Humility: The New FAD?

800 371 Kamal Karanth

Has Ajinkya Rahane reemphasized humility as a key virtue for Leadership or we are getting carried away by the historical win?

Yes, we all love cricket. Moreover, we like to win; we also tend to support underdogs. By all means, in the recent Australian series, we were possibly playing our second-best eleven with a few exceptions. Due credit has to be given to the captaincy in a team sport like cricket. Two run-outs of Captain Kohli and Captain Rahane stand as contrast expressions in two tests, one of a silent sulking walk back and the other of an encouragement pat to the partner to carry on. Now, let’s take a pause there and not overdramatize differing personalities and contexts.

Are some of us getting carried away by attributing too much to Ajinkya Rahane’s humble personality as the winning magic potion, and is that being a great virtue of leadership?

Many Tweets, Columns, WhatsApp has been going around the humility factor and indirectly taking a shot at Virat’s aggressive leadership style. From Jim Collins to HBR, there have been many studies around why Humility is a great virtue for leadership. In a lovely book called Humble Inquiry, Edgar Schein explores “the gentle art of asking instead of telling,” Let’s reflect further on the facets of humility.

Psychological Safety

In Latin ‘Humus’ means earth/ground, and ‘humilis’ means on the ground. Studies have demonstrated that leaders with humility increase psychological safety for the team, and hence teams like leaders who make them feel safe. Psychological Safety can create happy workplaces and hence create more productive employees? Not necessarily? If not balanced with the right expectations and productivity measures, it can backfire?

Once I was interacting with a leader who had just taken charge of an IT GIC. Their just-concluded employer branding roadshow highlighted how they were known for the best work-life balance. In fact, that was their number one feature that came out in surveys. The GM wasn’t too pleased when we congratulated him on the great work-life balance factor.  “This has created a lazy culture, and our productivity is the lowest amongst peers globally, and our competition is ahead in innovation. It’s the leaders like me who are paying the price here, and I am the 3rd Country GM in the last five years due to the low productivity, I will rather be known for technology innovation than work-life balance,” he lamented.


Aggression and Narcissism, in a way, is two sides of the same coin. We also tend to appreciate aggressive leaders who express more emotions and demand more from others openly. In many circumstances, it works for organisations to turnaround situations, change cultures, increases innovation, and raise the bar in terms of competition. Aggressive leaders also bring narcissism as a package, and not all of us relate to it well. Let’s picture a narcissist/expressive leader. They are more likely to guide you/directions and narrate their own stories of how they achieved what they now expect from you. On the one hand, it makes sense to relate to a story. At the same time, you might feel like being compared or pressurized simultaneously. I would put it down to your wiring than the leader’s personality.

I am usually grounded by my 11-year-old daughter, who catches me during my Gyan session and says, “Appa.’ It’s always your story. All you need is a tiny chance to start talking about your heroic childhood.” J

Go on a flashback and remember the leaders you worked with or appreciated the most. How many were the aggressive/expressive and maybe a touch narcissist types, and how many were the humble/reticent types? Ever wondered why you relate more to one than the other?


I would like to believe it’s our own mental makeup that decides whether we like the humble leaders or aggressive/dominant leaders. Sometimes do we like to see in these leaders what we ‘don’t have’ if it helps our viewpoint?

I remember once when we were in the midst of a clean-up before handing over ourselves to an acquirer. We had an aggressive leader who expressively showed her emotions & was famously called a ruthless assassin. She single-handedly cut the fab in the organisation over a period of time with multiple executive decisions. Many chairs occupying/email writing leaders with fat salaries were eased out and replaced by young, energetic leaders from within. The heavy/inefficient regional/corporate offices were asked to go lean to the tune of 50%. By the time the acquirer took over, it was a highly efficient profit-making machine. The people who were affected by her approach loathed her. The beneficiaries of her decisions earned promotions and bonuses. The organisation earnt more profits consistently thereafter.


We are great fans of the style, but even greater admirers of results. Enterprises/teams are no different. When there are favorable outcomes, we tend to appreciate the trait which brought out the outcome and label it as the impact factor. Whether it’s aggression, people connect, decisiveness, expressions, process, or stability & now humility, we choose the leader’s salient feature and hail them if there is a productive outcome due to them.

The bosses who gave us the best increments, bonuses, promotions, jobs are the ones we likely hail the most, even though it would have come at the cost of them being nasty, mean, and unfair to many others?

