MP Anilkumar: A tribute

I recently read that M P Anilkumar, inspirational, quadriplegic former air force pilot, passed away earlier this year to cancer. He was fifty. I had vaguely heard of his brave struggle many years ago, but read his story only now, after his death. I was furious at feeling sympathetic as I read about his life, because it tarnished the brave spirit this great man embodied in his almost two decades as a quadriplegic.

Anilkumar, a promising air force pilot - a topper in the prestigious National Defense Academy in India- was  paralyzed neck down in a freak accident. He was then moved to the Indian Armed Forces' rehabilitation center where he lived for the rest of his life. After an intense period of depression, knowing that he would never walk again, and even worse be forever dependent on others for his basic needs - the fighter pilot in him took over. Anilkumar, or MP as he was fondly called, soon began writing with his lips - beautiful letters which brought out the exceptional writer in him, and enabled him to connect again with the world. He details his accident and the struggle that followed in his remarkable "Airborne to Chairborne" which ends with the line " greater the struggle, sweeter the victory". His inspirational essay eventually found its way to the English textbooks of tenth graders in the state of Maharashtra.  


I was moved by the numerous comments on various websites announcing his death - by people who had the opportunity to meet him. Surprisingly, many were along the lines of how a meeting with MP offered them solace, and the courage to face their troubles.  This was not through a sense of seeing someone without feet to appreciate your shoes, but more along the lines of being in the presence of a wise man. Many remarked about the ever growing pile of books in his hospital room, including computer programming books, and the wide range of topics he was conversant in.

While MP's life is a clear testimony of his grit, I could not but help think of Carol Dweck's argument that those with a growth mindset can overcome adversity better. MP never stopped growing mentally - at an exponential rate-  all these years. His legacy will be of a man who accepted that destiny had larger plans for him - to be an instrument of hope to those who met him during his lifetime, and to scores  like me who continue to discover him after his death. Rest in peace.

P.S This website includes a clip from a film on MP.
   

The tale of two Presidents: whose leadership will endure?

Leon Botstein, President of Bard College

The recent New Yorker piece about charismatic Bard College President Leon Botstein, asks whether Botstein, who transformed Bard College during his almost four decade long tenure as President, can insure that the institution outlasts him? It appears that Botstein - a genuine idealist who believes in the value of an affordable liberal arts education - has taken Bard College to where it is now primarily on the strength of his personal charisma. As the time for his retirement looms, the future of Bard College is uncertain because of its poor financial health. In the past most donors supported the College because of their personal affiliation with Botstein, rather than to the college.

Contrast Botstein to another charismatic president in the area, John Sexton at NYU. Sexton, with his strong Jesuit values, wants to create global citizens, and has over the last decade expanded NYU at a breathless pace not just in its neighboring NYC area, but also in Abu Dhabi and China. Except that he lost the confidence of his faculty in the process, and will step down in 2016 when his current contract expires. Sexton already has in place his post retirement plans - he will work for education for the needy. NYU has climbed up in rankings since he came in, has a solid reputation globally with its Abu Dhabi and China campus up and running. There seems to be no reason at this point to worry about its continuing rise in the rankings.

John Sexton, President of NYU

How will we judge these two men as leaders? In some ways comparing the two is akin to comparing apples and oranges - Bard has 2000 students, while NYU has over 50,00. Yet as individuals these men share remarkable similarities - both have strong values about the importance of  a liberal arts education, freedom of speech, are charismatic and larger than life, caring in their personal relationships (Sexton is a big hugger), great speakers almost in love with their own voices. Why has their appeal on their followers then been so different? Kouzes and Posner in their book on leadership rightly talk about credibility as the foundation of leadership. It appears that Sexton, was in part brought down by not walking the talk. Blinded by his desire to attract world class faculty to New York, murmurs are rampant about the outlandish pay and low interest loans to select faculty, while tuitions have skyrocketed resulting in an alarming rate of student drop outs. NYU faculty also accuse Sexton of non- transparency, and for establishing campuses in countries with dictatorial regimes- Sexton argues that he is respecting local traditions.While Sexton claims to not have any possessions other than his pension, the New Yorker article featuring Sexton, notes his perks, including a first among equal status with Emirates Airlines.

