Lec-13 Case: “Self Regulation-The Key to Institution Building” Framework of Institution Building

Lec-13 Case: “Self Regulation-The Key to Institution Building” Framework of Institution Building

September 19, 2019 0 By Kody Olson


Shall we start, tell me Veraj, now how many cases have we done for this course, which I have been taking.
Sir, exact number almost 6. 6, that is only mine or including the other
instructor. Sir, including the examination case also…
Including the examination case, but also including Dr. Jeetu Singh’s.
No sir. How many cases, did he take?
He did not take any of the cases; he was supposed to take three cases.
He took one of them. One of them was discussed, because he was
running out of time to take the case. So, let us say about 6, 7 cases.
Yes sir. What is the case which impressed you most
– impressed means you remember it, out of all.
Sir, I think I remember all, most of the cases. What touched you most deeply, because they
are all cases about leadership? Yes sir, I think from Sindhi to Shrindi, that
Anna Hazare’s case touched me most. From Shindhi to Shirdi.
Yes sir. Or shidhi.
Shidhi. Why did it touch you most?
Because, he was never, he could have easily foregone the responsibilities in all the cases.
You mean they were nominated rose to a position. They were allotting some responsibilities,
which they performed very well. Francis, I asked a question, how many cases
have you done in this course, so Veraj said about 6 cases and Dr. Jeetu Singh discussed
1 case, so roughly about 6. So, I said out of all these cases, which is the case in which
impressed you most or touched you most deeply. So, he said from shindhi to shidhi, so I asked
why, why did it touch most, so he is telling me that, now and what he started by saying,
what touched him is the voluntariness of Anna Hazare.
He did not have to, he had retired, he came back to his village, he did not have to take
on the role and he took on the mantle of a leader. Whereas in the other cases, he feels
the others did not take on in the sense that they were in a process, where they strove
and they became a leader is that what you are saying Veraj.
Yes sir. I want some responses now from the class,
before we get responses, we have some late Latif‘s; so Francis, will you now summarize,
what I just did for you. One good turn deserves another they say…
We were discussing the number of cases that we have gone through this course, including
those solved by other professor and which is on the cases, which is the type of leadership
or which is the case struck us the most. So, was this mainly on what Veraj said that is
being the case of from sidhi to what Anna Hazare.
Sindhi to Sidhi, then I asked him why? points.
And then, what did he say, could you understand what he said, it is an important point he
made. Tell them Veraj, you tell them, why that touched you the most, Anna Hazare as
a leader. The voluntariness of his…
Voluntariness, he did not have to do it, but he took on that responsibility, so that aspect
of leadership all right that touched him, any comments on that.
Yes sir. Yes, Ashutosh.
Sir, it is very in my view, it is very easy to do the work and recognize yourself that
you have done the work; you will get the feeling that you have done something. So, Anna Hazare
did the work and he was recognized that he did the work and he communicated it and ultimately
become the influential person in the village. Means, he did a lot of thing like for example,
the liquor shop, this is a direct example, but it was not closing from advice, then he
bring some youth and get it closed. While in the case of…
He used force. Yes sir, while in this case the person.
No, I am not asking this case, my question was out of all these, which has touched you
the most… no.
So as this… Yes sir.
Self regulation. Yes sir.
That has touched you most about mister Ravi Matthai.
Yes sir. Tell me, why?
sir it is very tough for a head of the organization to see that everything is been done and I
do not have any power, I do not have any holding, it is very easier as far as Indian society
is concerned, that I am a leader and I have a lot of authority and everything passes through
me. But, what he has added he has developed the organization such that every.
You mean he relinquished his power and empowered other people under him, so that very act of
relinquishment is what has touched you. Right sir.
That here is one individual, all of us we have learnt we seek power and there are various
theories about power, but here is an individual who had power and he choose voluntarily to
give up power. Exactly.
In fact, the interviewer DR. Uday Parik says at one stage, that it is very intriguing,
that you are giving up power, because power is normally used to influence others. Of course,
he made a slightly different point, DR. Parik he says you are influencing without power
by giving up power, you are exerting an influence. Whereas, we have all been taught, we all learnt
that power is really the authority. When, authority gives you the power and you
exercise that power by influencing people to bend to your will what you want them to
do you make them do, but here was another intriguing case. So, that has touched Ashutosh
the most, see this is an individual a leader with a difference, he has exhibited leadership
by giving up power, transmitting the power to people under him.