 Are we children of favorable results who appreciate the character behind wins and then glorify their underlying traits? Humility for now is what we could relate as far as Rahane is concerned?

As long as nice guys don’t finish last, we should be fine?

Right now humility is the latest FAD. Let’s celebrate it!

REBEL to insure your job

800 371 Kamal Karanth

REBEL to insure your job

Invest in relationships, enterprise, behaviour, effort and learning

As an employee how would you analyse 2020? If you held on to your job, got timely salaries, were blessed with WFH, and got increments, would you call it a great year? If you landed a new job with a joining bonus and an attractive higher salary, you might even call it a bumper year, as some in the IT industry did.

“I have to stare at the same screen but speak to a different set of people via a new email id, but now I earn ₹1.5 lakh more per month without stepping out of my house,” said a friend from the IT industry who lost his job but found a new one within three weeks.

If you look at the healthy Q3 results of Infosys and Wipro, they speak for the IT industry. Yes, the job demand in the IT industry has returned to pre-Covid levels, and, last quarter, almost 30 per cent of jobseekers declined offers for greener pastures; such is the demand.

On the other hand, it would be difficult to remember 2020 if you took a pay cut, or, worse, if you lost your job. “It’s been six months since my role has been made redundant, and I am still waiting to get a suitable role,” a vice-president of a leading non-banking finance company (NBFC) complained to me. In fact, the dip in BFSI (banking, financial services and insurance) hiring in 2020 at mid to senior level was only about 10 per cent. In a pandemic year, the fact that the banking and NBFC sectors took only a 10 per cent dip is an upbeat number.

Your outlook to 2021 would obviously be based on which of the above two sets you belong to. If you go by the examples of my friends in IT and BFSI, one thing is clear. The relevance of their roles and the industry they are part of had a huge bearing on their fortunes. I chose BFSI and IT as examples as they are the bellwether industries as far as hiring numbers and frequency of job changes go.

So, how do we transition to safeguard our careers in 2021. By working on relationships, being enterprising, behaving well, putting in effort and learning. In short, being a REBEL!


Genuine relationships in the workplace are a precious commodity. If you are close to the boss, you are ridiculed. Peers are pitted as competitors. In this perception world, we end up being transactional, and genuine relationships never blossom. But a good relationship is a must-have skill for your relevance with people around you, including customers. Where do you think you are in the relationship context in your current world? Do you only have a network or a true connection?


Organisations value entrepreneurial employees. Colleagues who take on stretch assignments — and risks — such as new launches, turnarounds, troubleshooting, and who are willing to relocate are darlings of bosses. You are unlikely to lose your relevance when you have a can-do attitude.


Remember, we hire people for their skills and fire them for their behaviours. Large enterprises need conformity. Otherwise, it’s difficult for them to control a large number of employees. Hence, they have rules, policies to protect themselves and rein in mavericks. Every enterprise has written and unsaid rules. Being in line helps. If you don’t conform, you could be the first to be made redundant when the organisation next faces headwinds.


As much as leaders claim they are fans of outcomes, secretly all of us admire our hard-working colleagues. Unfortunately, what constitutes ‘efforts’ is not well articulated. To some, it might still be late hours, weekend work, and skipping leaves. Though not healthy, if that’s your employer’s culture, you may need to show up to stay relevant.


The IT workers who were courted heavily by recruiters during the pandemic were those who had made a successful transition to digital skills. They invested in cybersecurity, learnt Python, or diversified into data sciences or new languages like Golang. These skills were in such demand that many recruiters skipped their Christmas break to headhunt them for talent-hungry tech enterprises.

You are reasonably job-insured in 2021 if you are a REBEL. The job market has got its first dose of vaccine, and there are clear green shoots. Now’s your chance to leave 2020 behind and stand in the queue.

Published first on Hindu Business Line, January 18, 2020.

Leadership and Lies

800 371 Kamal Karanth

The art of strategic deception has been perfected by most top management

The Q3 results of companies are out and the performance of most look below par.

Yet you find CEOs assuring investors that they are on the right path. You can’t expect them to say anything else, can you?

Did you follow the recent American presidential debate?

The most interesting part of both debates was the fact-checking session by channels that immediately followed. There was glaring misrepresentation on data, be it Covid cases, or claims and counter claims on how many people would benefit from the old and new health care plans.

