Indianness: Asset or liability?

A question that sometimes comes up over cocktails in a multi-cultural organisation is about how Indians fit into a global corporate world that is heavily influenced by western sensibilities. Invariably, examples of Indians who have risen to the top are offered as proof that “Indianness” isn’t a handicap. Others cite instances where they have had to compromise. One can likewise imagine similar conversations with regard to the Chinese, Japanese, Nigerian and others of non-western ethnicity.

In this context the book looks at the “Indianness” of Indian managers and explores how their “civilisational predispositions” interact/conflict with the “corporate way” they need to adopt in a globalising corporate India.

While our civilisational disposition stems from our Indianness, the corporate way is something that has been thrust upon us from the West. The author perceives an inherent tension between the two and even mentions a “deep cleavage in the minds and hearts of Indian managers”. To what extent this is true is for each reader to decide. Personally, I have not encountered this deep cleavage.

Interplay of many identities

A key question is whether our Indianness is an asset or a liability, and whether it holds value in the current context. The book also looks at integrating tradition with emerging modernity, and tries to resolve the tussle between Indianness and the western way.

To address this seemingly contradictory position, the author sees a need for a framework. He suggests that most traditional frameworks use mutually exclusive parameters/categories that are binary. This, he argues, is not adequate for our purpose, as interaction between parameters/categories is vital.

He has therefore created a framework that emphasises plurality and interplay between different parameters/categories. That is to say, that parameters/categories need to co-exist and interact with each other.

I will not comment on the framework as one can’t do justice to it in a brief review. However, I will say that it is detailed and rigorous, and builds on earlier work done by Clare Graves. Simply put, it sees every human as an interplay between multiple identities. All humans are made of the same elements, but each is a unique configuration.

A fundamental assumption is that a continuous inner drama is going on within each of us. All this is not the preserve of the individual alone — it extends to organisations as well, which can be treated as living, evolving entities.

Complex stuff! While the writing tends to be dense at times and the book makes for heavy reading, the arguments offered are often stimulating. It is apparent that considerable thought has gone into it.

The framework classifies the individual and the organisation into six types or “universes” each. The individual universes are relatable to what we see at work every day. The organisational universes (which are similar to cultures) are intriguing. Labels such as “clan”, “arena”, “clockwork” and “ecology” conjure up images of tribes and gladiators, to name a few. Just as there are clannish organisations where members conform, there are also arenas wherein the mightiest hero (or gladiator) prevails.

The book goes on to offer us a perspective based on surveys involving more than 100 organisations and 5,000 individuals. Several chapters are devoted to slicing and dicing the data, and many inferences are drawn — too many to be covered here except a sample. One inference is that Indian managers feel shackled.

Another says that we have a great need for role clarity. A third says that we are defined more by where we come from than by our personal attributes. There are many more.

Now, do these inferences come as a surprise? Or did many of us already know this without the benefit of the survey and the framework? Yes, it is good to know that a rigorous, objective survey confirms our views. But the obvious question is, what new insight does this analysis offer? I am not sure I found a convincing answer.

Towards the end of the book, the author talks about two perspectives: P1 and P2. P1 propels an individual towards individualism and being battle-ready at all times. P2 pulls her towards concern for relationships and being amiable. The book postulates that Indian managers have a natural inclination towards P2. How true is it? Once again, I leave it to the reader to decide.

In sum, Indian Managers and Organizations is an interesting read. Academicians, researchers and scholars would probably relate to it more easily than the time-deprived Indian executive. This is a serious piece of work that encapsulates many people’s work from 1974 to 2016. It earned my respect.

The ‘So What’ question

Having outlined the book’s contents, let me add my own reaction to the book. It was an interesting read for an erstwhile advisor. However, I frequently wondered about the usefulness and implementability of the findings for a practising manager. The “So what?” question remained unanswered.

The first question that came to mind while reading the introduction was this: What is Indianness? How can it defined or described? Being unable to capture it succinctly myself, I was keen to see how the book does it. I didn’t find an answer. The summarised survey responses from 5,000 Indian managers did not equate to a definition of Indianness. The profile that emerges is not unlike what one sees in Vietnam, Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, etc. Then, what constitutes Indianness?

A key thrust of this book is about how Indian managers can adapt to the western way. But isn’t the importance of this is diminishing? With India and China becoming the markets of the world, does the reverse question need to be asked? Should we retain our Indianness (and “Chineseness”), and have the West adapt to our way? Especially if economic power shifts eastwards in the next few decades, as some expect?

The reviewer is former Partner at Arthur Andersen, KPMG & AT Kearney

COMMENT NOW