What is in a name? - Part II

 

 Col Slade- Do the deal, Charlie. Take it! Go to Harvard

Charlie- I can't do that

Col. Slade- Why Not?

Charlie- Because I have a conscience, you know. Its some things you just can't do

Col. Slade- Conscience, Charlie?  When were you born, son? Around the time of the Round Table?  Hah. Haven't you heard? Conscience is dead

Charlie- No, I haven't heard

Col. Slade- Well, then, take the fucking wax outta your ears! Grow up! It's fuck your buddy. Cheat on your wife. Call your mother on Mother's Day. Charlie, it's all shit. You're gonna have a tough time in this world

So goes the exchange between Charlie, a prep school student at Baird School and Col. Frank Slate, a retired and blind Colonel in the United States Army. It is a scene from the movie Scent of a woman which won Al-Pacino an Oscar in the leading role and went on to win many Golden Globe awards as well. 

For some background, Charlie has been promised a seat at Harvard by the Principal, if he squeals the names of the students who vandalized the Principal's new Jaguar. Col. Slade, who has seen much in life, exhorts him to go ahead and make the deal but Charlie is not comfortable with the idea of "selling out"? The movie sets you thinking but we will come back to it.

Many years back, in the early eighties, my family was traveling to the Himalayan Shrine of Badrinath. Travel conditions in the hills were tough- there was no luxury accommodation available then, food along the way was very basic and since we couldn't afford a private taxi, the trip was made on a U.P. Roadways bus. Tired and famished after the whole day of bus journey on narrow potholed roads pockmarked with recent landslides, we finally reached the town of Joshimath. It was bitterly cold and getting dark, so finding accommodation was first priority. There were no cell phones or even land line phones in those days, and a guesthouse, the only one at Joshimath, we had planned to stay in, had no system of reserving accommodation. It followed a first come first serve system. On enquiring, my father was told he must look elsewhere as all rooms were taken. My father pleaded with the manager, letting him know that he was traveling with little children but the manager was in no mood to reconsider. After considerable time went by, My father was about to give up when he happen to mention that he has traveled all the way from Pantnagar University on this pilgrimage. The Manager was in conversation with another party and only half listening to my father but on hearing this, he signaled my father to wait. Further conversation ensued during which the manager learnt that my father was a professor and taught at the university. Lo and Behold, there was a sea-change in his attitude- he still held that all his rooms were taken, but now he was willing to accommodate us by vacating the one that he occasionally used himself. Slightly baffled by this sudden change of heart, my father profusely thanked the manager and we went on to stay in the room. This incident was much discussed and narrated later on and it was concluded that the good reputation and influence that Pantnagar University enjoyed led the manager to reconsider his decision and go the extra mile to help us. Nor was this an isolated incident- I was to repeatedly see people, even hardened policemen, trained to sniff out goons and mischief makers, melt with high regard or even slightly bow at just the mention of the name of the institution, such was its' reputation. Not just in the hills, but also in big cities like Delhi. This is even more remarkable considering there was no TV or internet or social media in those days and all that one knew was through word of mouth.  

In his book The Bonsai Manager, R. Gopala krishnan describes an infamous case of misappropriation of funds at Tata Finance and how the company, when it discovered wrongdoing, immediately decided to make it public and handled it with utmost urgency and transparency with the end goal of making sure that Tata's name as a company was not sullied. The company risked losing its business and its customers by doing so and had the option of not disclosing anything at all but it decided its credibility was at stake.  

Swiss Airlines, built on the platform of quality, once discovered a problem with its aircraft engines and decided to ground the entire fleet, until such time that the problem was discovered and fixed, at a huge blow to its finances.

15 years back, in an MBA class room, a professor asked us who our hero was in the corporate world, a role-model, someone who we looked upto. Most all hands went up, amongst them majority of the girls, for Rebecca Mark (the business media had christened her "Mark the shark" for her aggressive deal-snatching capabilities). Young minds were enamored, there was awe and even some measure of reverence. Her aggression was clearly a virtue many wanted to emulate and since access to boardrooms were still some distance away, copious amounts of this quality was at display during classroom participation. There is a front page news story picture of Rebecca Mark etched in my mind meeting Shiv Sena's chief Bal Thackeray to discuss the Enron plant in Maharashtra. The Enron scandal hadn't happened yet and the list of her fans in business schools was particularly long. Enron collapsed later due to a number of questionable and illegal financial practices, and Arthur Andersen, their auditors, were subsequently convicted of obstruction of justice for its part in the scandal. The reputation damage to Arthur Andersen was immediate and catastrophic, and its clients fled in droves. It made no difference that the conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2005 — by then, it had lost all its customers. Although never formally dissolved as a partnership, there's little chance that Arthur Anderson will ever again be a viable business.