Back in India, even before a vaccine is developed, we saw politicians promising free inoculation.

How do you interpret the claims made by leaders? Should we call it strategic deception or motivated reasoning? Motivated reasoning is described in social psychology as using emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence while still reducing cognitive dissonance. Too complicated? Simply put, leaders lie knowingly because they want us to believe in what they are telling us rather than the glaring facts?

Blurred lines

Due to Covid, many organisations announced a freeze on a pay raise for the year. However, when top talent got offers from competitors, to retain them, increments were given. When the word got out, people who did not negotiate for hikes felt cheated. The leaders who publicly announced the pay freeze did not clarify later that a few were selectively given a raise. Was it too complicated to manage the new situation in public glare?

In a job induction meeting, I have seen a leader parade a couple of new managers, praising them as fast-trackers, to showcase growth opportunities to newcomers. In any company, the number of people who don’t get a promotion is significantly higher than those who get promoted. Despite such statistics, we still tell everyone that they can get promoted and create an atmosphere of competition than collaboration.

Maybe it’s a blurred line for leaders, where they are told to focus on the positive side of things, and hence some of the convenient statistics get exaggerated. Ask any leader who has high attrition in their team. They will start talking about involuntary separation and average tenure to paint a different picture and rarely admit that attrition is a problem. It’s always belief first, reason second!

Deferred truth

Sometimes leaders are confronted with the reality of not knowing enough in advance, but still are supposed to show a high-level of optimism and take a position. It does land them in a position of embarrassment later or look like they lied knowingly. Luckily in the corporate world, unlike politics, the questions are asked only around water coolers, and most likely, never reach the top!

Once, in one of the first town halls I addressed in a new company, I was asked if I would hire any of my former colleagues or any layoff was coming. I said something like, “there is so much talent in the room, and I am sure we don’t have to go out for talent, and also let’s focus on growing the business and not think negative.” Within a year, I hired two of my former colleagues in leadership roles and cut the workforce by 10 percent.

In my defence, it was my first month; I did not know enough about the business’s dynamics and reality, which I realised much later. However, I could have been diplomatic and said, “I need more time to study, and I will do what is best for the business?” But, that would not have gone well with the confidence mask a leader needs to wear all the time.

Leadership template

In 2016, an HBR study asked 195 leaders in 15 countries to list the top important leadership qualities. The top five listed by them were 1) ethics & safety 2) empowering others 3) openness to ideas and organisational learning 4) Nurturing growth and 5) encouraging connection and belonging.

However, most of us get drawn to leaders who have executive presence, meaning how they look, speak, and behave. For most of us, the confidence depicted by leaders is an important element.

This expectation pushes leaders to show that they are in charge, and they make bold statements hiding key facts. Most often, we all know that our leaders are exaggerating, and we like the fact that they are motivating us as we are all suckers for positivity.

To quote the British statesman Henry Taylor, a “falsehood ceases to be a falsehood when it is understood on all hands that the truth is not expected to be spoken”.

First published by The Hindu Business Line on November 5, 2020



800 371 Kamal Karanth

“We shouldn’t allow the Country Head to operate out of his home town” said the CHRO in a definitive voice. “It doesn’t matter as long as she delivers the goods” responded the CEO. That was the first time I saw a CHRO standing up to a CEO and I said “wow!” It turned out that the country head operated from her home town and travelled to Hq every Monday.

3 months from then that CHRO resigned and the new HR head mostly gave policy/legal inputs to the CEO. At least in public there were no disagreements. He had a longer tenure and the CEO ensured CHRO got great visibility, freedom and promotions. We heard the CEO frequently saying that the new CHRO was a great business partner.
The 3 most important factors CEOs look for while hiring CHROs are
1. Qualification (Premier Institutes)
2. Marquee Brands they have worked for
3. Positive reference (from their network)

I am excluding the other factors like cultural fit, affordability & key achievements to state a few.

What makes the CHRO successful? Many of us say you need to be business oriented for you to get a seat in the table, you need to partner with Business and many obvious factors like that. But, the most commonly accepted factor is “Can you manage the egos of the CEO and his/her reportees”. If you are in a MNC can you manage the Geo-political battles of APAC vs EMEA vs Europe and also manage your CEO.