Not let me ask you, why did he do that, what was his powerful motivation to give up power,
remember he did not give up responsibility, do not tell me that, because giving up responsibility,
by giving up your power is like running away. He chooses to accept the post, when he was
invited by the board to become director of IIM, Ahmadabad. So, he has given up power
not because he is running away, not because he is shying away from responsibilities, but
for some other very powerful reason, internal, what is it? Let Avanish say.
In the case, he mentioned that he did not have any experience of managing or managing
experience. So, maybe and the other person are very well educated and they are being
in this profession from very long. Which profession?
In teaching profession. Teaching now is there a difference between
teaching and managing an educational institution of higher learning.
yes sir. There is all right.
So, nobody probably had much experience in a green field, I am calling it green field
like you call a green field factory you build, he was a green field educational institution
of higher learning. I would suspect that none of the professors there, you know the faculty
had that experience also. yes sir.
Yes. He is trying to develop the same quality of
what he has done in other people also, say the faculty also…
My question is very pointed, what was his powerful motivation to give up power?
Let him first answer. Yes .
To develop… To develop, yes, but why?
Same, why did he, why was that motivation to develop.
Sir, when he is not there the process of managing a very good institute should go further go
beyond and that process should not stop when he leaves the institute, that has to be institutionalized
and it is there were initial hick ups initial problems. But, when this all these problems
were sorted out they. So, what would you paraphrase it by saying,
his powerful motivation was is he took a responsibility to build an institution, his motivation was
very powerful to build the institution, so that it will endure what is the meaning of
endure, after you are not there, it will not only remain, but it will keep on growing and
prospering that was a powerful motivation. Sir, there could be another reason.
Yes. Sir, because of all of the professors there,
they were highly educated and they might have some ego factor in them, so if you dictate
your terms. They have all ego factor blown up ego factors.
If he dictates notes then, they might not be in line with you.
Right. There will be conflict among them, so as a
whole the institution would not help that is why giving them power is…
So Munish has got another view, he says it was not that powerful intrinsic motivation
to build an institution; it may have been that, but something else. May have been a
very clever tactics of handling, highly educated, highly egoistic, faculty, who otherwise you
would not be able to manage, so this was a clever ploy on a tactics to do it, how many
agree with this. No sir.
One movement one movement how many disagree, tell me Daspreet know, tell me, why do you
disagree? sir, I disagree, because he says that he walks
into industry with a ignorance Walks into…
He is come where? From industry.
he said that… He is ignorant of the educational institutes.
Right sir. Right.
The place where he has come, he is ignorant of how to manage systems there.
Yes. I think sir this was the and…
That was the reason; he gave to DR Parik, what was the success?
He also asks him again and again that to delegate this kind of power, you need a lot of self
security, that if I delegate systems to, I have the self security that nothing will go
wrong, because most of the… That is why you disagree…
No sir, but this case is it not talk of that, what is the reason for it, in fact the DR
Uday Parik asked, what is the already you developed the seat for this self security
in your childhood or I do not think, so he is instead he start talking of his weaknesses.
Yes, so what are you coming to the views, you know of all the cases that you have learnt,
you know this case, he is talking about the leadership, a leadership with a difference
is it not. We have seen Rai Bahadur, Mohan Singh Oberoi great leader built a great institution.
We have seen Mr. R K Thalwar, R K Thalwar builds a great institution, Anna Hazare, he
also did a great bit of leadership he executed. And now we are seeing Luther and not to forget
Luther, now we are seeing Ravi Matthai, who has gone down in the annals of at least Indian
institutions as one of the greatest institution builders you know, very great institution
builders we had also. There was a very great man, who built BHU is it not it, but he has
down in modern times as a great institution builder and he is a leader with a difference.
So, that is why I thought, let me see what your perceptions are…
Krishna, what do you agree with or disagree… This is an educational institution.
Here you have a lot of improved work done very well in their respective fields, education
is their prominently, now if you try to that is not the right way of dealing with such
people means. Means, he could not build the great institution.
yes sir. He could not if he a took autocratic style.