In the world of business this is formally recognized as Reputation Risk- damage to the value of a company's brand name cause by negative public opinion. It can happen for a number of reasons (mostly fraud and financial wrong doing) and can have a debilitating effect on shareholder value. Conversely, in accounting the concept of good business practices, good reputation, is also duly recognized and attributed value as Goodwill.  These intangible concepts are ingrained in a world that, above all, usually only accords value to hard numbers.

Yet individuals, it appears, sometimes have difficulty clearly understanding what is at stake. Some confuse it with accumulating money or power. Others believe that their fame has made them surpass the usual boundaries of convention that apply to other people. But fame alone does not determine name, leave along good name. Fame is fleeting. Your fame is dependent on other peoples' choices. Your name depends on your own. Fame is temporary; it is, for most part, a mirage. Your name lasts a lifetime, infact it goes beyond a generation. The list of people who learnt this lesson the hard way is long- Jack Welch, whose fall from grace was quick and steep or more recently General Petraeus, a highly decorated officer of the US army, who became fodder for lewd jokes after his extra-marital affairs came to light. People who fell from grace perhaps never thought this could happen to them. They thought they were beyond the rule of law. Rajat Gupta of Mckinsey was looked upon as a realm of what was possible to achieve, a rags to riches story he went on to receive some of the highest accolades in the business world, but now history will remember him as an infamous crook who tried to accumulate illegal riches. To his credit, at least he seems to know that he has lost his reputation by admitting as much publicly.  

Rajesh Khanna, had just about died when articles about his misconduct and his personal vendetta against his co-stars began to appear in the press but Balraj Sahani is still remembered as a gentleman actor, two generations after. Azharuddin once hailed as a cricketer of unparalleled talent, was tainted forever with match fixing charges. Isn't it a shame that a man who debuted with 3 centuries in a row, whose mere turn of a wrist could send a bowl to the boundary, would be remembered as someone who brought disrepute to the Gentleman's game?  If there have been people who, in one stroke tarnished their reputations, there are also those who went to great lengths to safeguard their reputations, however intangible an asset it may be. Amitabh Bachchan fought hard to extricate his name from the Bofors scandal and repeatedly said to the media that it was important to him that his name was cleared. Kapil Dev, when accused of match fixing cried like a child on national television.

And yet, the message is lost on the young men and women of today. Lured by the riches of corporate life, dreams of flying in a corporate jet, owning an entire island or amassing unaccountable money, they are willing to gamble anything. The haphazard growth of the media has resulted in a body blow to its ethics -citizens of the fourth estate leave much to be desired but even they can't escape the fact that their most precious commodity is the trust that their readers put in their word.  Can Barkha Dutt of NDTV claim the same status of unadulterated respect anymore after the Radia tapes came to light? Probably not. You can write a 1000 letters of protest or refute the charges of misconduct but public trust is frail. The only thing that you cannot redeem in a lifetime, once lost, is your name. Not definitely in an age where news spreads faster than fire. Of all the possessions of man, there is nothing as fragile as one's name. It is not without reason that self esteem and reputation appear nearly at the top of the pyramid in Maslow's theory.

This brings us back to Charlie, who, beyond the maturity of his years, decides his principles are far more important than buying his way into Harvard. There are parallels to this in the corporate life- Ask yourself if you ever sold out your colleagues to make your way to the top? Did you build a business on the misery of your employees and then, did not remember to reward them? Our day to day life throws innumerably difficult questions at us- these are moments of truth, moments that test our integrity, moments that are a decisive test of our character. Whatever your principles may be, you play this game once and none other but your own conscience is the referee. Neither is this game a short sprint. It is a marathon that lasts 40 years of your working life. You waiver once and you may never recover.

Every morning I take the 20 minutes drive towards the Airport where my office is. The highway is full of billboards that are selling anything from liquor to cars to property- not generally a source you would expect to receive much useful information, leave alone find any wisdom but then, one day, unexpectedly, I noticed this written in bold fonts: Win, but not at any cost and 5 minutes later, a second one with an even better message: Stake everything but your name.