If you are in a large India enterprise can you manage the promoter personality and still do what HR is supposed to do?
Needless to say, CHROs who have strong personalities and opinions also need to be politically savvy to be successful ?

Mark Twain said “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Desperately Seeking Boring Leaders

800 371 Kamal Karanth

Start-ups, like the best-run firms in the world, need CEOs who are known by the brands they lead, rather than their own personalities. Would it be too much to ask for boring leaders than stylish ones?

I once asked a class full of MBA students to name the top unicorns in India. They named the obvious five — Ola, Flipkart, Snapdeal, Paytm, and Oyo. For the remaining names, they had to google 🙂

Then I asked for the name of the founder of the most profitable start-up in the country. The silence was deafening. Finally, someone came up with the name of BookMyShow. However, nobody could name the founder.

In that room of 100-plus students, most of them wanted to become entrepreneurs. But every time we talked about a start-up, invariably, it was about a company that had a larger-than-life founder or somebody who had raised significant funds.

Most of them felt it was survival first, so valuation and fundraising were more important than other aspects of a start-up. I couldn’t blame them as their perceptions are based on what all of us are reading, viewing and listening to.

Poster heroes

The other day I heard a prominent VC talking about the founder of a company that had recently entered the club of unicorns by raising another round of funding. Yes, it was a PR exercise, but still, when you have a company, a senior leadership team, and a unique service or differentiating product, why this focus on the founder alone?

From their last holiday to the posters they keep in the office to their latest tweets, there is way too much attention on the founders. It’s not just through PR or media alone that we know each and every detail about them — from the colour of their socks to what they do on their weekends. It seems like they themselves too like it this way, otherwise wouldn’t they be running a different kind of marketing to represent their firms better?

How many of them write blogs or podcasts or YouTube channels to promote their industry or position themselves as thought leaders? Instead, we only get to hear about their weird habits, wealth or latest tweet fights with competitors.

They seem to like the feed their PR and marketing teams send to media about their persona.

Their investors also don’t seem to find it risky to over-promote the founder over the company/idea they invested in.

Faltering founders

Many of these unicorns have struggled with toxic work cultures, governance issues, exits of key senior managers. Yet they win awards from leading media houses. What explains this romanticism about founders more than the companies they founded? We have all got carried away by the freakish behaviour of founders, which makes for great TRP.

I once met the founder of a unicorn. The agenda of the meeting was to discuss her next set of leadership hires. She came 15 minutes late into the meeting and received a call within the first five minutes of our conversation. She excused herself and walked away into her cabin. As we waited for her to return, her EA came by, stating the meeting was cancelled. I believe she had to attend to an urgent matter from his investors. She never apologised for walking out of a scheduled meeting. Worse, she even stopped responding to emails.

The truth is that there are still many start-ups that have founders who are grounded and are well-run.

However, we only remember start-ups whose founders’ persona is built through media. The Cofounders who take on VCs in public, Founders who get fired by boards and entrepreneurs who are fined by the SEC still find more mindshare than the firms that are well-run.

Unfortunately, everybody thinks they are the next Richard Branson or Steve Jobs. As the news of Binny Bansal broke recently, I heard a senior executive telling his colleague at the airport that he wouldn’t mind the publicity for a billion-dollar exit. Such is our love for money and fame!

Boring Leaders

Beyond the start-up world, the best-run firms in the world have CEOs who are known by the brands they lead, than themselves. Would you be able to name the CEOs of United Health, Exxon Mobil or AT&T? These firms are ranked among the top 10 in Fortune 500’s list for 2018.

Moreover, I am sure that you have heard of Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Ghosn, Elon Musk. So, now you know how our mind is influenced by the personalities than the most valuable firms!

Is there a way start-ups can get over their habit of building their brands around their founders after securing funding? I would suggest the Oyo way. It has quickly brought a seasoned proven professional like Aditya Ghosh in spite of having a larger than life founder in Ritesh Agarwal.

Nandan Nilekani recently said Infosys has become boring again and that it is a good thing. His comment is apt for the start-up world too. VCs need to fund founders who can create great companies rather than news.

Charismatic leaders in forums, Are they same to work with?