It might not have been possible. Might not have been possible.
So, probably he did had this in mind and I think that was the reason why he adopted the
one of the common reasons why he was… But, mind you he did not have to be autocratic,
he could not even have been bureaucratic, why because this was set up by government
of India, was it not. And it is accepted as legitimate by all within an institution, which
is government that government has bureaucratic rules regulations acts. In fact, somewhere
in the case he did say no, Ravi Matthai that there was constant pressure in the beginning,
from the board, the central government; state government to say, I say where are your regulations.
Like IIT, we have a regulation it is a thick book like this, we have an act, we have rules,
we have procedures. So, they he could well have done in the normal course, without being
autocratic. If this were the reason, sir then the decisions,
which are not taken by… But, he chose in fact to oppose that, did
he not do that, he told the government, I think it took a little bit of courage to tell
government look do not bug us, we do not require, we are doing another experiment. And what
is further, more surprising, I mean he had great selling skills, I think he convinced
the government. And later on, after 3, 4 years, he says that pressure stopped they understood
and gave them the autonomy. Someone was saying something…
Another point that… No let me ask Devash first, then you come.
Sir, as far as I can see from his case, is he believed that in order to get accountability
of the people, I need to give them responsibility he wanted them.
All right, go ahead. So, he gave up responsibility from the power
from his side give that power to the individual. Wait this is, where I drop, I knew you are
coming to that I draw the whistle, because in fact, he did not do that, he gave responsibility
without the authority or power. In the beginning, many complaints came, saying sir, how can
we do it, you are asking us to do this responsibility, you have not given us the power and authority,
it was very normal. Yes Asif, let you tell me.
That is how, he was trying to build up a culture in which people were given responsibility
without being given power and he was telling them, motivating them to pursuit their co
professors to achieve a common goal without giving them power. This is the kind of positive
culture towards which he was… He did have a method in his madness, what
was he trying to do, self regulation. Remember while Dr. Parik asks him, what you think is
a single greatest factor, you know of having built this organization. He says self regulation,
which rests on the foundation of self discipline, self regulation rests on self discipline and
he gives an example can you give me an example a very classical example, what happens? No the faculty, their self regulation how
much time to give for the PDP, the code program and how much time to give for their own earning
incentive for consulting is it not that so. So, if you give too much time to consulting,
then you may miss classes, your teaching suffer. Now, he did not make a rule there, he expected
that this kind of self discipline, where self regulation was developed. He did another thing,
he created a large numbers of committees task forces remember it is such, so in the case,
why because he says there is a reason. That encourages people to try and make norms of
discipline themselves instead of it coming from the top as a directive and once you make
it yourself, how is it maintained through peer pressure.
So, although he pleaded ignorance, I think he had great foresight and great sensitivity
about people you know, he understood people and how to manage people. In the beginning,
when he had faculty meetings, what was the situation in the faculty meetings, many very
often quarrels broke out and the main issue substantive issue was sidelined, people attacked
each other instead of looking at the issues. Decision was left, often in the early years
what happened, when committees could not take a decision, they kicked it upstairs and what
he did, he kicked it back again. How, does he justify doing this, because someone may
take a stance, saying that director was abdicating his duty, his duty was to give decisions,
how do you justify this charge. He himself says so; he says if he had not done this,
he would have lost two things. One is giving autonomy, giving self confidence
and building self discipline and self regulation within the faculty. So, that they could govern,
most of the operating problems themselves, without coming to director and the spinoff
of that is he would have more time to do his dhobi book planning as he calls it. In all
the text books, you will read know the CEO is supposed to do a lot of strategic thinking,
which means long range, set directions, plan for change.
