 |
| Suresh Prabhu: The show must go
on |
| Success is a complex
equation: the variables include the right people (some of them,
stars), the right infrastructure, and the right timing (in a
product- or market-strategy). |
Mea
culpa. July 13, 2002: the final of the NatWest series between India
and England; Tendulkar goes in over number 24; the score is 146
for 5; India has to score an additional 180 runs to win; and I decide
the evening is better spent listening to Al Kooper doing strange
things to the organ in Albert's Shuffle. That's right, Constant
Reader, I didn't watch the rest of the match-not live. I am convinced
many other Indians did the same: we believe (or, at the least, used
to believe) that the Indian cricket team cannot chase a huge total
successfully unless Tendulkar scores.
The few private companies still nursing ambitions
in the power sector behaved similarly when Union Power Minister
Suresh Prabhu tendered his resignation. ''What will happen to power
sector reforms?'' they chorused. Most participants in the Indian
government's drive to privatise state-owned companies believe the
process wouldn't have gotten off the ground except for the dogged
determination of one individual, Union Disinvestment Minister, Arun
Shourie. And the day after Infosys' head of Sales and Marketing
Phaneesh Murthy resigned, the stockmarket battered the stock some
over concerns about the company's ability to continue to grow in
the US market in the absence of a man widely perceived to have engineered
some large deals.
As a people, we are obsessed
with individuals. The 'what', 'how', and 'why', are nowhere close
to being as important as the 'who'. ''Without Vajpayee, the National
Democratic Alliance coalition will collapse.'' ''No one but Sonia
(well, maybe Priyanka), can lead the Congress.'' ''We've hired a
key executive from Infosys.'' Quotes such as these are common. I've
made up the first two up to make my point. The third is real and
came from a corporate flak-catcher who was very keen to have me
''do a story'' on what the exit of this executive would do to Infosys-and
the entry, to her own company.
Even in today's knowledge society, though,
the institution matters. Individuals do make a difference (as also
excellent copy), but we often tend to focus on personalities to
the exclusion of the institutional infrastructure behind them that
made their achievements possible. Success is a complex equation:
the variables include the right people (some of them, stars), the
right infrastructure, and the right timing (in a product- or market-strategy).
To my mind, nothing proves this more than the fact that the man
widely considered responsible for building India's largest financial
daily (Hint: It's pink) was never able to repeat his success. Microsoft
and SouthWest Airlines are getting along well with their founders
in a hands-off role. And Jeff Immelt isn't doing too badly at managing
the company that Jack (Welch) built.
The cult of the individual has a significant
downside in the corporate context. The executive in question may
start believing everything said and written about him (or her).
You don't need to be a hr manager to understand the damage such
individuals can cause in an organisation. Still worse, other employees
may start believing that with the success of the company largely
a function of one individual's efforts and ideas, they can afford
to relax and cut themselves some slack. Behavorial scientists have
noticed such behaviour in groups where a few individuals seem more
than keen to undertake a large portion of the work at hand. They
even have a term for it, 'social loafing'. We are, all of us, social
loafers.
|