800 371 Kamal Karanth

We love to hear charismatic leaders speak in forums, they inspire through articles, their public personalities are magnetic! Are they ‘the same’ person to work with? Not all I guess! A couple of times I went by my one-off personal interactions and chose to work with some publicly inspiring personalities.  I think leaders or anybody for that matter don’t match their public behaviors in private! It’s not easy to be somebody else all the time. People who worked with me can vouch for that 🙂 The real “Self’ has to eventually appear, isn’t it? We used to see benevolent behavior from that boss except when he was one to one with us. After giving a very motivating Townhall speech, answering the irritating questions with a dignity he would turn up to next meeting with utter disdain to his reportees. He used to bark at his secretary, driver, office boy as though they were all stress relievers to his recent townhall. As much as we hail the leaders in public for their designations and influential roles they play, we only remember them for how they behave in private, dont we? After all, whenever somebody asks us how is that leader in private, we end up saying, nice guy or jerk! The private experience of the leader spreads faster than what the publicly portrayed image!

Why Leaders cannot Listen?

800 371 Kamal Karanth

Why is it difficult for leaders to Listen? We keep reading about the Gyan around why listening is great art, many of the leaders don’t listen, some of your role models, inspiring leaders listened to you, etc. etc.

My personal take which you dont have to listen to 🙂

As we grow in the ladder (if not as a person) our experiences of people create perceptions. It works in two ways, First with known people: Here

Leaders – Do they need to feel Belonged?

800 371 Kamal Karanth

Whom would you give credit for the recent Chennai Super King’s IPL victory? Leaders like Dhoni or experienced team or CSK’s ecosystem. Some of us said it wasn’t difficult to spot how relaxed he looked here compared to his previous stint. Much of this crew were there at Pune too. I would attribute the victory to the ecosystem of CSK which made him feel belonged.

After all, aren’t champions supposed to be performing in different environments and the surroundings shouldn’t matter? Many corporate examples tell us that the ecosystem is equally important for the leaders to produce the best results. Think of successful corporate leaders who couldn’t reproduce their magic when they switched camps. Groupon’s Andrew Mason, Marisa Meyer, numerous CEOs at HP all had excellent past track records. But, they aren’t remembered the same way like they did with their previous ventures.

Ecosystem Influence

Leaders are human too and they need a sense of connectedness, support, familiarity to perform at their optimum level. That also explains why leaders bring their ex-colleagues when they take up new assignments. They want a few faces which give them a level of comfort. Additionally, CEOs need all the stakeholders to be successful in their new jobs. Board, partners, Immediate reportees and extended teams. Yes, CEO’s are cynosures of success and villains of failure. Nobody can ignore their entire ecosystem in the background for them to go either way. Most leaders are told to build that ecosystem or manage them well. It’s called shrewd politics at one level and stakeholder management at another. Nevertheless, every CEO you talk to will acknowledge the power of ecosystem that they inherit or create.

Replicating Success

Many CEOs with long tenures are reluctant to move jobs. This in spite of attractive offers is due to the fear of the ecosystem change. CEOs who jump the ship negotiates funny things to keep the status quo as much as possible. They bring in their ex-secretary, negotiate for the same city operation even if the Hq is elsewhere. All said and done you can only replicate your comfort zone to a limited extent. Could this be the reason many boards opt for internal succession than outsiders in most cases? The ecosystem connect to the internal contender would be crucial in many cases than the outsider perspective.

Therefore the premium for CEOs who can create magic in new settings is high because they are a rare commodity. Some of us are used to our bosses, few to the culture, many to our team and place of work. A leader is able to perform if he gets all these in the right doses.

That is why some of the traditional companies don’t change leaders in spite of interim stock market pressures.

Outside Leaders

When I was negotiating an offer from an MNC my would be boss asked: “ are you sure you can handle, the new world of structures and process”. My movement was from a large entrepreneur set up. I told myself how could it be any different from all the customer and the industry segment was similar. I was wrong, it turned out to be a complex transition where I felt I was unfit for the job for the first year or so. In my opinion, we all carried policy manuals to every meeting. If the customer or an employee asked a question, we would say we would get back to them. Speed was an enemy and then there were multiple forces. You had to manage regional and global headquarters. For most of the time, I felt I was at war with multiple departments of the organization to get things done.

The larger issue I faced was that of trust. Though, they hired me for my track record and experience they also curbed me with a complex rule-book and approvals. People who had worked with me earlier started to complain that I was off-color in this stint. Truth be told, I never felt belonged till new leaders took over, changed the entire ecosystem and my ownership.