Now, if he is tied up every day, in day to day operational matters, has he got the time
to do that, he does not have, so that is the spin off right, he wanted to say something,
Polash tell me. Sir, another chief reasons, why he sought
to develop this sort of open culture within IIM, Ahmadabad was that, but of course, from
this self regulation and self motivation. The reason was that it was an educational
institution; it was supposed to be a center of educational excellence. So, for advancement
of learning and for better research, one has to have an open culture, where there is flexibility
and not the rigidity of bureaucracy. So, that was one of the chief reasons, why
he sought to develop an open culture within IIM, Ahmadabad primarily because it was an
educational institution. So, it was planned strategy, essentially to accomplish the mission,
what I felt dealing this case, that his personal mission was to build an enduring institution,
he is in the case that was always his most important motivation factor. So, any action,
which led to this outcome, he spent all his time and efforts on doing this. So, having said that here is a little framework,
which I had to, I tried to extract from this case. This case, you can try and do this for other
cases too, but this framework says there is a process and there is an outcome, this is
a framework for institution building. So, first he tried to bring autonomy of the institution
and the autonomy of the institution was really a shield to guard against external influences,
number 1 and number 2, can someone tell me. What else was the purpose of the autonomy,
One is obviously, as a shield as a barrier or a buffer from external forces outside the
institution. Autonomy means, you are empowered, you do
not have to go running to anyone to get decisions, you can decide on your own that is the meaning
of autonomy. So, it shields you from the need to run back and forth you know go to Delhi,
seek approvals all the time, what else what else. Sense of ownership, discipline. Autonomy why, so we say it is a shield from
external influences, what else you said… Responsibility for taking new jobs…
Autonomy gives you responsibility, does it give anything else, self discipline and if
I give you autonomy will it engender self discipline. Yes or no, may or may not. How, should I give autonomy?
It gives independence to the institution. Autonomy must go hand in hand with, you are
right, it is how you give it and autonomy must go hand in hand with what responsibility.
accountability. Accountability.
say it also gives a sense of belongingness. Accountability.
Say, I give you autonomy in your learning process, the lectures will be held, professors
will come they will give lectures; you may or may not attend lectures. Library will be
kept open, books will be provided and you may or may not read the books. If you want
you can have group discussions, with any other professors of the institute not necessarily
our department. Or if you want computers are provided, we
have databases provided to you, you can do learning from there, I give all this autonomy,
no time table, which you have to attend. Professors will come give lectures to empty classes,
those who are interested you have the autonomy. If I just give that what is likely to happen
without accountability, likely outcome is learning process may not occur. But, on the
other hand, it may also occur that is exactly what analogy, what Ravi Matthai was trying
to do, is it not? Could it not happened, the professors they
spend most of the time in doing consulting, earning lot of money and students did not
get the benefit of their instruction, could have happen, it did not happen. So, there
must have been some accountability, which is not mentioned in the case, is it mentioned
accountability were there appraisals. The analogy I am giving you, what could be then
the accountability for you, if I gave you the open system of learning.
After all, there are such systems, what is distance education is it not giving a lot
of autonomy to people the evaluation, PHD also as you go higher evaluation. So, there
has to be within the framework some process by which some evaluation. PHD program also,
there is lot of autonomy, but there is some framework of evaluation, so autonomy of the
institution. Next, I think strongly it comes through was
he not trying with this autonomy, under the umbrella of the autonomy that he had for the
institution, he was trying to pass on this autonomy to smaller autonomous groups in terms
of committees task forces. It mentions that finally, after a few years the PGP program,
the powers were automatically passed to the PGP chairman, basically to run the program
there was a committee. Every faculty member had something to do with the main PGP program.
So, the PGP program committee comprised of practically all the professors and slowly
they developed the norms, they vested the chairman of that committee, whoever he was
from time to time with powers to take routine operational decisions. So, that he would not
come back to the committee all the time, so culture in culture relationships which was
encouraged to grow, professional kind of relationships, what it means professional.
What is the relationship between faculties, what does professional mean is based on what,
based on mutual respect, you have a faculty from economics and you have a faculty from
let us say IT. So, professionalism means what? There is a mutual respect for each other’s
expertise. Peer group, culture of peer groups, what does it mean? That means peer groups
are used to exert a lot of influence on people within the group to adhere to whatever the
norms, which has been developed by the group itself that is the kind of culture he was
building up. Non hierarchical, there is another evidence
to show that the hierarchy, which is inherent in a bureaucratic system and by law, it is
a central government institution and it could have a bureaucratic system and the hierarchy.
