissioned in CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research www.cern.ch) Geneva last year there has been a speculation that apart from couple of nobel prizes, the future of science and physics in particular is at stake. I do recommending reading “The trouble with Physics” (http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/) by the great theoretical physicist “Lee Smolin” (founders of Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics, http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/)who has put up some serious questions on how physics is being hijacked with the obsession with “String Theory” (http://www.superstringtheory.com/). Well this (string theory) has been a fundamental drive in physics since last decade for the quest of “unification theory” that unites all four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as "strong" and "weak nuclear force"), and gravitation) in one grand theory. Another interesting aspect of modern quantum gravity has been this mysterious energy called the dark energy and particle , Higgs-Boson , popularly known as God’s particle. Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with the fact that the universe is made up of 71.3% of dark energy (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l1/dark_energy.html).

So essentially , almost three fourth of the universe composition is unknown to mankind (though I doubt even if we know remaining one-fourth fully! . Go through “What we Don’t Know” at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/bigquestions.html?pg=3 )

Essentially our inability to know the majority of composition of universe also makes us quite inefficient on how , what , when and why a universe creates a particular element and thereafter its interactions as well. Yes we all know through elementary physics that vacuum triggers electrons, etc etc. And now physics knows leptons, dutrons, quarks etc etc. There are roughly 2.5 x 10⁸⁹ elementary particles in the observable universe

From an organizational perspective , we can consider universe as a macrocosm and organization as a microcosm , this (organization) boils down to a system reflecting the complexities of particles (human beings, economic etc ) and making it as difficult to decipher and predict as it is for the universe. By the way I strongly urge you to google “The story of Stuff” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8) a wonderful research which shows 99 % of what consumers buy ends up in TRASH IN 6 MONTHS in North America, others are not far behind.. And we can imagine this shelf life getting even shorter and shorter. The fundamental aspect that we ignore in our discussions is trying to see everything in a linear fashion which makes things so damn easy. If we have to understand on what will happen or more “controlled” way what should happen, we should know the “uncertainty principle in the organization”. In elementary physics most of us have read the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which stated that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.

Although philosophers of Science like Karl Popper (pls read All Life is Problem Solving

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Problem-Solving-Karl-Popper/dp/0415174864 have questioned uncertainty , but I always have had my faith in probabilistic theories. In Fact its high time that we make Probability , Logic and Epistemology (theory of knowledge It addresses the questions: What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? What do people know? How do we know what we know? Why do we know what we know?) as essential subjects in Management & Engineering in the curriculum..

So if through principles of equivalence I deduce position ( from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) Organizational Position (positioning a firm, what should it sell , how much etc, position can be a point of reference in a cost-quality-competition-map for an organization) and Momentum where and how fast should the organization head towards ? (what should it become and how should it become based on its size and financials) in terms of an organization, there would be a fair amount of uncertainty in the two.

Strategists, thinkers, and thought leaders all dwell on this for loads of time. There are interactions all along the strategy formulation path with unaccounted factors.

So what should Strategists do ? May be assemble a probability of options keeping in mind principles of uncertainty , by first recognizing that lots of things around are uncertain (not just the mathematical , analytical way only) but with a model which is dynamic and has subjective considerations as well, not just objective. The strategy formulation is an art many a time we have a conceptual model of the end painting when we start , but end product can turn out to be varied, different or completely something else than we imagined.

Here again I reemphasize that our models of thinking are growing static day by day. I am often intrigued by the Philosophy of Fallibilism ( philosophical doctrine) that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible. (Read “Knowing and the Known” is a 1949 book by John Dewey who was a great Fallibilist and Arthur Bentley. A full version of the book in pdf is available from the American Institute for Economic Research).

We need to reinvent our ways of thinking as said in one of the Shiva Sutras “ Gyanam Bandah” , ultimately knowledge itself becomes a limitation.

It’s the free spirit ultimately

Thought Engineering

After a long spell of literary dryness , I have finally decided to write , and what motivated me to write this time was the “thought” itself. One of my favorite parts of Rig Veda is the “Nasadiya Suktam” translated as the "not the non-existent" which is the 129th hymn of the 10th Mandala of the Rig-Veda and has attracted a large body of literature of commentaries both in Indian theology and in Western philology. The foundation of this Mandala is its emphasis on how the universe was first created which is now an important question for modern day cosmologists, particle physicists and quantum theory specialists. Nasadiya Suktam goes on to attribute creation to what it calls as the “primal germ of mind” or the “thought” , the question being if nothing was there where was the mind.. Lets assume for a second that mind is a hypothetical center for thought creation, the primal germ or the thought which emerged, triggered creation. So our fundamental basis is thought itself. For me mind is a fictional center in human physiology not occupying a defined set of coordinates. We may unlock the power of neurons and various centers in our brain , but still we are left void of the origin of thought. Does that mean thoughts essentially are self existent ? I can safely say that we are all inundated with millions of thoughts every day and every second itself. Dwelling more on Nasadiya Suktam , one of the several creation stanzas in Rig Veda , there is a quintessential assumption that thought is the source of universal creation and thought (the first thought) itself is self created.. This is a strange dichotomy from an existentialist perspective, if creation is from “x” and x is self created. In Sanskrit and in Upanishads we call it as Swayambhu, but again from where ? answer is from Void, vacuum or in metaphysical terms “shunya or zero”.. the essence of creation of thought is thoughtlessness ..

