The way Jayalalithaa managed to break the glass ceiling of the male-dominated political scene in Tamil Nadu was an inspiration to every Indian, particularly women.
Every time she was brought down, she bounced back with vengeance. Through self branding as "Amma", she was able to build a strong connect with the masses.
But just what are the key takeaways from the way she conducted her administration? Well, to begin with, there are two kinds of strategies one can implement as a leader, whether in business or politics: individual strategy and institutional strategy.
For the reigning ‘Amma’ of Tamil Nadu, she defined how carefully ‘individual strategy’ can be strengthened by carving a niche for herself.
Even though she was ushered into politics by former Chief Minister MG Ramachandran, she crafted her own space in a way that could not be challenged. No one could dare ask her a question or point a finger at her authority.
But the drawback or a key lesson one should learn from this while strengthening individual strategy in a political empire or a business is the implications of the same for the larger ‘institutional strategy’.
Jayalalithaa was on many accounts similar to what Indira Gandhi was.
DK Barooah, who served as the president of the Indian National Congress during Emergency, famously said that ‘India is Indira and Indira is India’. And the kind of programs, which she initiated for the downtrodden makes both Indira and Jayalalithaa’s personality match to a great extent.
Of late, a majority of the political leaders both at national and regional levels tend to take this path that has larger, long-term effect on the society.
Jayalalithaa had marketed herself well and the kind of products and services she offered her "consumer" base was tailor-made according to their needs. This is where she hit the bull’s eye, and became the darling of the masses.
But as an institutional leader, she failed badly. She did build her own self and her reputation but if you have a clear vision for the development of the country or an organisation then building a legacy gains primacy.
Jayalalithaa does not seem to have built a a strong legacy that could lead to making of an institution, which is ready to carry on her populist mantle.
In the vacuum that is created now with her departure, the party is likely to be in a huddle with possible fissures in the making. This should not have happened. The party could be in tatters after her, and it’s the responsibility of great leaders to ensure that a party grows unhindered even in their absence.
If you are a good manager, your organisation always comes first, where you act only as a facilitator. Undoubtedly, individual image is important, but that has to work in tandem with a broader vision for the organisation.
Her management sprinkled with populist schemes and hope for the downtrodden deep within had an autocratic approach, and unless this is foregone, becoming a good manager is not possible.
In her own capacity, she strived for the betterment of the people, but one only hopes that when we take key management lessons from her life, we must accord importance to institutionalisation along with self-development.
(As told to Debayan Roy)
(Professor Kavil Ramachandran is the Executive Director of the Thomas Schmidheiny Centre for Family Enterprise at the Indian School of Business)
Comments
0 comment