Another important difference between the two lies in their ability to make their followers buy into their vision, by letting them observe the fruits of their labor. Despite the grumblings of Bard college faculty about the abrasive style of Botstein, they see the difference they are making. One glowing example is the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) which runs "college in prisons" programs in nine states, and offers the same course content to prisoners as the regular students receive, and has an admirable ratio of graduation to enrollment. The guiding philosophy for this initiative is that critical readers learn to be better self critics, which in turn reduces recidivism. NYU faculty on the other hand do not see the immediate purpose of their seemingly meaningless expansion except in rising student tuitions and drop out rates. 

This is a story of two leaders whose legacies are in question for different reasons - Botstein's because of the uncertain future of the organization he leaves behind, Sexton's because of his personal leadership style. Aristotle rightly points out that we cannot judge a man's life until they are dead, or in some cases even after they are dead. Thus it is too early to pass judgment on Bonstein or Sexton. But Bonstein seems more likely to prevail because his personal values have not yet come under the scanner. Sexton seems to have lost his credibility along the way, and the NYU faculty will try everything in their control to erase his legacy when he is gone, and perhaps even undo his vision. Sexton, like may other charismatic leaders seems to have overlooked his most important constituency - his faculty. Perhaps he will learn from this experience and redeem himself in his future projects. Watch this space for updates.      

Friendship as an important virtue

Aristotle in his Nicomachean ethics considers friendship as the most necessary in our life. Friendship could even hold cities together, because the desire for harmony would trump all other motives. Further, he wisely suggests that friends don't need justice since it's an inherent part of their relationship, but the just need friends, and - justice that is most just is friendship. Aristotle defines friendship as reciprocated goodwill, and states that the most complete friendship occurs between two good people similar in virtue, because they are good people in themselves and also good for their friend. Somewhat controversially, although he could be forgiven for expressing the views of his times, Aristotle suggests that one cannot have true friendship with a slave because the relationship would be that between a master and a - tool with a soul. But even here the master can have as much friendship with a slave as much as he is human.  Justice, as reciprocated goodwill,  is therefore the foundation of Aristotle's definition of friendship.

Aristotle's ideas of friendship could not be more relevant today. Newspaper headlines are replete with unimaginable instances of mass cruelty where even the status of others as- human beings- is not respected. Human traffickers intentionally drowning scores of Hamas refugees, the mass flight of Kurds from Syria to Turkey fearing the IS, the atrocities of the Boko Haram in Nigeria are but a few examples of the sad state of our race. It is easy and even perhaps partially correct to blame the root of this evil on poverty.

But even the wealthy seem to be have lost touch with the joys of friendship, at the risk of adeverse social consequences, as evidenced by David Brook's op-ed about the dwindling friendships among adults. The world seems to be incessantly focused on the one aspect of love - romantic love, which while splendid is also limiting. One cannot survive on love and air, as many couples quickly realize,- but friendships can.

The benefits of nurturing our lives with meaningful friendships are clear. But we need to aim for the highest form of friendship, as suggested by Aristotle. When a group of terrorists wreak havoc on the innocent, they fail both tests of Aristotle. They are neither good people, nor are they good for their friends!      

Picture credit http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/david-brooks-there-are-social-and-political-benefits-to-having-friends.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

Are introspective leaders narcissistic?

David Brooks' recent op-ed in the New York Times, asking whether introspection is just narcissism in sheep's clothing, unsurprisingly drew some harsh criticism - including some personal jabs. Although it's easy to poke holes in Brooks' arguments, it is important to poke these holes.

Brooks suggests that the dangers of self-examination are rumination and over-simplifying. Rumination is a solitary process which can lead to the ruminator spiraling into greater depression, or unnecessary self aggrandizement- depending upon their initial state of mind. Over- simplifying is similar to rationalization, and used to justify -to ourselves-, our obviously poor choices. Brooks offers some examples from research in psychology to illustrate how one can move away from a self-immersive form of reflection to a more detached, critical form -which is likely to result in a more accurate and therefore healthy self-perspective. Finally, Brooks suggests quite ambiguously that rather than focusing on our strengths and weaknesses, we must gain perspective by focusing on a broader empathetic view of the world.       

First, it is important to not go overboard in criticizing Brooks- it's after all just an op-ed and not a research paper. Plus, what better way to strengthen our convictions than to counter the arguments against them?  The first flaw in Brooks' reasoning is that self reflection through self-immersion and from afar are mutually exclusive. Instead they are two sides of a coin. Even research in organizational behavior recognizes the importance of 360 degree feedback (or evaluations from multiple sources) for a more accurate final picture. Another major concept in organizational behavior - emotional intelligence- is a combination of self-awareness and "other" awareness, with empathy being an important component of other awareness.

