Pages

Monday, August 31, 2009

Understand your limitations, but focus on strengths

BOOK REVIEW
Strengths Based Leadership
Tom Rath and Barry Conchie
Gallup Press, NY, 2008
Rs 650

By M. Gautham Machaiah

For years, management gurus have told us to identify our weaknesses, work on them and convert them into strengths, but now, here is a book which advocates quite the opposite. Strengths based Leadership prescribes that the path to leadership is to focus on one’s strengths while understanding the limitations, instead of being bogged down by weaknesses.

“It is hard to build our self-confidence when we are focused on our weaknesses, instead of our strengths. If you focus on people’s weaknesses, they lose confidence.”

Based on the research by Tom Rath and Barry Conchie, the book identifies three keys to becoming a successful and effective leader: knowing your strengths and investing in other’s strengths; getting people with the right strengths on your team; and understanding and meeting the basic needs of those who look to you for leadership.

If you spend your life to be good at everything, you will never be good at anything. Perhaps the biggest misconception of all is that of a well-rounded leader. World leaders have succeeded because they have exceptional clarity about who they are- and who they are not. If any of them had chosen to spend a lifetime trying to be “good enough” at everything, it is doubtful they would have made such an extraordinary impact. Instead, they have all been wise enough to get the right strengths on their teams and this has led their organisations towards continuous growth.

The book which lists 34 strengths contains an access code which allows one to take an online test to identify your top five strengths which are distributed under four leadership domains—Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building and Strategic Thinking. It is not necessary that one should have the relevant strengths in all four domains. As the book cautions: “Those who strive to be competent in all areas become the least effective leaders over all.”

Instead, a leader should ensure that his team as a whole has strengths which fall into the four leadership domains. The ground rule is to identify each person’s strengths and leverage on it. Although individuals need not be well-rounded, teams should be.

The book draws an interesting comparison between Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi to indicate that is impossible to lead effectively without an awareness of one’s strengths.

Churchill’s bold and commanding leadership succeeded in mobilising a war-ravaged nation. It is unlikely that he would have had as much success if he had tried to emulate Gandhi’s calm and quite approach. Yet, Gandhi’s leadership during India’s freedom struggle was much more effective because he did not try to emulate the domineering leaders of the past. Both men knew their strengths and used them wisely.

The book takes the reader through the stories of top-notch executives to illustrate how they used their strengths to make a perceptible difference to the businesses they headed. Take for instance, the case of Simon Cooper who used his strength as an Influencer to maximise one of the world’s greatest brands Ritz-Carlton.

“You get a sense that this is one man who realises he can change the world—even if that means influencing one person at a time,” the authors note.

Then there is the case of Mervyn Davies, Chairman, Standard Chartered Bank, who effectively utilised his relationship building skills reaching out to each one of the 70,000 employees spread across 70 countries. While other chief executives were focused exclusively on their bottom lines, Davies was just as concerned with building an organisation with a heart and soul.

What set Davies apart was that he surrounded himself with people who could do specific things much better than he ever could.

Another interesting story is that of Brad Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Best Buy, who through his Strategic Thinking skills and unconventional approach helped create unprecedented growth. Had you invested $1,000 in Best Buy’s stock in 1991, when Anderson took over as president, it would have been worth $ 175,000 by 2008.

The authors also analyse why people follow certain leaders. Based on the findings of the research, the book concludes that employees look for four basic needs in their leaders—Trust, Compassion, Stability and Hope.

The last paragraph of the book is as effective as its opening lines: “Perhaps the ultimate test of a leader is not what you are able to do in the here and now—but instead what continues to grow long after you are gone.”

(Picture sourced from: Strengths.gallup.com)

COMMENTS

Nice one.
-Anantha Krishnan M, Bangalore


Nice blog, Gautham. There is another very interesting International Bestseller 'Now, Discover Your Strengths' by Marcus Buckingham and Donald O Clifton.
-Abha M. Banerjee, Mumbai


Useful book. Contains good information.
-Madhusudan, Bangalore

Good one Gautham.
-Lakki

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Banning Jaswant's book is an insult to democracy

If you do not agree with Jaswant Singh, take him by the horns, do not gag him. Let us have a society where the mind is free and without fear. We should be like an ocean that is all encompassing, rather than a pond that is stagnant


By M. Gautham Machaiah

The ban on Jaswant Singh’s book, ‘Jinnah-India-Partition-Independence’ by Gujarat, indicates that India is yet to mature as a democracy that accepts alternative thoughts which question the established order.

The BJP has expelled Singh, because his thoughts are in variance with the ideology of the party, while the Gujarat government’s stand is that the book questions the patriotic credentials of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.

