Articles

Over the last several months, I have commented on two sides of the leadership coin: first, shaping a good company into a business institution, and second, transforming traditional organizations.

By their nature, the problems that top managers and leaders are required to solve are foggy and unclear very often. In their pursuit of efficiency, managers sometimes lose effectiveness. 

Unfortunately, the public and motivational narrative these days suggests that while winning is an all-important end, crushing the ‘other’ is equally important.

SEBI introduces new regulations for listed companies to reduce the influence of promoters and to empower independent directors. Several promoter-driven companies do deserve such regulations.

If only India had a leader with gravitas who would say, “Let us temporarily bury our political differences and focus on the wellbeing of our voters. Let us act like the rainbow nation that we are.”

If company boards or citizens of a nation do not welcome variation, their eventual homogeneity can pose an existential threat. This can be asserted through both corporate experience and history.

Many crises are leadership failures rather than technical ones. Leaders focus so intently on an agenda that they fail to factor in their team’s social context. A dose of healthy humility and empathy can mitigate the resultant humiliation.  

Transformational leaders chart the four stages of start, roadmap, time plan, and end point. The former are planned, while the latter are flexible.