| R. Gopalakrishnan*,
executive director, Tata Sons, explains the managerial
view of how and why India works
Foreigners
understand a country through economists, historians
and tour guides. Mine is an attempt to draw a manager's
perspective, based on social and organisational dynamics.
It too is flawed in its own way, but perhaps it is different
and maybe, thought provoking.
In 1991, the Economist
published a supplement in which India was depicted as
a tiger, no doubt inspired by the Asian tigers. Gurcharan
Das, a successful international manager and now a writer,
has rightly observed that India will never be a tiger.
It is an elephant that is lumbering and moving ahead.
It will display more stamina than speed. A Buddhist
text says, "The elephant is the wisest of all animals.
It remembers its former lives. It remains motionless
for long periods of time, meditating thereon."1
Foreigners find India intriguing, but so do Indians!
What Winston Churchill wrote
"Without measureless and perpetual uncertainty,
the drama of human life would be destroyed"
certainly applies to India. I will focus on five headlines.
|
|
For many
Indians knowledge sits on a pedestal |
|
|
As the
role of Indians in software is applauded it is sobering
to reflect that India accounts for under 2 per cent
of the world's software market. Thanks to our software
engineers, Indians are thought to be clever and
efficient by more and more people. Sir Keith Whitson,
former CEO of HSBC, said, "Indians are quicker
at answering the phone, highly numerate and keen
to come to work everyday." In October, the
Guardian revealed that the British National Rail
Enquiries service is likely to move to Bangalore2.
It is surreal to contemplate someone in Bangalore
passing on information about the 8:42 fast train
to Brighton! BT, BA, Lloyds TSB, Prudential, Stanchart,
Abbey National, Powergen and many more have already
begun to move their call centres to India.
It is not just about call
centres. In the USA, 38 per cent of doctors are
Indians, so also 12 per cent of the scientists.
Thirty-six per cent of Microsoft employees as
well as NASA scientists are Indians. One out of
eight management faculty in American-B schools
is Indian. The 250 Indian engineering colleges
produce 300,000 engineers out of a world output
of 900,000 engineers per annum. We have 800 management
schools which turn out 100,000 management graduates
each year, compared to 13,000 in Britain and 1,500
in Germany3. Admittedly the quality
is highly variable but the quantity is staggering.
Is this predilection for knowledge an outcome
of recent development and awareness of the emerging
knowledge society?
There are gleeful cognoscenti
who will tell you facts from the past. The world's
first university was established in 700 BC in
Takshila. It had 10,500 students from all over
the world and 60 subjects were taught. On the
Indus river was born the art of navigation and
although the dictionary states that the word is
derived from Latin, your attention would be invited
to the Sanskrit word, Naava Gatih, which
predates the Latin origin! British scholars have
published just four years ago that the value of
pi was calculated by Budhayana in 600 BC. Quadratic
equations were invented by Sridharacharya in 1100
AD. There is debate on whether the pioneer of
wireless communication was Marconi or Acharya
Jagdish Chandra Bose. And so this list can go
on.
Keeping the aberrant experience
with a cab driver or shopkeeper aside, uniquely,
a very large number of Indians place knowledge,
not money, on a pedestal. Even in the old caste
system, the first rung was occupied by Brahmins,
the purveyors of knowledge. The next three rungs
were occupied by warriors, business people and
finally the workers. Indians are keen absorbers
of knowledge, often for its own sake, even if
they do not always demonstrate the application
of that knowledge. In the last two centuries,
wealth was acquired by societies through owning
mines, gold, oil, etc. In the future, it is said
ownership of knowledge will bring wealth. Maybe,
just maybe, India will find its place in the sun!
|
|
|
The collective
ambition of Indians exceeds the resources they command |
| |
Ten years
ago managers everywhere were fascinated by the term
'core competence'. This too came from an Indian
C. K. Prahalad along with Gary Hamel.
One element in their thesis was that it is not cash
that fuels the journey to the future, but the emotional
and intellectual energy of the people involved.
The dream that energises an organisation is more
positive than a simple war cry4. Strategic
intent conveys three senses: of direction, of discovery
and of destiny. Prahalad argued that it is essential,
by design, to create a chasm between ambition and
resources. It is this chasm that allows people to
be planfully unrealistic. If Torakuso Yamaha had
been "realistic", he would never have
dreamed of turning Yamaha into the world's leading
manufacturer of grand pianos and musical instruments.