Keeping aside the politics behind this sordid drama, it needs to be pondered if the culture of banning books augers well for the world’s largest democracy. Such censorship of thoughts hits at the very foundation of the freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in the Constitution.

It is sad that even 62 years after the country attained freedom, the political class continues to behave like feudal lords, gagging every dissenting voice and independent thought. Even worse is that the BJP bandies about out-dated concepts like ideology which belong to the communist world. The message is clear: There is no place for those who do not toe the ideological line. Is this democracy?

In a democracy every individual is entitled to his views, right or wrong, good or bad, palatable or unpalatable. So is Jaswant Singh. If you do not agree with him, take him by the horns, engage him in a debate, criticise him, argue with him, challenge him, or simply ignore him, but do not gag him.

Dissenting thoughts, however uncomfortable, are the pillars of democracy. Let us not stifle this thought process for our selfish gains.

Jaswant Singh’s views might be contrary to public opinion, so what; there are no holy cows in a free society. Even in the case of Mahatma Gandhi, the Supreme Court has declined to evolve a code of conduct on showing respect to the Father of the Nation. Surely, no other leader, however big, can be taller than Gandhiji.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” Yes, let us have a society where the mind is free and without fear. Let us be an ocean which is all encompassing rather than a stinking, stagnant pond.

(Picture sourced from: www. indianexpress.com)

COMMENTS

This is cent per cent correct. Banning Jaswant`s book is definitely an insult to democracy. I fully agree with you
-Machaiah.B.U, Wayanad, Kerala

Do you think any of the BJP guys would have read the book? Unlikely. They must have ripped him for supporting Vasundararaje Scindia. Or something else altogether. I do not think they could have all read the book so quickly and then voted to take action. The book is the excuse not the reason.
-Vedam Jaishankar, Bangalore

Yes, banning the book is an insult to democracy and to a democratic country. What is the difference between India and autocratic countries? Jinnah was a gentleman and even in the movie Gandhi, he is shown as a clear and a straight forward person. It is time that such freedom fighters are brought into the limelight. The young generation should know of them.
-Maanan Desai, Dubai

Monday, August 10, 2009

Shastri's death: What is the Govt trying to hide?

Even 43 years after Lal Bahadur Shastri’s mysterious death, the needle of suspicion continues to point at various quarters. The decision of the Centre not to declassify documents related to the death, has added intrigue to mystery

M. Gautham Machaiah

The Government of India’s refusal to reveal details pertaining to the sudden and mysterious death of the then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri at Tashkent in the erstwhile USSR gives rise to suspicion that it has many skeletons in its closet.

The cause of Shastri’s death has been shrouded in mystery for over 43 years, with several conspiracy theories doing the rounds. With the end of the Indo-Pak war in September 1965, Shastri and Pakistan President Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Declaration on January 10, 1966. Shastri died the next night after he supposedly suffered a heart attack.

One theory is that he was killed by America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), while some others describe this as a political murder. There have also been several suggestions, all of them unsubstantiated, that Shastri’s successor Indira Gandhi had a role in his death. The Government’s refusal to declassify the papers relating to the death has only added to the intrigue.

Shastri’s family including his wife Lalita Shastri had alleged that he died due to poisoning as his body had turned blue. It is said that the death came soon after he consumed milk allegedly laced with poison.

There are also conflicting reports on whether a post-mortem was conducted on Shastri’s body in the USSR or in India. Now, in a response to a Right to Information (RTI) plea filed by Anuj Dhar, author of CIA’s Eye on South Asia, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has stated that no post-mortem was conducted in either of the two countries.

However, while admitting that it had one document related to Shastri’s death, the PMO refused to declassify it as it could lead to harming of foreign relations, cause disruption in the country and lead to breach of parliamentary privilege. The Government has also stated that it is in possession of a medical investigation conducted by Shastri’s personal physician.

The people of this country have every right to know what caused the death of their second Prime Minister, and the right step in this direction would be for the Government to declassify the relevant documents.

The Government's cloak and dagger attitude has raised many questions: Did Shastri die a natural death or was it a political murder? If indeed, he died of a heart attack, why is the Government shying away from making the documents public? Was there a foreign hand in his death? Were the Americans, Russians or Pakistanis involved? Did the Congress party play a sinister role in the sordid affair? Many questions, very few answers.

Even in 1966, the Government made no credible efforts to ascertain the exact nature of Shastri’s demise. It is sad that the same apathy continues even to this day.

Thus, the question remains: What is the Government trying to hide?