The Change

Every time an organization underperforms we call for the head of  CEO. As much as s/he is in charge they are also a product of their ecosystem. Yes, they can change or influence the behaviors of their circle. But, it’s an uphill task in most cases to simultaneously battle boards, demotivated employees, disgruntled customers and sulking partners. But a CEO who has a sense of belonging, a past or tenure with the organization and is trusted by the board always has the edge.

If we dig deeper it appears that Dhoni is the latest but not the only example. Leadership is meant to be lonely at the top but counterproductive without a sense of belonging

Leadership Transition- change is not welcome!

800 371 Kamal Karanth

Getting calls from past colleagues in quest of new jobs is a normal occurrence these days. I typically do ask the real drivers to such aspirations if it’s just another bad day in office. Some of these calls provide good intel if the calls are from competitor mates. One such call recently turned into an interesting insight. My ex-colleague explained the reason for his turmoil. He has a new CEO and I promptly asked: “how’s he?” My ex-colleague explained that the new CEO is attempting to change almost everything from people to structure to process to technology … his question was, “till recently we were the most happening company in this industry and it seems like in the last year or so nothing is good! How can things become so bad overnight?”

Collateral Damage

Organisations should budget for some collateral damage is expected with every leadership change. Few resignations have to be expected. After all, not everybody is going to like new leaders. In today’s work-world, most people change jobs every 2 years but can’t digest when new people are to lead them every two years in the same company. Our preferences seem to be to accept the way we work differently in a new place than having to adapt in the same place.

The new leader also has to go through the same change which he/she inflicts on others. S/he wouldn’t know when to press the button or to keep quiet. The first 90 days book subtly suggests being observant than action. It’s difficult being a leader when you are unwelcome which is quite common during turnaround situations. Once when I landed in a similar situation, I had a resignation that greeted me on day one.  Some of my reportees were pessimistic if anything can be changed even before I had arrived.

Insider Vs Outsider

In my view, leading turnarounds is a far easier task than succeeding a business which has had a successful track record. During turnaround situations, your bosses back you up as they are only interested in bottom-line results than collateral damage. In sustaining success, the organisation expects you to retain the goodness of the past (people, structure, culture, process) while delivering improved results. The logic is that if the previous guy could produce in the same context, why can’t you repeat/better the same. This gets compounded when the new leader comes from within the organisation.

Starting from “I was your peer”; “you took the lift when I was taking the stairs”; and “don’t you know my track record?”; to “let’s talk about how you will take care of my interests”; – the first few weeks are a bargaining battle. Lots of posturing happens and suddenly the leader feels lonely in a united successful team.

Leading a Succesful team

Once when my boss chose me to lead a successful team as a successor from within, I had a nightmarish beginning. It actually started with him giving the brief about the leaders I was going to lead. He started by saying “Rita has been with the company for ten years and she is the cat in her industry domain”; “Nathan is one of our finest sales leads, he actually does not need a job as he comes from an affluent background”; “Sirin is from NYU and she is the best HR person we’ve ever had”; “John, as you know, is the best Operations head we’ve had”.

He summed up the brief saying that my predecessor macro managed them and they are used to their space. I suddenly felt I was becoming a burden to these self-made leaders. When I asked in frustration what he expects me to do to earn my salary besides signing the attendance register. I was then rightly directed to the so-called easy to win battles — the market place.

He said, “Kamal, you are a sales guy hence the best way to impress your team is to display to them what you do best. Impress them in the presence of customers where there are no mind games nor baggages. Don’t spend too much time convincing your leaders on their careers or your relationship intent with them. It will take them some time to come to terms with a new leader. Nobody will waste their time if you can make them successful so have trust that time is the best healer.”

Success Unites

My boss was right. Within three months, we started enjoying our collective success. Nobody left the organisation for the next year and it was the most successful four quarters the biz unit ever had.

One of my reportees once politely gave me a piece of profound advice during a similar change. She said, “Kamal, I know you are here to build the tomorrow but is there a way you can build a bridge from the past to the future as well?”

From that point onwards, my mindset to change vanished and I started to look at Talent as they are. I rang up my helpline who is one of my former boss living in Singapore who related to my changing fatherhood (my second one had just arrived)


Please! Don’t Be A Leader!

800 371 Kamal Karanth


Please! Don’t Be A Leader!