If Nehru had been "realistic", he would
not have committed to the IITs as the "temples
of modern India". Or indeed Shastri or Indira
Gandhi later to the setting up of an Indian space
programme or the super computer Param. Such audacious
unreasonableness is becoming increasingly visible
in India and among Indians. Where is the world's
largest manufacturer of motorcycles? Where is the
world's largest single-location forging facility?
Where is the world's largest single-stream, fully
integrated printing inks plant? Who is the world's
largest manufacturer of laminated tubes? No prizes
for guessing correctly.
As a nation we possess
a collective ambition that is a stretch over the
available resources. Two of the three senses implicit
in strategic intent are often visible, i.e. the
sense of discovery and of destiny. Paradoxically,
the sense of direction is less visible!
|
|
|
In India,
effectiveness is more important than efficiency |
| |
The Anglo-Saxon
approach to managerial problem solving places a
premium on logic, analytics and efficiency. In this
approach, the shortest distance between two points
is a straight line, but in India, it can be a spiral
that goes around in circles. The Indian approach
lays less emphasis on efficiency and more on effectiveness.
It is important to achieve the goal in a particular
way, more so than to reach the goal. The difference
with other societies is that it is not about efficiency
versus effectiveness, but rather a balance between
the two.
In 1920, the British faced
a bloody revolt in post-Ottoman Iraq. On the assumption
that Iraqis were waiting for democracy and freedom,
they installed a Hashemite king. In reality, they
stirred up a hornet's nest as subsequent events
have shown. The Americans are once again discovering
that due to a poor evolution of political institutions,
too many in Iraq depend on a regime of violence,
patronage and ethnic division to maintain their
grip. The Americans are making this mistake for
the first time, I wonder about the British.
Let us consider a metaphor.
One way to cope with external turbulence is to
suppress its effect and navigate the path with
efficiency. Another is to leverage the external
turbulence and navigate it effectively. Contrast
the way in which a plane navigates the skies with
how a glider does. Or how a steamship goes through
the waves as compared to a surfer. In 1978, China
announced the Three Gorges project on the Yangtze
river, displacing millions. Now they are ready
to inaugurate it, the world's largest hydroelectric
project. Yet India's 1946 Narmada project is still
hanging fire! We are trying to get consensus.
In confederated organisations and confederations,
consensus and decisions take time e.g. the EU,
the WTO. That is a reality, for good or for bad!
It may or may not be true that such organisations
are weak brotherhoods of well-intentioned people!
Managers and administrators
in India are in a somewhat unique position. Their
intellectual exposures are often western while
their social moorings are very Indian. Many of
them would speak and even think in English, much
of their daily reading would also be in English.
Yet their behavioural pattern is rooted in a local
ethos. So while intellectually they may know how
to solve a particular problem efficiently, in
the actual implementation, they seek social effectiveness.
This is visible in disinvestments, economic reform
and several other public policies. I do not make
a virtue of our slow public policy processes nor
do I seek to explain it away through socio-cultural
theses. I am merely attempting to place a set
of observations, which just may help you to understand
what I am also trying to understand.
A business visitor to China
or Russia is fairly dependent on the interpreter
to understand what is going on. In India, he can
read five English newspapers with six opinions.
No wonder, he feels bewildered. He wonders whether
his ability to comprehend bears an inverse correlation
with his ability to read!
|
|
|
India is
outward-looking, yet cautious about foreign investment |
| |
This is
not jingoism. There is no general abjuring of things
that are foreign. When India won independence, English
was not discouraged. In fact, today, every youngster
believes that progress and prosperity for him is
dependent on learning English. This is so unlike
Israel or Indonesia where Hebrew and Bahasa displaced
another language. The influence of English and western
media, movies, dress and so on are visible everywhere.
How, otherwise, could it be that the Times of
India is the second largest read English daily
in the world? Or that the Economic Times
is the third largest read English financial daily
in the world? So the roots of India's caution with
foreign investment lie elsewhere.