(Picture sourced from www.thehindu.com)

COMMENTS

Such issues are always shrouded in mystery and intrigue. Take for instance, the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi or John F. Kennedy. Do we need to dwell on these issues? Are they relevant to our times? It is a debatable question. Jai Jawan Jai Kisan.
-Manna Mandanna

Conspiracy theory?
-Sudesh Pai, Bangalore

The people of India have a right to know the truth.
-Manan Desai, Dubai

(This article was also posted on MSN. Some of the responses received are reproduced below)

The reason for the death of our most efficient Prime Minister must be known to us. It is a great effort by the author.
-Saurav Agarwal, New Delhi

Lal Bahadur Shastri was a great statesman and a true leader. Conspiracy or not, we have lost a man who could have rightly pressurised Pakistan into not attacking us again, but after his death we all know what has happened. India not only let go the huge territory it occupied during the war but also remained mum over Pakistan’s propaganda that we had lost. And today we look like real losers.
-Ravi, Hyderabad

There must be something about the document so as not to be made public. All the governments in power in India do know the contents of that document. Why has nobody taken the initiative to make it public? If the classified document has no direct relation to Shastri's death, the government can issue a statement to that effect.
-Bobby Sakariah, Jeddah

I do not agree with the author. Some things are better kept hidden especially since it is not going to change the past. Why screw up the future?
-Bbby, Hydeerabad


People like me have a reason to believe that there may be plenty of skeletons in the cupboards in high places. This is the reason the Government is not coming clear on this issue. Moreover, the country is now ruled by the people of the dynasty which is suspected to have a major role in the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. It is meaningless to expect this Government to be honest in sensitive issues of this nature.
-Murali Shastry - Chennai

There are lots of skeletons in con(g)men's closet. Will they ever reveal the truth?
-Autar Gurtoo, NOIDA, UP

We do not have any mechanism in the country which works independently. How can we expect such disclosures which can upset the whole system?
-S. Pandey, Allahabad

You have penned your views in a brief but very precise manner.
-R.K. Mehta, Mumbai

The "Dynasty" is hiding facts. This is quite obvious. They have too many things to hide. When they want to possess power, they can go to any extent. Remember the mysterious death of Subhash Chandra Bose. Even to this day, we do not have an answer. We all know what caused his death and who caused it.
-Rohan, Bangalore


This shows that the dirty politics pursued in our country continues even to this day.
-Anuradha, Gurgaon

Is it only the Congress party that has been ruling from the day of the incident and sitting on the classified document? In between other parties too ruled the country. Why did they not let the cat out of the bag? If Indira Gandhi was really behind this, they could have gained political mileage out of it. Thus, theory about her involvement fails.
-TPS, Hyderabad

TPS of Hyderabad, please note that the Congress party has ruled India for 90 per cent of the time. The first non-Congress Government came to power in the late 70s in the form of Morarji Desai, then V P Singh in 1989, followed by people like Chandrashekar, Deve Gowda etc., who were all ex-Congress people, who ruled for a very short time and did not really have any focus on such issues.
The BJP Government did not come to power until the 90s, three decades after Lal Bahadur Shastri's death. By that time other, more pressing and immediate national security issues needed to be handled. Also, just because the Government changes, it does not mean that everybody in the Government changes. It is more than likely that the people guarding the secret of this murder, are those who are affiliated to the Congress party and are in all probability paid or even threatened to keep their silence. Hence, just because there have been a few other coalition Government for a short while, it does not mean that Indira Gandhi was not behind the conspiracy.
-A K Anand, New Delhi

The Nehru-Gandhi families have done good as well as bad to the country. It would be better for the country if this family moves out of politics and gets into social work. Gandhiji has stated way back that the Congress should be dissolved after independence, but it continues to be in existence. Hope they get enough wisdom to move out of politics.
-Sagarika, Pondicherry

The manner in which our Government is dealing with issues like the death of Shastri and Subhash Chandra Bose smacks of Indian involvement, rather than the foreign hand.
-Ankur Priyadarshan, Kolkata

What about the recent deaths of Madhav Rao Scindia, Rajesh Pilot, Pramod Mahajan and others? All of them are mysterious deaths which have not been explained... or have been explained away as accidents... I can attribute all these to only one family.
-Rahul, Bangalore

The Congress party and its leader were the culprits in the "assassination" of Lal Bahadur Shastri, the most patriotic and honest Prime Minister India ever had. These culprits were experts in the art of hushing-up these allegations (facts). The people of this country should open their eyes to the true picture of the leaders of the Congress party.
-Himard , Vishakapatnam

(The views expressed in the Comments section are that of the readers and the author may not subscribe to some of them. For a full compliment of views, please visit: http://content.msn.co.in/MSNContribute/Story.aspx?PageID=0e964653-f101-49ed-af30-276e0d519d31)