GYANENDRA KUMAR KASHYAP
The race to the Raisina Hills – an organizational analogy
As the run up to the
presidential election gets all the more interesting with uncanny moves, twists
and turns; here is an attempt to dissect the saga from an organizational prism:
Political analysts and
commentators are perhaps enjoying every bit of the twists and turns in the run
up to the thirteenth presidential election. The commentariat for the last
couple of days have dissected the race to the Raisina hills like never before.
And truly so, for in recent memory, the race for the top job never generated so
much of an interest amongst the commentariat and analysts to churn articles
with every move of the ruling alliance, the opposition and more so of the
lesser known allies lending outside support. Veterans on their part are already drawing
parallels between the present presidential election and the one of 1969 – which
had transfixed the country with its dramatic turns and its improbable
denouement. Given the numbers staked in
favor of the ruling alliance, it seems highly improbable that the current
election will be gripping and a close run contest unless like in 1969 curious
combination of opposition groups play the spoilsport.
While political analogies are a
given, an attempt is made herein to look at the current race purely from an
organizational perspective, what if (say) the person for the top job were to be
elected from a larger representation - including the trade union, minority
shareholders, independent directors, government nominees (if any), promoters
and investors - who are representatives of shareholders and their inherent
interests.
First movers advantage / if you
have it flaunt it
Suspense, drama and of course
dilly dallying – perhaps best describe the way the ruling alliance and yes the
opposition, resorted to when declaring their presidential candidate. In
posterity it seems that had not the UPA candidate in an interview to ET made a
veiled inclination for the top job - “The President’s House, Rashtrapati
Bhavan, has large lawns,” he had said – and more so had it not been for Mamta
(TMC)–Mulayam (SP) duo out rightly rejecting the (un)official choices of UPA
and proposing a list of three candidates of their own, perhaps the ruling
alliance would not have swung into action. The less said of the opposition the
better. Apparently it appears to be the show of indecisiveness on the part of
the political parties or was it a part and parcel of political gimmickry. Having
said this, it would have made more sense for the ruling alliance to publicly announce
their choice of candidate rather than waiting for what seemed to be a well
orchestrated political maneuvering.
In the organizational context; if
there is an experienced organizational manager who takes his /her job as a
vocation, can read the pulse of the people and the market, is astute and has
the right management skills; the organization must take the first movers
advantage propose his/her name for the top job. This will give enough time for
other interest groups to debate amongst themselves on the merits and demerits of
the proposed candidate. Organizations can look within their existing ecosystem
to find a person to lead the organization; an external (borrowed – if we can
term it) candidate to lead the organization may not find much support. Delay on
the part of the search committee will only add to confusion and pose greater
challenge of getting the right candidate for the right job; worse if the said
candidate is poached by rival companies.
Consensus building
Consensus building or so to say
the lack of it, over a presidential candidate, is not new to India. It all
started in 1949; the groupism was all there for others to see. Two opposing power
center within the same ecosystem, one led by Jawaharlal Nehru and the other by
Sardar Vallabhbahi Patel, wanted their respective candidates (C Rajagopalachari
and Rajendra Prasad) to be appointed as the President of India. The Nehru –
Patel relationship which was plagued by disagreements came to the forefront as
a full blown friction. Similar was the case in 1969 when there were simmering
differences between Indira Gandhi and the Syndicate. In the same vein; in an
era of coalition politics and government, intense politicking and success over
the appointment of a ceremonial position is indeed a mark of political prowess.
If history is anything to go by then building a consensus over a potential
candidate for the ceremonial post is perhaps the most challenging and thus all
the more critical.
Cut to organizational prism, with
diverse workforce (including those of millennials) and representation on the
board, if at all an election was to be held to elevate one to the top job;
consensus building would indeed be a herculean task. Different groups would
lobby for their favorites; horse trading and hard bargaining for support would
indeed be at play as in the political system. Each one would like to see their
interests being served the best by the one who could potentially occupy the
chair. Fractured mandate, as the term is used in political parlance, would be inevitable
if the proverbial cart is put before the horse. It is important to build consensus
and project a candidate who has a vision and seeks to achieve the larger
objectives of the organizations. As an ambassador, he/she must imbibe as well
as reflect the culture and finer nuances of the organization.
Accommodating divergent views /
Communication is the key
Building consensus in essence
implies getting on board people with divergent views. This means reaching out
to not only the natural allies but even to opposition parties. This is
important because a person who would occupy the position of the first citizen
of India should be one who can rise above petty party politics. For this it is
important to have in place an open and transparent communication as to what is
acceptable and what is not. There should be no hidden agenda leaving scope for
future maneuvering and dramatics. In the
run up the present presidential election, there have been instances of open
communication, back door room meetings, switching of loyalty, offer of support
camouflaged with hard bargaining – all bundled into one. There are no free lunches
and it has become obvious in the run up to the election that there is a price attached
for accommodating views and bringing all on board or is there more than meets
the eye?
For organizations too ‘one shoe
fits all’ strategy no longer works and now with millennials forming a
significant part of the workforce – who believe in evaluation, questioning,
challenging and judging – it is important to take into consideration the views
of all on board before coming up with a strategy that impacts a larger employee
base. A select group can no longer decide for all. In the present context, with
negative news flowing from all sides it becomes all the more important to build an effective
two-way communication between managers and employees and strengthen employee engagement.
An honest and transparent communication of the ground realities and its
imminent impact on the organization works favorably to keep the rumor mongers at
bay.