In our economic history,
it is noteworthy that right from ancient times
until 1900, India was outward looking and had
a foreign trade surplus. As late as the 1920s,
India was ranked fourth in the world trade with
a market share of 2.5 per cent as against under
0.7 per cent today. Its outwardness has allowed
it to absorb within itself myriads of cultures
brought through invasion and trade. In 1498, when
Vasco da Gama sailed into Calicut, he recorded
that it was a port quite familiar to Arab and
Chinese merchants. In 1608, when English captain
William Hawkins carried a letter from King James
I to Mughal Emperor Jehangir, he was amazed by
the diversity of wares and people. He wrote, "Nothing
that England makes at this time is really desired
by Indian merchants or officials."
Foreigners rightly worry
about religious and ethnic strife in India. We
probably have as much of it as western countries
had in their corresponding stage of economic development.
American philosopher, Martha Nussbaum5,
says that human beings are frail and like to surround
themselves with people like themselves. They persecute
those around them who are different, as the Salem
"witch trials" demonstrated. So, these
represent the unfortunate aspects of economic
development in any nation.
Therefore, the post-independence
half-century has been the aberration when we became
an inward looking economy mercifully that
too has been broken. I think the late Rajiv Gandhi
may well have had a valid point when he mused
that the conversion of a mere British trading
interest into an empire could have had a deeper
impact on the collective psyche of the people,
making foreign investment somewhat suspect.
|
|
|
There is
excitement in the air today |
| |
Till 400
years ago, in all societies, most of the people
lived off agriculture, which was done in about the
same way for a long time. Many countries have eradicated
poverty since then by adopting growth policies and
establishing institutions. As Nobel prize winner
Douglas North has pointed out, institutions are
the "rules of the game" for the players
in the economic game, which are the political parties,
companies, consumers and so on. It is here that
India has had its share of learning because institutions
are determined by history, culture and tradition.
They include the laws, regulations and their enforcement,
along with social norms and belief systems. Unless
a nation has established these institutions [= rules
of the game] as uniquely suited to itself, in a
democratic framework, it is difficult to break out
of the poverty cycle. I think India is now at approximately
that position.
Vijay Kelkar has pointed
out that if you consider the 30 years from 1972
to 2002, per capita GDP grew in the three-decade
periods at 1.2 per cent, 3 per cent and 3.9 per
cent. At the rate achieved in the 1972-82 period,
it would take 57 years to double per capital GDP,
at the current rate it would take 18 years
a huge change. Already on a PPP basis, India is
the fourth largest economy in the world.
Since deregulation began
in 1992-93, as many as 100 million people have
been taken out of the poverty. Our imperfect democracy
is the foundation for stable policies. I do not
blame our democracy, rather I give it the credit
for our policies. Since 1991, we have had coalition
governments, and there is broad-based support
for reforms. The country has established the institutional
architecture for infrastructure regulation. There
is probably no other developing country which
is trying to achieve growth with democracy. I
saw a hoarding in Kuala Lumpur which read, "If
you bend with the wind, you will bounce back stronger"
and depicted a tall tree, swayed by its environment.
Indeed, the world is getting up and beginning
to notice this. Goldman Sachs has recently published
a report, which states that India has the potential
to show the fastest growth over the next 30 years.
By 2030, India's economy will be third after the
US and China.
However, there is one
huge assumption underlying all such fanciful projections,
i.e. India will continue to maintain policies
and develop institutions that are supportive of
growth. I believe this will probably happen, because
to borrow from John Maynard Keynes, India has
exhausted all other alternatives!
Napoleon said of China,
"Let China sleep, for when she wakes, she
will shake the world." Maybe India too. That
is why there is a palpable excitement in the air.
For thousands of years, India occupied the top
league table in the world of economic growth and
world trade. Then, over the last few centuries,
we lost it. Maybe over the next 50 years, we could
clamber back on the top of the league tables again,
not in my lifetime, but God willing, in my son's
lifetime democratically and sustainably.
That would truly be a great moment in Indian economic
history. There are a billion people who are excited
by this possibility. What a moment!
|
References
|
1.
|
India Unbound
by Gurcharan Das |
|
2.
|
The Flight
to India by George Monbiot, Guardian, October
21, 2003 |
|
3.
|
Tough at the
Top, Economist, October 25, 2003 |
|
4.
|
Competing
for the Future by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad |
|
5.
|
On Equal
Conditions by Martha Nussbaum |
*Speech given by R. Gopalakrishnan
to BP Senior Management at Delhi on November 18, 2003.

|