Lets look it in context of existentialist perspective , all our actions arise by a single thought. Somewhere and sometime.. A thought as an energy vehicle is more or less assumed by even neo classical psychologists. All the motivational write ups revolve around constructing effective thought energies which are essence to our well being. But the question is if a thought is self created (if we assume that), why does it so happen and can we engineer our thoughts.

Engineering our thought is basically trying to put our hands on this process of self creation. we can look this from a perspective of self direction, coz if its self created so it can be self directed as well. In a cathode ray experiment we all know that from vacuum electrons arise which can be directed to an electrode, so if thoughts arise from void can we direct their movement. We need to look at this question little deeper. How do we engineer our thoughts ? This can be achieved stage by stage. As a first step we need to cultivate the power of observation, many of us try to control our thoughts which is an anti-nature cycle ,coz if the creation of fundamental thought itself is through the process of self creation , who are we and what power do we have to stop/interfere in the thought creation process. Observation is important because the moment we start observing something we have two demarcations, that which is being observed and the person who is observing. An observer who is observing. Even though this can be in a fraction of a second we split ourselves from being experienced. No doubt our medium vehicle is again a thought to observe but the click is this is the Creation thought. This thought what I call it as a T=0 thought is a creation thought or an observer thought. Being the first thought or an observer thought its free from any toxicity. The creation of universe is a perfect creation by this thought. the first stanza of Isha Upanishad states that “OM – Purnamadah Purnamidam Purnat purnamudachyate.
Purnasya Purnamadaya Purnamevavashisyate.” meaning, “That is perfect, this is perfect, from perfect comes out of perfect. If perfect is subtracted from perfect, still perfect is left.”. so essentially again through our T=0 thought we can guide creation which would be perfect. Its through gradual cultivation of observation of macro and microcosm around one can dwell on this thought. Our sensitivity has considerably depreciated over ages of human growth. Why so ? this because our physical , mental and spiritual endeavors have been so outwardly that our inner faculty development has been the consequent victim. Then again question comes of self direction, aren’t we then interfering in the creationist process, no , this because the moment we bifurcate observer and experiencer we tend to detach our personalized imprint in the thought. Our thoughts many a times (whether selfish or selfless) tend to be anti creationist , so if we align ourselves with the universal or T=0 thought, automatically we endeavor for a universal harmony. Again as a matter of emphasis our well being is attached to universal well being then only we reap true happiness. Just to give an example if we have a hundred million dollars in an isolated island , whats the use. Our world around is a necessary condition to spend and experience that hundred million dollars. So engineering is moving along the path of self direction. And self here is universal. The word "Aham" in Sanskrit is the equivalent world , its an interesting mix that this word is made of .. a is first alphabet and ha is the last alphabet is Sanskrit so Aham spans across first and last.. similarly self here encompasses everything around..

hAPPY BIRTH DAY CHARLES DARWIN.. 200th birth anniversery

BY the way a quick correction in my last post first  "one of my principal spiritual belief is NOT TO see the universe/religion in a good vs bad.. god vs evil".

DARWANian model of evolution has been more of a philosophical and church centric debate rather than that of scientific merit.. again politics of religion.. evolution is the most fantastic concept availble for human thinking.. everything evolves to a pattern .. those who dont evolve die as furthered in survival of the fittest theory.. what about organizations.. there is a constant evolution happening within the structures evolve and so its strategy.. people.. resources..

i want to hear your views first on theory of evolution w.r.t organizations.. 

i will then post my underlying view

THE HIDDEN DIMENSION..

thanks for posting views again on ravana and rama.. quickies.. have i been biased towards ravana , my answer is no .. i just want to bring the other side of the coin.. whether your hero/god is rama or ravana is a matter of personal choice, its just my endevaour to uncover facts and present it to you.. esp since i believe to  a tribe of "participative sociologists" who observe and try to bring multi dimensional perspectives.. one of my principal spiritual belief is to see the universe/religion in a good vs bad.. god vs evil.. all religions have this bifrucation so it limits our perspective of understanding..  how many of us dig Vedas/ upanishads/  which is monotheistic and works on nature .. logic and judgement.. ? we as human psyche wants love to dramatize our gods beliefs.. 

anyways why do i say all this ? somebody had queried is it related to strategy ? well everything is connected.. i want to develop multidimensionality  of perspectives and approach in viewing things/objects/organizations.. much of the views i see is single at most bi dimensional.. reality many a times (as string theorists proclaim .. i am from the other school though) is in 6th.. 7th or nth dimension.. i call this as hidden dimension..

welcome to the world of mind-physics.. as now its proved as  the god's particle (Higgs's Boson.. did the cyclotron find it by the way )..  unravels the truth..

its very easy to bisect or trisect a strategy or organization and pinpoint causes of success/failure.. but what about the hidden dimension..

in coming days i will write about this "HIDDEN DIMENSION" ... in strategy, organizations, economics, society and behaviours.. let the suspense continue