Here's a third one to consider: Ask yourself What is in a name? And if you allow your conscience, it may be heard faintly telling you: Well, my friend just about everything.    

What's in a name?- Part I

 

 

It is safe to assume that you may have seen Gladiator, a blockbuster released in the year 2000 that won no less than 5 academy awards, including for best picture.

Allow me therefore, to run you through a short part of its brilliant screenplay.

To give you some background, Marcus Aurelius is the old king of Rome; Commodus is his son and Maximus his brave General.  As the king is getting old, and a major war has been won against Germania, he decides to have 2 separate conversations with his son and his general on succession:   

Marcus Aurelius: Are you ready to do your duty for Rome?
Commodus: Yes, father.
Marcus Aurelius: You will not be emperor.
Commodus: Which wiser, older man is to take my place?
Marcus Aurelius: My powers will pass to Maximus, to hold in trust until the Senate is ready to rule once more. Rome is to be a republic again.
Commodus: Maximus?
Marcus Aurelius: Yes. My decision disappoints you?
Commodus: You wrote to me once, listing the four chief virtues: Wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance. As I read the list, I knew I had none of them. But I have other virtues, father. Ambition. That can be a virtue when it drives us to excel. Resourcefulness, courage, perhaps not on the battlefield, but... there are many forms of courage. Devotion, to my family and to you. But none of my virtues were on your list.

 

 

Marcus Aurelius: There is one more duty that I ask of you before you go home.
Maximus: What would you have me do Caesar?
Marcus Aurelius: I want you to become the protector of Rome after I die. I will empower you to one end alone, to give power back to the people of Rome and end the corruption that has crippled it.
Marcus Aurelius: Do you accept this great honor that I have offered you?
Maximus: With all my heart, no.
Marcus Aurelius: Maximus that is why it must be you.

Maximus:  And Commodus?

Marcus Aurelius:  Commodus is not a moral man. You have known that since you were young. Commodus cannot rule. He must not rule. You're the son that I should have had. Commodus will accept my decision. He knows that you command the loyalty of the army.

 

Dwell on this for a while, read it again if you will, paying special attention to the words that I have underlined.  We will come back to it.

Cut to modern times:  A young man, all of 20 years old, from one of the poorest slums in the city, comes in for an interview and is hired. The young man confides in me his ambition to become CEO, one day.  I fall off my chair, recover my composure enough to ask a few polite questions and get to understand that from great deprivation is born great ambition, whether deserved or not.

All around me, people are going crazy seeking high titles. Never mind the fortune at the bottom of pyramid, people are busy inverting the corporate pyramid to a point where designations have lost all meaning.  In an airline company, where I worked, amongst a 50,000 strong global workforce, there were just 4 Vice Presidents. Today, youngsters who may have just stopped wetting their pants seek to be "We-Pee" just as they graduate out of their MBA schools. Naturally then, with great sense of innovation, and in the universal spirit of accommodating everyone with ambitions overflowing, corporate hierarchies too have evolved- today, you have a deputy COO, a senior Deputy COO, an assistant and associate COO, an 'about to be COO' and several other versions, never mind how incredibly stupid it all sounds. That's just the modern version of a 'flat' organization. Flat at the top that is. If you want to find out who really does what, forget it. It may be a better idea to simply play a game of Sudoku, a puzzle it is too, but at least it has some logic.        

 I receive an unsolicited call from a recruitment agent (by now an unavoidable inconvenience if you have to stay in the 'game') who, without making any apologies for it, blurts out the details of an opening, in a crass, rehearsed tone, even before I can so much as acknowledge her. When I ask her about the company which she is recruiting for, her tone hushes, voice drops to a whisper, as if she was about to break a massive state secret to me, bigger than what Wikileaks could ever imagine.  At other times, recruitment agents have questioned me about my title being 'just' Manager.  I immediately correct their folly, drawing their attention to my resume and pointing out that once, long back, I was a Senior Manager. That's by way of jest. But people take titles so seriously these days, that very often when I crack this one, I have to explain that I am joking. But seriously, what's with the titles?

