There is an old building in my neighbourhood. It has been neglected by the owner because he gets just ₹200 as monthly rent from each of the six tenants in this two-floor apartment building. It was built in 1956 and the tenants will not move out, nor allow the rent to be increased, nor will the tenants cooperate with each other to maintain the building, manage the common area and services like water, or the large area in front, filled with weeds and puddles, instead of what could have been an attractive garden! The final result: A ghastly projection of non-cooperation. Each flat and each floor is painted a different colour, even on the outside. Some have balconies, others have enclosed them with brick walls. Still others have enclosed them with grilled lattice work. The result—a jumble of colour and design which is obnoxious to anyone passing by, with even a minuscule sense of aesthetics.
What is it in our Indian psyche that makes us so exclusively self-centred?
The housing ‘cooperatives’ in Mumbai are where there is evidence of the least amount of ‘cooperation.’ I was once a member of such a Society where our company had an office. Many years ago, it had been decided at an annual general meeting that every unit would pay a flat fee per month for the general services – security, repairs and maintenance, et al. The society has produced a negative P&L statement for the fifth year, because three out of the 30 units feel that the general service charge is unfair and their units are a little smaller in size than the other standard units. They insist on being charged on a square foot basis. In the meantime, they pay nothing at all! Not even what they feel they should be charged and under protest. Result: lakhs of rupees are owed to the Society and all the other 27 members are inconvenienced.
What is it in our Indian psyche that makes us so exclusively self-centred?
We have heard about the MITI organisation in Japan, where MITI coordinates the work of all exporting organisations and makes sure that one company does not undercut the quote of another company, and more importantly, ensures that the ‘country gains’. There is a willing cooperation among competitors.
We also know that Japanese companies cooperate to run common training programmes on different post-retirement careers for their employees who are due to retire. This approach makes it more economical for each company, while at the same time helping to build relationships between participants from different companies who may have the same interests.
We have also learnt about the development of ‘chaebols’ in South Korea, the gigantic conglomerates where each company within the conglomerate actively helps the development of another, so that ultimately the group succeeds. The phenomenal growth of the South Korean economy can be attributed to this concept of cooperation.
But when it comes to India, we normally relate the story of the jar of crabs that has no lid. They are Indian crabs. Any crab trying to jump out of the jar will be firmly held back by the other crabs who have no ambition and are content to stay where they are, and maintain the ‘status quo’.
I once tried to put two large Indian consulting firms together to give a joint proposal for a very large project initiated by the government of India. The chief executive officers (CEOs) of both the companies agreed to cooperate. They felt it was a good idea and that they had a much better chance of winning the bid for the project if they went together, than if they quoted individually. Each one of them did not have the complete range of expertise that was needed. Together, they did, and in ample measure! The CEOs, therefore, asked their resident managers (RMs) in Delhi to get together and develop a proposal for submission. The RMs refused to do this. Each one felt that they could manage the project individually. There was no need to cooperate. They submitted individual quotes for the assignment. Both lost. The project work was awarded to a large transnational consulting organisation!
Again, I asked myself, what is it in our Indian psyche that makes us so self-centred?
Some years ago, I asked another consultant to help me with a project I was doing for a pharmaceuticals company. We agreed on the role to be played, the number of days, the matrix of measurement of results and the fee. All went well for two years. The contract was not renewed for the third year and I wondered why. In a few months, I knew. The consultant working with me had approached the CEO of the client company and offered to do the job himself and at a lower fee. Surprisingly, the CEO agreed. My associate had cut loose and built a direct line of communication. In a few years, the company sank and was finally sold out. It was not just because of this consultant, but because of poor, unscrupulous and unprincipled leadership which was reflected earlier in agreeing to work out a separate deal with my associate.
Again, I asked myself, what is it in our Indian psyche that makes us so self-centred?
However, the scenario is not altogether gloomy. Changes are taking place, albeit slowly—very slowly. There is beginning to be a change in styles of leadership. The ‘single individual’ and saviour of the company model will change to a ‘group leadership’ model. (It will be disappointing to a nation of hero worshippers, who even immolate themselves for MGR and Jayalalithaa.)
Companies like Infosys, where Narayan Murthy is always seen as only the first among equals, and the media generally shows photographs of five rather than a single individual, are a pointer to the way the scenario will change. CEOs like Mr Murthy will lead the way to encouraging teamwork and participative management.
The application of TPM (total productive maintenance) in an increasing number of companies will force the formation of quality circle teams, acceptance of team responsibility, and the revolution in the concept of team (not individual) rewards. There will be a cultural change in organisations at all levels and driven by an enlightened top.
The development and increase in contribution to market capitalisation of the software industry will force teamwork and emphasise the impermanence of leadership. Software development teams are working with a shift from one project to another. The team leader changes based on the knowledge and skill requirements. Thus, the ‘team leader’ working on a project for the insurance sector, may become a ‘team member’ in another project working for the banking sector. This impermanence, along with the matrix organisational structure, will force cooperation among people.
The sheer pressure and compulsion of intense competition—especially international competition—will force cooperation even among competitors. There is a growing consciousness of ‘value chain management’. Manufacturers are forming alliances with suppliers on the one side, and their customers on the other. They are ensuring lean-structured organisations where cooperation, nimbleness and flexibility will be primary considerations. The twin guiding principles—customer value and shareholder value.
For example, Glaxo and Ranbaxy agreed to jointly market the ‘same molecule’ under different brand names and thereby expand the total market.
And while companies have been found to have fewer reservations about partnering or cooperating with foreign firms, in the past, rather than those who are ‘children of the soil’ (a hang-up of our colonial days), they will begin to change direction, since decisions will be primarily based on business needs rather than prejudices or historical/ cultural hang-ups.
To my mind, the direction is right, but the speed is slow. If we can increase the speed and spread networking, cooperation and coopetition, we can increase the success levels of corporations and the contribution to the nation.
(Walter Vieira is a Fellow of the Institute of Management Consultants of India - FIMC. He was a successful corporate executive for 14 years, capping his career as Head of marketing for a Pharma multinational, for India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka- and then pioneered marketing consulting in India in 1975. As a consultant, he has worked across four continents. He was the first Asian elected Chairman of ICMCI, the world apex body of consultants in 45 countries, in 1997. He is the author of 16 books, a business columnist, international conference speaker and has been visiting professor in Marketing in the US, Europe, and Asia for over 40 years. He was awarded Lifetime Achievement Award for Consulting in 2005, and for Marketing in 2009. He now spends much of his time in NGO work - Consumer Education and Research Centre, IDOBRO, and some others.)