He was trying to dispel, by having a culture which was non hierarchical, competitive creativity,
what is this, this is also being build into the culture, competitive creativity, Pardon
me, academic entrepreneurship, academic entrepreneurship; that is the phrase which you find in the case. So that, what is it trying to convey, pursuit
of excellence and creative competitiveness means what, you are competing, whom are you
competing against. Are you competing against your peer’s, say
two faculties in the same department competing with each other or you are competing with
yourself, such a thing as competing with yourself also to see, how well you are progressing,
how well you are doing. Best in the world, yes after all there are
situations is it not; you can give analogy of some games or sports. Can you can you think
of any game or sports, where you compete against yourself. Who? Sir, weight lifting, shot put pole vault.
Pole vault, weight lifting shot put all are competing, these are all you compete with
yourself. Squash.
Golf, Squash you can you play with yourself, but certainly, you can better records, if
you are an athlete, you know in running, you compete with others, but you can compete.
Golf you can try and reduce your handicap you can take an 18 whole round in a golf course.
If your handicap is 20, try and reduce it to 18 and so on you can compete. So, competitive
creativity, my interpretation of this is mainly competing with you also and not the run of
the mill competition. Where, you compete with other people and you
have a win lose kind of an outcome, the creativity of this is what, I feel because you are competing
with yourself, the faculty and in the process, if you are improving. Then, you are bringing
in institutional excellence, because the aggregate of that is bringing in institutional excellence.
Multi roles was he trying to faster multi roles by involving people in various committees,
the keyword here is involvement. If you have autonomy from outside sources,
you try and build autonomy inside and the autonomy you build, in order to have a situation,
where it is not an individual leader centered. In other words, if the director goes on sabbatical,
even for 6 months, the institution keeps running. But, imagine a situation, where routine matters
are coming to the director, what will happen the files will pileup, vouchers will not be
signed and people will not get cash. So, multi roles is an excellent way of getting
involvement of people first, so that whatever decisions are the outcome of the committees,
there is a ownership of each member in it, that he was part of it. Also, multi roles
gives you the autonomy of the group, which then starts functioning on it is own, without
things going to the top all the time and becoming bottlenecks.
Hence self regulation, this very foundation, self disciplined, based self regulation, apart
from culture, which to my mind was the most important ingredient, his greater achievement
was to be able to build this culture was structure matrix type. Now, that had to follow, if you
are trying to build this culture is it not it. Otherwise, it will be a contradiction
in terms had to have a matrix structure and self reliance.
Self reliance in what sense in the sense of autonomy, but I suspect even in the sense
of financial self reliance, because I think he tried to build a very strong income earning
stream, revenue stream for the institute. There are number of innovative practices,
which he brought in also. In India, at the time when IIM introduced, this it was a very
innovative practice, that faculty members could consult and pay a small percentage of
their consulting to the institute and keep the rest himself.
Now, IIT’s have the same system, I am not very sure of myself, where it originated,
whether in the ministry or it is originated in IIM or in IIT that someone would have been
a source, I think it is very innovative it is there in America also. Now, outcome is
internal strength was generated and self renewing process, which is the final outcome institution
building, the very essence of institution building.
You can leave behind the institution, which renews itself, why renewing itself is very
important, because again we say environment keeps on changing. Therefore, if you have
a self regulating mechanism, where the institution has self renewed, so it is like a closed loop
feedback with correction is it not it. As the environment changes, the people who are
empowered, who are autonomous, they will change to keep abreast, with the changes in the environment
and continue to do well and prosper. Now, I had promised, see I do not want to
deprive you of this; I had promised in the email, that each of you should read the case
and prepare yourself to make a class presentation, if called upon by me to do so. And for that,
you wanted 1 hour extra time for preparation, which I also gave, so I have done my part
of it know, I have shown you something for nearly 40 minutes about my interpretation
has anyone learnt anything from this case so far.
Now, I would like to learn something which we had not talked about, so I will call open
any volunteer to come and add something to this, I am not being facetious, I may have
missed out some aspects of this case, it has impressed me also, quite a lot. He was a very
charming man, you know I met him, I was much he was much older than me, I met him on 3
or 4 occasions and then, when I attended his executive development program; the first program,
I attended was in 1967. In fact, that was the first executive development
program which IIM, Ahmadabad had introduced, they did not have the infrastructure. So,
they used to hold it in a hotel, this was held it was a 4 weeks program called PYE,
Program for Young Executives and then L and T, that is the first time, they sent anyone
to attend any external program, it was a small company.
