The race to the Raisina Hills – an organizational analogy

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.