There's the famous Harvard case study of a Japanese ship welder, who, before he could get into the coveted job of welding the hull of the ship spends 100's of hours honing his skills as a welder. Today of course the robots have taken over this precision welding job, but the example is to illustrate the importance of spending time in the field. Raghuvir Sahay, a theatre artist and the main cast in the movie Peepli live, says he picked up his talent acting in Natak Mandalis  (folk theatres) that travel around the country. A celebrated chef in Taj, sets aside 1 full month to travel across rural areas in coastal India to learn original coastal recipes.    

Read Outliers (Authored by Malcolm Gladwell, by now celebrated for books like What the dog saw, or The Tipping point) The central premise of the book is exactly same: that anyone who has achieved some degree of expertise in his/her chosen field has started early and spent at least 10,000 hours honing their skills that are required to become an expert.  He goes on to give several examples including that of Beatles and some accomplished athletes.

Or don't read the book. Go and see '3 Idiots' – What is the message in the movie?   If you think the popularity of the movie, is any indication that people are 'getting it', I can give you a nice gold bordered certificate that you are an optimist.  

I recall, long ago, as a young person I would say hello every morning to a photo of Sir Sean Connery, bearded, in a black suit with a bow tie,  almost bald but not devoid of any of his charisma, pinned right infront of my eyes on a board over looking my desk. I had torn it out of a magazine with an accompanying interview which had the following quote from him in large italics: "I have met many educated people, but few who have the insatiable appetite to know, to create, to be curious, to be better men".

Titles, at least to my mind, represented excellence, the power of original thinking, power to create. It represented wisdom gained through experience and experience comes through years of toil. They were a certificate of a rank deserved, of a standing that came from respect that was earned, of admiration that was showered from superiors, fellow workers and subordinates alike.  It was to reflect the trust, a company's stakeholders had bestowed upon its bearer, to influence the trajectory of the company, not control the destiny of its people. A title was about achieving, not an achievement in itself!  High titles were about truly being a better man. 

Not anymore. Today, titles are empty tags. They represent an invisible ladder, each rung decorated with a price tag, a corner office, a sexy secretary et el.  Today, it is about power brokering, about politicking, about 'you scratch my back, I will scratch yours', about everything that is petty, and unbecoming.  Today, it has nothing to do with a sense of creation. Do you ever wonder why so many organizations are falling apart? Times are when people forget the difference between deserving and demanding. They choose to have status over stature because status can be acquired. Stature has to be built, there are no short cuts.

Back to the gladiator screenplay:  I saw it over and over and over until the words rang in my mind. 

Wisdom, Justice, fortitude and temperance vs. ambition and loyalty

 It is perhaps, the closest, most apt metaphor to describe today's corporate world albeit in a melodramatic way.  Surely, no one would disagree. The disagreement is on whether to be on the left or the right of this equation to get to the throne.  

I have nothing against ambition. In drawing room discussions on this subject, almost everyone, including my wife, disagrees with me on the non-importance of a title. They point out that as in the movie, so in life-power is grabbed, not given. They remind of the ways of the wily Narsimnha Rao, my favorite politician. They tell me am confusing power with morality. In defense, I point back to the 'happy ending' of the movie. They in turn remind me the differences between reel and real life.

I truly believe that an undeserved title, far from helping you achieve greater heights can actually hinder your work, your success in an organization in terms of work that you want to accomplish. It can damage your long term prospects. Who does not want to lead from the top; have men follow orders?

Getting a title or reaching the top can, at best, be a mission. A more relevant question to ask would be: What's my vision for this company? For it's people? For the industry? For the country? Is it not the vision that separates a statesman from a politician? Desiring a title in itself cannot certainly be an end goal, can it be?  Wouldn't you rather that your time at the top is remembered as an era instead of just being described as tenure? If it's the title that you crave, as did Commodus, remind yourself in time- If you cannot lead in thought, you must stand apost with other men in deed. 

Having a title without a vision is like being a terrorist with an AK 47 who does not really aim, and ends up causing a lot of collateral damage.  It is like rejoicing the statistics of 50 centuries by Sachin Tendulkar, without actually relishing the beauty of watching him play. Or it may be akin to checking stock scrips everyday without any intention to buy or sell.  What's the point? 