6 of us were sent, I was 1 of the 6 and now I think only 1 remains, all the others have
left L and T, the man who remains is now the managing director Anil Naik. So, at that time
Ravi Matthai, he taught us the marketing course, so we had some interaction with him and this
was in hotel Sealord in Ernakulum. So, since the faculties were also staying there, we
could socially mix with them. So, he was extremely charming and sensitive
person, so obviously, his man management skills were par Exelon, so now who will volunteer,
which interpret yes, Veraj did you raise your hand, yes, come [FL] you have to stand here.
[FL] Come, all right Veraj, what would like to discuss If you want a pointer, I have some
questions here, if you want to, but otherwise you are on your own.
Yes sir. This was my question particularly, cast a
glance at it say something, I said how you would describe the leadership skills of Ravi
Matthai add something which we have not, what best describes Ravi Matthai’s managerial
style vis-a-vis any of the accepted theories of leadership styles research. We touched
upon a number of theories of leadership style, Ashutosh you remember no, you have to learn
it now, exams are coming. So, how does how do you fit in his style here,
first you say your bit then spend few minutes here. How much time, do you want, I can give
you about 6, 7 minute is that. Yes sir.
All right, start. The whole case can be summarized in two lines
in page number 292, where Mr. Matthai says that unless the individual gains some understanding
of how to use his freedom and some degree of self confidence in his own individual functioning.
His functions in a group becomes less effective, so in the whole process of institution building,
what Matthai provided to all the other faculty members, teachers in the institution was the
same freedom and some degree and then opportunity should develop a some degree of self confidence.
You do not mind, if I intersperse some comments in between, there is there are there is a
view that most of us, we are afraid of freedom. There was a book written I forget the author
now, which was a very powerful book, it was entitled fear of freedom. And this is a kind
of dichotomous situation, all of us we like to be free, but when you are absolutely free,
we are afraid. We want some sort of umbrella, some sort of framework, some reference points,
you know emotional, mental intellectual points, within which you like to operate, otherwise
you feel very insecure and frighten, so think about it.
And again he stresses that to build an institution, building of people, their relationships, attitudes
and behavior norms, he gave a big impetus on the growth of the institution. And one
more interesting quote that, I would like to point out, it is a very interesting, since
we are all in a management school trying to acquire knowledge. Where, he says that he
had no formal education in management and a little bit of involved, that he never realized
what occurred between the first and the last pages of any management textbook.
So, the fact that he came from an industry, which might have been totally unrelated to
this kind of responsibility. But, his realization that it was people, who can build an institution.
Irrespective of whether it is in industry or in academy and he could successfully replicate
his success as a leader in this particular case also, so these are the few points, I
just wanted to point out. He also said that he really had no knowledge,
barring the short period 2 years that he was in IIM and MIT, Calcutta and also at MIT.
Sir, this is just pointed, I just wanted to stress on…
Now, trying to answer this question is very difficult.
Why? How to describe the leadership?
Skills, one is people related skills, people related skills.
Ravi Matthai’s skills with the general theoretical theories that we are aware of this, very difficult
in the sense that if you were to refer to the manageable grade, then he probably was
more people oriented. It was his realization on the industry as he in the institute buildings,
was in such a way that he concentrated more on people, not that he forerun the task out
of it. But, it is definitely true that it is certainly
evident that his concentrations on people were much more, because he was concentrating
on institution building. Now, theoretically the successful leaders are always found on
the second part, first quadrant of the managerial grid were people have an equal balance of
task orientation and people orientation. But, I personally felt that he was more into
him is probably could be well placed in the second quadrant, where he was more in people
orientation then in task orientation, the degree of orientation could be well.
Would anyone like to add anything? Yes.
Sir, I think it was a very important thing here he was heading the Indian Institute of
Management in Ahmadabad, which had to develop normative frameworks. So, it is one thing
to follow that is you had some knowledge of frameworks already existing and then you try
to conform those. But, he was having, he had an additional responsibility of doing that.
