The Hindu Business Line : A B-school long at the crossroads

THE problems of the IIMs do not seem to get over. A recent report has questioned the reliability of their balance-sheets. On the Web site of the premier institution, IIM-Ahmedabad, the latest posting speaks of its society members discussing not academic or research matters but "autonomy and issues arising out of Government Order dated February 5, 2004 regarding the revision of fees charged by IIMs."

The leading management school is at the crossroads, scream the media, but that was what I. G. Patel wrote 20 years ago, when he was to take charge as the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the IIM(A). Thus, his monograph, titled "The IIM(A) in 1984 — at the Crossroads?" finds a place among appendices to his recent book An Encounter with Higher Education.

By 1982, some cracks had begun to appear in the magnificent edifice, writes Mr Patel. That was when the Institute was about 20 years old, and already recognised as "a unique national asset". But the research scene was not okay. "The fellowship or doctorate students were far too few and not quite happy with the attention they received," he writes, and research was not attracting the best of the crop.

To aggravate the problem, "the faculty had little time for guiding doctorate students as they had a heavy workload... and an increasing temptation for consultancy income."

On the Institute's identity, where again there were fissures, Mr Patel notes that the different parts of the school were "not sufficiently integrated in the sense that the same methodology or legitimacy or credibility did not apply to the different parts."

Well, that could be an area where more than one opinion is possible, as a pluralistic approach is often desirable.

A critical area of the school's governance that Mr Patel compares with the London School of Economics is decisiveness — something that was lacking in IIM(A).

"Academics love to argue," as we all know. "But arguments without decisions become divisive and an obstacle to necessary change." Meetings where the faculty met as a whole were often trying and "ended nowhere". He adds: "It is my impression that a part of the faculty had become resistant to change and was inclined to be theoretical when it came to what they considered to be the distinctive traditions of the Institute."

One wonders if this attitude is also contributing to the current standoff with the government. An example that Mr Patel offers to illustrate the stubborn attitude is "the conditional admission of students" — an issue that got clouded by queer reasoning where orthodoxy triumphed "over compassion or a sense of fairplay".

Consultancy was the major `culprit', because its original objective — to promote the image of the Institute and help staff development by exposing them to real-life situations — degenerated in due course. "It was not seen — as it tended to be gradually — as part of the incentive structure that the Institute offered or as a major source of extra income for the staff." Apart from jealousy, there was the temptation to bend rules to circumvent the stipulation to share.

Mr Patel has no kind words for the drivers in IIM(A) — "they were the most disgruntled and undisciplined lot." What about the clerical staff? They "played their usual game of sailing with the wind." He reasons that the Institute sowed the seeds of disharmony itself out of good intentions. "Housing everyone on the campus was a generous gesture. But it does bring in extraneous considerations and rivalries."

The monograph belongs to pre-Murli Manohar days, and Mr Patel observes that the government, despite its generous finance, did not interfere. "It observed the principle of academic and managerial autonomy." But there were two exceptions: One, it was the PM who was to choose the Board chairman; thus the Board would be kept guessing and waiting till the end when, rather "ungraciously", a communiqué would ask the chairman to continue "till further notice" and this brought "no credit to the Institute or the government."

Two, a "rather silly aspect", was that the Ministry's approval had to be sought "for the visit abroad of any faculty member and for a visit to the Institute of every foreigner". This diktat was regardless of any financial commitment on the part of the IIM or the government.

Mr Patel recounts how, since he could not change the rules, he decided to ignore them rather than alienate the staff or foreign experts.

Impervious rules do not elicit compliance, they encourage circumvention. That is something for the government to remember when it wants to tinker with the Institute's autonomy.

dmurali@thehindu.co.in

More Stories on : Education | Management

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Market mauled

Competitive advantage in telecom — Beam them stronger and clearer

A few scary things in CARO

IMF on world economy: Will the recovery `spring' eternal?

When networking is not working, try `citology'

A B-school long at the crossroads

Money comes to those who can speak its language

Sticklish issues

GAIL (India) clarifies