One last anecdote:   The king of Jordan was dying of cancer in a hospital bed in the US.  For years, the line of succession had been frozen- King Abdullah's younger brother was to take over the throne after him. As the dying king called for his family in the US, to bid his goodbyes one final time, his younger brother's wife, a Pakistani women and the new queen to be, could wait no longer. The king was to die any moment now so she had her husband's belongings shifted into the main office in Amman where the King held throne. As things turned out, word reached the dying king. The women in her mind had perhaps broken a mere protocol but she had lost her husband the long awaited kingdom. King Abdullah did not waste a minute and proclaimed his son to be the new king. Succession is a tricky thing; don't be in a hurry.

My advice to young men and women at this time of the year: Titles are all about desire. I ask you to aspire. 

The difficulty of being a good father

 

 

Picture this: You jump a traffic signal on your 2-wheeler. Nobody stops you, nobody whistles you down, and there are no cameras to have clicked your number plate for traffic violation. Nobody that matters really has seen it, except your son riding pillion, who, in his 6th year, is old to understand that perhaps something wasn't quite right, but not old enough to make the connection between breaking a simple traffic rule and the idea of morality, of fairness, and I suspect many adults will have difficulty making the connection themselves.   

What would you do thereafter? I have cursed myself many times for rushing through a signal that I could see had been green for quite a while, approaching it from afar. Yet, instead of slowing down, I decided to press on at breakneck speed, actually accelerating to get through it before a glimpse of crimson was visible, comfortable in the thought that there will be a momentary pause, a middle ground, a window between the light turning red from green that conceals the intentions of the driver, diminishing the difference between a real traffic offender from one who merely misjudged the distance.

Now, there are a thousand silly things in daily life that I curse myself for -sometimes silently, sometimes aloud- small promises that I really shouldn't have broken, words that I shouldn't have uttered but I never consciously considered the effects of these small wrongs on those around me, especially my children. Until, I saw the protagonist, the main character of the movie, Ferrari Ki Sawari- a young father, with son in tow, who is an upright man & decides to pay the traffic fine voluntarily, even though no one really saw him breaking the traffic signal except his own son.

You think that the director makes a great point-nothing can be more important than demonstrating the right from wrong to your kids. But it is impossible to not go through a conflicting emotion at this point in the movie, a nagging feeling of whether one can really survive this world being that upright. Would you really pay a traffic fine voluntarily? Have you? Ever?

From then on, a barrage of questions, of matters however small have haunted me- There is a cloud, a grey area, a gap between honesty and the extent of its practice in daily life that bothers me. It is perhaps easy to teach the idea of differentiating the right from wrong to your kids.  But honesty, goodness, morality are all absolute values, there is no middle ground. Their practice in daily life is anything but.

I watched my son at the playground with other kids. On his first day, he kept pleading with the other kids to slow down the merry-go- round so he could step on it, but despite his many pleas and requests, they never did. Exasperated, he decided to withdraw and play on the swing. Next day, it was the same story again and since I decided to not intervene, this kept happening for days at end, until one day, an older kid, whom my son had befriended, stepped in with a stick in hand and forced the other kids to stop. The lesson was crystal clear to my son. It wasn't clear to me. Is there value anymore in being polite or do I teach him to be aggressive like everyone else, to survive in the world we live in? More importantly, will he be able to distinguish which situation requires a stick to be used?

At school, kids are taught to always cross the road using the designated Zebra crossing- so he questioned me one day when we awkwardly leapt across the busy road at Bangalore. How must one teach a kid to cross roads using Zebra crossings when none exist? These are not insignificant things- even a child can understand the contradictions between what is being taught and what is actually being practiced. It won't be long when he learns to disregard what is taught and does what he sees others doing without understanding why there is a difference. 

And here's the larger issue- our schools were so steeped in high idealism-ideas of Satyagraha and ahimsa that they never prepared us for how that idealism must be practiced in a world that is far from ideal. No teacher said that the world is imperfect so you may learn these principles but when it comes to using them, you will only be able to apply them in half measures!

When we graduated, we were like Ranbir Kapoor's character in Rocket Singh- naïve, idealistic and completely unprepared for the pitfalls of the working world, stuffing complaint boxes with letters against the corrupt, hoping the world would change for the better. 

So, I often ask myself- why must I teach my kid about a rule if he is going to later learn it to become a handicap?

Must I insist that he learns about morals, if he is going to be humiliated because of those morals later on in life? 

Must I teach him about the real world that is cruel and crushing or should I leave him to be disillusioned on his own later on?  

Should I teach him to play or should I teach him to win?

Should I teach him to be Maryada-Purushottam or should I teach him to be Mayavi?