Now, how can he do it, he had to have this type of open culture, where the he cannot
build tasks, he had to build those tasks from ideas that has to be generated by the people,
who were possessing the class with him and that that aspect also has to brought in…
Did he have any help at all; he had some help, he there was collaboration with the Harvard
business school. So, they did have like when most of these institutions were set up when
IIT was set up. There was collaboration with MIT, there were large numbers of professors
who came and they helped in setting up the curriculum. Similarly, with IIM Ahmadabad,
they had from the Harvard business school help, but then we have learnt about cross
cultural differences. So, all that had to make appropriate to our
own conditions, he just could not take the package, which came from there and use it,
because our conditions were different. So, the point Krishna made is there was a motivation
to form norms on their own well partly true. But, he did have help of seeing some of the
great business schools of the world elsewhere no, how they had developed. So, he could learn
something from there, chances are that he may have borrowed a few ideas from there,
anything else. Yes sir.
Yes. Adding to that the question is about the dhobi
book answer given my mister Matthai He says that I have never diverged my targets
to my people, so that they will meet guided for that target or they will have some prejudice
about. Biased…
Bias for the target. So, this was one of his vision that, which
he was correctly able to identify that, if I will set a target and people are not going
to think beyond that one. And at the same time, he has planned that how he wants his
institute to go in 4 and 5 or 20 years from 5 to 20 years.
Privately he has done that… Yes.
Although, publicly and institutionally they did have 5 year plans right, but he says those
plans had a specific purpose, what does the case say. Purpose was basically to get government
grants and so on, it was required to submit this plans to the government to get the grants,
so that they did it. But, for the institution the kind of futuristic strategic and very
long range planning, he did that privately. Yes sir.
Right, good, I want one more volunteer someone who does not know anything about leadership,
Ignorance is they say bless, but often ignorance is a very powerful tool also know to make
you do the job. Sir, before that I just…
You come forward then, you volunteer, why before that come and add your comments from
here. Yes sir.
Come, just two minutes because I want Shrivats also to say a few words.
Sir, I would as you said, whether we can put the entire, I mean the style of leadership,
the style of leadership of Ravi Matthai within a formal leadership style framework.
Right. So, I try I just tried to that, I think if
we I mean look at Ravi Matthai’s leadership style in terms of the various theories, that
we have studied in our earlier classes. We find that he was number 1, a theory wide type
of leader, in terms of Douglas, McGregor’s theory x and theory y.
He was the type of leader who loved to delegate and to instill motivation among his subordinates
and thereby I mean bring out a sense of devotion and confidence in his subordinates. Apart
from that I think we can also describe him as a charismatic and transformational leader
with a long term vision. Basically, when he was building an institution from scratch and
he did not have any role model to follow at least in the Indian context.
We can definitely say that he was a transformational leader, who sought to transform the entire
educational scene in India by setting up and developing this management institute. Similarly,
we have studied another theory, the substitute theory, where it was said that in certain
situations, we do not need a leader at all. So, basically by delegating responsibility
among his subordinates, he sought to create a situation, whereby decisions could be taken
even without his presence. A very important point you know, which was
not added so far a substitute theory, where there is no need for a grater basically then…
Another theory, we studied was the path goal theory of Robert House, so in that theory
also they speak of a supportive type of leader. So, I think his, I mean whatever we have studied
about Matthai, really fit is in with this type of supportive leadership. And the last
one, I would say was the Ohio, were the Ohio and the Michigan studies, which we studied
the Ohio and Michigan theories. Where, they spoke of the people oriented leader,
who had a high degree of consideration, instead of a high degree of initiating structure.
So, I think Ravi Matthai fit is into this formal category, he had a high degree of consideration
for his people. So, that is my interpretation in terms of the Ohio and Michigan studies.
Very good, [FL]. I think Shrivats, you are saved by the bell,
you were prepared for the worst, but you are saved now, so anyway now this is the last
class on leadership. Hopefully, we have been able to tell you something, which has been
interesting and hopefully you have learnt something and we will see that in the evaluation.
The exams are round the corner and best of luck. If you want to ask anything about this
course, I am here next week I am not here, but anyone wants to consult.
Sir, as far examination is concerned will there be a formal, will there be a case study
or some. I cannot say, because I have not made up my
mind yet, but probably it maybe a combination these three are exam you see, it maybe a combination
of some theory, some case, what do you think, you will better.
Case study sir. Case study will be better, but not only one
case… You can have several cases.
It should be a rich mix, thank you very much; I enjoyed teaching to this group.
Thank you sir.