Knowing C.K. Prahalad, it is unlikely the man saw his theory of core competence (propounded with fellow management guru Gary Hamel in the early 1990s in an article titled Core Competence of the Corporation that appeared in Harvard Business Review) as some sort of commandment that companies all over the world needed to follow. That, though, is how the favourite buzz word of the 1990s is often seen in India, with analysts and journalists peppering CEOs of recently-diversified companies with questions on how the dots join together. Fact is, there is such a thing as core competence, but as a quick review of Indian business history over the past decade and international business history over the past 25 years will show: companies can have several core competencies; core competencies can and do evolve, even change and be copied; and a core competence that is relevant at a certain point in time may be irrelevant at another. For instance, all through the 1990s, management experts waxed eloquent about Sony's core competence; miniaturisation, they called it. The consumer electronics major has its share of problems now, no one speaks of its expertise at miniaturisation, and the hottest consumer products company going is Apple (and its core competence seems to be the ability to create unique and easy-to-use interfaces, whether in software or hardware).

Companies may also be unfair to themselves and their shareholders if they allow a restricted definition of core competence to come in the way of opportunities being thrown up by the environment. Organised retail is still in its infancy in India, and the opportunity to build an Indian Wal-Mart is out there. India is an under-insured country, and any company that can take the concept to the masses will thrive. Agriculture has always been big business in India and could, if the government does what needs to be done, end up being Big Business. And opportunities in infrastructure (read: ports, airports, power and the like) are just beginning to emerge (or just becoming attractive). The ability to raise and manage capital is key to the success of some of these businesses. That of managing the regulatory environment and working with a large number of partners key to the success of others. And reach or simply the ability to roll out operations quickly that in still others. Indian entrepreneurs, a hardy breed with an eye on the main chance have realised this. Over the next decade, the country will see the emergence of several new conglomerates. Some will be wildly successful, although their definition of core competence could leave Prahalad gasping.

Leave ONGC Alone

Oil minister Mani Shankar Iyer: One leader only

If indeed oil & natural gas corporation's (ONGC) Chairman Subir Raha has to quit on September 21 (the day of the company's next AGM) over his differences with the petroleum ministry, it would be a sad way to begin the oil giant's golden jubilee year. Raha is opposed to the idea of the appointment of two new directors on ONGC's board by the Union government (read: petroleum ministry), which has a 74 per cent shareholding in the company. Not only does the government already have three directors on ONGC's 12-member board, one of the two additional directors proposed is the Director-General of Hydrocarbons, a regulator of the oil industry. Raha, who has been chairman for the past three years (his term ends in 2007) is of the opinion that there would be a conflict of interest if a director is on the board of a company that he regulates. We could not agree more. Consider a public sector bank that has the RBI governor on its board!

The government's thinking behind such a proposal, which runs counter to any notion of good corporate governance, is not clear, leaving us to surmise that this must be yet another manner in which the ministry wants to increase its influence (or interference) in the running of the oil company, which incidentally, is managed rather well. Besides being ranked as the most profitable exploration and production (E&P) oil company in the world, ONGC is recognised as the most valuable Indian corporate by market capitalisation and has ranked as one of India Inc.'s highest value creators. Foisting on its board more government directors (including a regulator to boot!) could conceivably come in the way of such performance. It is unfortunate that at a time when government should be retreating from playing an active role in business, the petroleum ministry is doing just the opposite.

CEO Tantrums

Oops! I did it again: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

So, fine, Steve Ballmer forgot momentarily that chairs are meant to be sat on and not thrown around like projectiles, and that saying "I'm going to f*****g kill Google" may be taken literally by a lilly-livered nerd. Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, isn't the only one to go over the top once in a while. (For the record, Ballmer has called the recollections of his departing colleague, at whom this alleged outburst was aimed, an exaggeration.) There are CEOs, as much in India as elsewhere, whose passion for and commitment to their companies often get expressed in politically incorrect ways. But you know what? You can't be ordinary and achieve extraordinary things. You have to be a little wonky up there to dream up great things, and then push people to achieve those things.

Henry Ford, arguably the most important industrialist of the 20th century, employed detectives to spy on his employees. Armand Hammer, CEO of the old Occidental Petroleum, insisted that his executives go around with a resgination letter in their pockets so that he could sack them whenever he wanted. Sunbeam CEO Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap sacked people first and asked questions later. In India, too, the CEO of a large it company-otherwise a picture of gentlemanliness-is known to take resignations at his company personally. Another, a self-confessed Buddhist, has been seen slapping an office boy, while yet another-now departed-would routinely berate senior executives.

Physical violence is where we clearly draw the line, but verbal bravado must not just be tolerated but allowed. Why? Often, what's said in the heat of a moment isn't really meant (poor excuse, you say; human nature, say we). And where CEOs have made a habit of bluster, it's meant more for show-it's a marketing tool. Like Ballmer prancing around on a stage like a monkey at a Microsoft pep rally a few years ago. Sometimes, such CEO behaviour serves as a counter-balance to a more staid leader in the same organisation. Microsoft, once again, comes to mind. While Chief Architect Bill Gates may be a software whiz, he could never get a large audience of nerds dancing on their feet, like Ballmer did at the Microsoft do.

Going back to our earlier point of how one can't be ordinary and achieve extraordinary things, we are not for a moment suggesting that people like Henry Ford were spectacular successes because they were, at some level, petty and paranoid. On the contrary, ours is a plea for more indulgence of CEOs who have led their companies to great success. Look at it another way: These CEOs have the greatest incentive to behave. If their temper tantrums ended up driving talented employees out of their corporations, it is they who have the most to lose. The only thing CEOs can't afford to be is both untalented and vile-mouthed. Then, your employees will have no reason to put up with your nonsense. They'll simply give it back to you, like they should.