But by the 1980s the world was waking up to the Japanese management style. There was huge interest in their ringi system (consultative papers); gyosei (group working); zen (dhyaan, meditativeness); kanban (JIT, just in time); 5S, etc. Europeans kept denying the need for management training. They believed technology and common sense would be enough. They were wrong. Now, there is some awareness of a European management style, with finer variations of German, Italian and other national styles.
Indian management style’s evolution was blocked by colonial rule; and for another 50 years by the licence-permit raj. There are distinct Indian management traditions dating from the times of the Mauryas and Mughals. Vidura Neeti from the Mahabharata, Kautilya’s Artha Shastra and other texts contain many relevant ideas on administration, leadership, strategies and systems. India’s great strength has been entrepreneurship. But it still suffers from governance gaps.
In pre-independence India, there was a warm relationship between Indian business and the Congress party. This partnership was broken post-independence by an Indian state that distrusted and underestimated Indian business. So, in the 1950s, Indian entrepreneurship and management were in hiding. In the 1960s they came out with colonial remnants of the managing agency and club style of management. By the 1970s, the American management style was spreading in India through the two new IIMs at Calcutta and Ahmedabad.
But Indian entrepreneurship was irrepressible. They had taken over departing foreign companies, as well as started new ones. They were like greenery growing through asphalt, biding their time. In the ’70s and ’80s we also had a public sector management style. In spite of political corruption, bureaucratic pilfering, destructively powerful unions, there were outstandingly dedicated leaders like V. Krishnamurti, who built BHEL, rebuilt Maruti from the grave and revived sail from the ICU; Mantosh Sondhi, who built Bokaro Steel; and D.V. Kapur, who set up NTPC, our power industry mainstay.
Meanwhile, scholars like Shitangshu Chakraborty propounded an indigenous management style—drawing on the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and the Bhagavad Gita. Core concepts included dharma, nishkaama karma, raja-rishi, rajaso-saatvic (refined energetic) personality, sevak, vishwastha (trustee), etc. By the ’80s Indian management was willing to emerge from its inferiority complex and embrace some of these.
My approach has been to advocate an enriched, learning, synergistic style. The foundation may be stronger if rooted in Indian ethos. Many values are universal and not confined to any religion. Examples are—dharma (ethics), loka sangraha (includes corporate social responsibility and inclusive growth), satva guna (refined approach), sreshtha dharma (responsible leadership), insaaniyat (human dignity), Insha Allah/Bhagavad Krupaa (humility and acceptance); vishwa rupam (growth to reach the whole world; the bottom of the pyramid, etc).
Then there is much to learn from styles influenced by Confucian philosophy from Japan, Korea and China, such as Gyosei (team play to overcome Indian individualism) and the Western enlightenment ethic of human dignity (to get over Indian feudal, patriarchal, authoritarian, ahankaar-based styles).
More and more management schools in India are offering such executive training. Even the IIMs have invited swamijis like Ramdev and politicians like Chandrababu Naidu and Laloo Prasad. A distinctive Indian style preference was visible when the Tata Group, led by the ever-so saatvic Ratan Tata, said they would not go for a hostile takeover of a US hotel group. Tarun Das, a pillar of Indian industry, defended the Tata stance. So, there is an Indian management style, after all! Let us perform, globally, and this style will enrich other national and continental styles. That is our Return on their Investment.
Mrityunjaya Athreya, Management Guru