The gaping hole in Brooks' op-ed is right in the title. Narcissism is actually the absence of introspection, and refers to self- absorption with a blinding desire to be admired. Self-introspection on the other hand is a concerted effort to understand oneself, and to better fit in with society. For example, self-reflection and self regulation in emotional intelligence refer to an attempt to understand one's emotions to better manage them in the larger social context, like not losing one's temper. How is that narcissism?

The fundamental problem in the op-ed is the compartmentalization of the various forms of self-reflection. For example, understanding one's strengths and weaknesses is crucial in pursuing the right career; a decision which has a significant effect on our well-being. Surely Brooks'  good understanding of his strengths as a writer landed him his prestigious Times job. The problem lies when self-reflection and self-acceptance do not go together. I overheard a conversation between two perfectly fine looking women vehemently agreeing with each other that they hated what they saw in the gym mirror. Introspection should come from a deep desire to know and accept, and not be confused with mere self-evaluation.

So, are introspective leaders narcissistic? No, narcissistic leaders are not introspective!

The thirst for values based leadership

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center indicates that military service continues to be the most desirable trait in a Presidential candidate.  Interestingly, atheism was a deal breaker with 53% of the respondents saying they were less likely to vote for an atheist - the highest in the less likely category.  Another notable difference from earlier years was that respondents who viewed a candidate's  prior experience in Washington DC as a negative, outnumbered those who considered it as desirable. Prior experience continued to be important, but in a gubernatorial capacity.

Although America vehemently holds its state and religion separate, and in general has  an anti-war sentiment, why might religion and military service consistently figure at the top of desirable qualities of leaders? Demographic facts aside, it is undoubtedly the moral values that religion represents, and the belief that a religious candidate will adhere to them. Military credentials also represent a candidate's  experience in adhering to a strong moral code.

In their best selling leadership book - Leadership Challenge- , authors Kouzes and Posner discuss the results of their survey of over 70,000 people over the globe (latest data in 2007), to identify the most important characteristics of a leader as: honesty, forward looking, inspiring and competent. They point out that credibility is the foundation of good leadership, and the most important behavior of a credible person is that "they do what they say they will do".  The Pew survey results suggest that the partisan behavior in Washington at the cost of public interest, has eroded the faith of the public in their elected representatives. The gubernatorial posts are seen as more independent, less likely to be influenced by vested interests of others.

How can a leader ensure that they always do what they say? To paraphrase Kouzes and Posner, this begins with the leader having a clear set of values, and then consistently living these values. This is the- behavioral way- of demonstrating honesty and trustworthiness - the cornerstones of leadership. The Pew center results don't just indicate the importance of values based leadership, they show that the public yearns for credible leaders. Religion and the military are valued - at least by the American public- because they  provide the structure and motivation for leading a values based life.        


Thankfully, despite the upheavals in Wall Street, 33% of the Pew study respondents favorably view a business executive as a presidential candidate, while 13% view them as negative, and 53% say it didn't matter. Business leaders must take this opportunity to rebuild their credibility by practicing values based leadership.

Fixed vs. growth mindset: Examining Roger Federer

Roger Federer lost to Tsonga in yesterday's Roger's tennis cup final. As always, his critics have been quick to write him off, yet again. Why not quit while at the top, and leave in the blaze of glory? Why put yourself and your fans through those humiliating moments, when your strokes are a shadow of your hey days, and when younger and gutsier players beat you regularly?  But then, that's not how Federer thinks about tennis.

Carol Dweck in her book "Mindset", talks about the difference between the fixed mindset and the growth mindset, and the importance of the latter for sustained success. Those with a fixed mindset consider ability as static, and judge themselves and others by "results" or peak performance. Therefore, they avoid challenges which may tarnish their impeccable performance record, get defensive when faced with obstacles, don't believe that effort can enhance their already considerable talents, cannot handle negative feedback and feel threatened by the success of others.

Those with a growth mindset on the other hand, believe that ability can be developed, constantly embrace challenges, persist in the face of setbacks, see effort as a condition to mastery, learn from criticism and from the success of others, and thus reach ever-higher levels of achievement (Mindset, by Carol Dweck, page 245).  Dweck makes an important and interesting distinction between leaders with a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. The fixed mindset leaders may be high individual performers and stars, but do not prepare their firms to survive in their absence. Here is where the mighty Iacocca fails; Chrysler didn't survive after his departure, while it can be argued that Apple continues to buzz away, albeit in a lower key, even after Steve Jobs' passing.   