25 MAY , 2016
It sounds mean of me to say so, after chasing leadership roles for decades I sound like a hypocrite to put a title like that, but I mean it, let me see if I can impress you to think so today.

Rewind to your day one in any of your new employers induction programs, either the leaders or HR would be flashing their top talent (mostly it would be people who have ‘managed’ to attain higher positions in their company). And with a beaming smile they would tell you that’s what you can become if you perform and develop. We suddenly feel gratified that we have joined the right company and our future is secure.

You then start day dreaming about what you can become looking at a handful of people who also have hung around for long. Is it right for employers to brandish that they manufacture leaders or for employees to aspire they can become leaders without any capability that they can identify for themselves. I would like to believe that one has no choice but to aspire to be a leader as otherwise you are deemed to be seen as:

  • Non aspirational, somebody without drive (meaning you are lazy 🙂
  • non-competitive, how else can they pressurize you if you are not part of a rat race ( they will start worrying why they even hired you)
  • Can’t be moulded into the organisational needs ( you will be seen as non-flexible, meaning you won’t do things beyond your Job description)
  • Bad example to others, everybody likes people who do the ra ra and say hail the organisation and its leaders/li>

When you say you don’t want to be a leader you are stating that you don’t believe either in the role or the value the role creates for others, more than anything else it irks the guy sitting at the top that you are taking a dig at him. It also puts your manager and HR in an awkward position to motivate you to work harder or learn things which otherwise you may not. Ever tried saying you don’t want to be in leadership roles that organisation has thrown at you? I have 🙂 and paid the price once. I have told never say never again to myself from that day.

Saying no definitely brings an unnecessary pause to your career by being parked in roles which makes you regret your decision to be forthright to your boss and HR. It also exposes you to be passed over for promotions, reporting to your juniors, peers (it’s no shame, but let’s face it, how many of us would like to report to whom we consider junior or peers).

You also become less important to key projects or key happenings in the organisation, essentially you will dread being honest once you say no to any growth role that the organization offered you.

There are times when you say no due to personal reasons, the timing would be wrong, you are going through a break up, parents would be needing care, attention is required for kids’ education, spouse’s job would be at a crucial phase. Maybe it pays to cite some personal reasons and say no than being honest about your lack of aspiration.

Sometimes U can be real about your lack of conviction on your abilities or intent. If you are in a congenial atmosphere of trust and respect it’s likely that less harm will be inflicted on your existence and peace. Such supervisors and organisations are rare but not impossible to find.

When people tell us they can’t lead or don’t want to lead we should listen intently. One of the guys I was hiring told me that not everybody should aspire to be in the so called “No 1” roles. But I believed that he had leadership abilities and his lack of aspiration was an excuse to himself.

I went ahead and hired him only to ask him to leave later, he was right in his assessment of himself, he did not have the aspiration and whatever ability I saw in him could not fructify as his ambition was not fuelling his capabilities. Deep down people know their real abilities, they get pressurized by friends, relatives, colleagues or rather the ecosystem and take up roles only to fail in them. The price they pay in denting their self-esteem and the cost to the organisation never gets quantified.

Leadership is hard work, you need to have tremendous energy, throughout the day you can’t relax a minute as everything you do affects somebody else or influences somebody positively, you have to be accessible all the time, connect with people whom you have never met with empathy, have the right temperament for crisis, it also calls for long working hours irrespective of the industry you work for. No, it’s not a 9-6 job, you take the pressure cum responsibility home and beyond. Many leaders can’t even manage a smile early in the morning when they walk in and meet lesser mortals in the hallway. Imagine the judgement of people who put them there for all of us to suffer.

But you don’t need ‘others’ to tell you whether you can/should become a leader, if you carefully look back from your childhood to where you are today there would be instances / experiences that would tell you if you really possess traits that made a difference to others, and also whether you enjoyed being there doing that, most importantly ask yourself if you are a good sport in dealing with failures. In leadership roles, you tend to struggle everyday managing expectations upwards plus downwards and rejoice once in a while when your vision meets the results.

So be real to yourself, don’t be a pain to others by opting to lead just because

  • you were a successful individual contributor
  • or there is an opportunity to fuel your aspiration
  • your boss likes you and there is no better choice internally
  • You have bills to pay and the money is big

I know it’s easy for me to say this, I don’t know what I have inflicted on others by seizing on opportunities at the cost of others! I have my excuses, I’m sure you can find yours too!