Back to Roger Federer. It is evident that he does not have to prove anything to anyone but himself. Why does he continue with his grueling tour and training schedule despite his ever growing family? What motivates him despite not winning a major since 2012? His  love for the game has to be the top reason, but how does he cope with not winning titles, and near misses, after his undisputed reign at the top for many years?

Federer definitely is a supreme example of a growth mindset. He is no fool to continue playing while his skills are waning across the board. As the grand old man of tennis at thirty three - an age when improving one's game seems improbable,- Federer's serve has actually improved and is the strength of his game today. He continues to train with his long term  physio-whiz, Paganini, who is angered at the talk of people wanting Federer to quit, because he knows Federer is still capable of a shot at the big titles. One mustn't forget that he is still the number three in the world.  Admittedly, even the unflappable Federer has gone through some -coming to terms- moments of being defensive, or even worse -crying- when he loses. But thankfully the growth mindset has truly established its presence now. No doubt winning titles is his ultimate goal, but not the only goal.

Using Dweck's criteria of a true growth minded leader, will Federer leave tennis a better place than it was since his arrival? The answer is a resounding YES. His seventeen grand slam titles don't seem so out of reach now for Nadal, or even Djokovic. But Federer, as even his rivals admit, has raised tennis to new heights, not just with his sublime talent, but with his global appeal, approachability and above all his growth mindset work ethic: an inspiration to all aspiring players. As his coach the great Stefan Edberg remarks "If Roger is in the game, it is great for tennis".

Another great man with an insatiable growth mindset -Tiger Woods- is now lying low, undoubtedly  working hard on recouping his physical and mental prowess. His detractors too have already written him off as incapable of winning another major, but sooner than later Tiger is bound to prove his critics wrong. 

The growth mind set is after all about running the marathon rather than the sprint.  

 

The importance of being a role model outside work

 While we stress the importance of leaders being role models at work with their work ethic, integrity, and compassion, we hardly pay attention to their influence outside the workplace. Perhaps we should. Thanks to the media, the symbols of wealth are now universal: expensive cars, clothes, holidays in exotic locations, and palatial homes. The continuing popularity of the bizzare Housewives series indicates our almost morbid interest in the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Who can resist the guilty pleasure of skimming through the Daily Mail's side strip chronicling the decadent lifestyles of celebrities, often relayed by the celebrities themselves through Instagram?  Unfortunately, slowly but surely,  the relentless media focus on the opulent lifestyles of the rich has skewed our perception -as a society- about what is valuable in life, and what it means to be successful.

In his engaging book "Delivering Happiness", Tony Hsieh of Zappos, talks about walking away from a contract with Microsoft resulting in a loss of 16 million out of a total of 40 million, because passion was more important than money. We may scoff that 24 million is not small change, but even these little examples add up to shift societal perceptions about wealth and the wealthy. There is no doubt that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have strengthened the giving muscle in many of their peers globally, including those who have signed up for the remarkable Giving Pledge ,where billionaires pledge to give away most of their wealth.  When rich CEOs talk about not wanting their kids to be trust fund kids, they send implicit signals to others about the priority of values like hard work in success. Arguably, the most credible voice against inequality, in the documentary "Inequality for all," was that of  Nick Hanauer, CEO of Pacific Feather Company - because here was a wealthy man speaking out against inequality.    


 India's visionary and multi- millionaire businessman, Narayan Murthy, is known for his simple lifestyle. When a journalist expressed surprise at  Murthy's modest lodgings, Murthy responded by stating his belief that the rich should have modest private spaces, but build luxurious public spaces. Murthy's Infosys offices are a class apart in the amenities they provide. In a developing and populous country like India, where public spaces are often sub-standard, Murthy's credo is  inspiring. Compare this to another leading industrialist, Mukesh Ambani, whose  house is the tallest,  and perhaps -ugliest- structure in Mumbai. Even Ratan Tata, one of India's most venerable leaders, couldn't help questioning the appropriateness of Ambani's 27 storied house - which stands out like a sore thumb amongst the sprawling slums of Mumbai.  

A recent article about the super -shy, super-rich of Germany, illustrates the influence that modesty from the rich can have on shaping societal perceptions, and trends towards the loftier values in life. While leaders are free to decide how to spend their hard earned wealth, they should be conscious of their influence - positive and  negative - on public perceptions about wealth and success.     





Infosys' Pune office



Murthy at lunch with wife Sudha