How Sweet the C-Suite?

 How Sweet the C-Suite?

 

By Ajit Chaudhuri – March 2026

 

It is said that CEOs are a different breed. They are separated from the rest of us by their brilliance, their capacity for hard work, and the Gods smiling upon them, and from others in the upper echelons of management hierarchies (who are also bright, swot-worthy, and lucky) by a sense of ruthlessness that one is either born with or doesn’t have, it is not a trait that is learnt or acquired. And yet, they are humans, they make mistakes, and some of these mistakes don’t boil down to excessive pride, taking their own PR seriously, or an inability to keep a certain part of the body in their pants.

 

The article ‘Set Up Your C-Suite to Execute Your Strategy’ in the Harvard Business Review of Jan/Feb 2026 outlines one such mistake. Designing an executive team (Ex-T) is among the most consequential choices a CEO makes, because it is this team that determines resource allocation, trade-off resolutions, speed of decision-making, and pivots in the face of unforeseen challenges within the organization, and its shape needs to reflect organizational strategy for it to function effectively. And yet, many Ex-Ts are a gathering of everyone with the word ‘Chief’ in their designation, and its meetings resemble a high-school lunch table with occupants jockeying for turf while decisions drag, priorities get blurred, accountability becomes confused, and energy gets sapped.

 

Why does a roomful of brilliant individuals turn into sludge when put together, the article asks, and why does the C-suite erode into a club? Because of three myths, it says.

 

The first is the ‘status’ myth – that the ‘chief’ title equals an Ex-T seat. In fact, ‘chief inflation’ is rampant; whereas earlier one had a CEO, COO, CFO and perhaps CTO, a ‘chief’ designation is now doled out as a status marker, a recruiting perk, or a symbolic gesture, with people holding positions such as ‘chief happiness officer’, etc. Some of these roles are valuable but may not belong in an Ex-T, and an Ex-T built around fads risks confusing the fashionable with the strategically necessary.

 

Then the ‘hierarchy’ myth – that reporting to the CEO equals Ex-T membership. Reports should serve the CEO, whereas the Ex-T should serve the company, and it is reasonable for a CEO to have direct reports who are not part of the Ex-T (such as the head of investor relations, for example, and others whose role is primarily advisory).

 

Research on team effectiveness (Hackman and Oldham, et al) suggests that, as groups expand beyond 5 members, coordination costs climb and the quality of decisions drops, and that larger teams encourage the phenomenon of ‘social loafing’ (Ringelman, 1913) or the ability to hide in a large group and exert less effort.

 

And finally, the ‘capability’ myth – that more chiefs equals more competence. Adding Chief Strategy/Growth/Digital Officers may look like building muscle or adding strategic capacity, but if their mandates overlap it means turf wars, politics, and slow decisions. For example, in some companies, a CDO (D for Digital) is a genuine accelerator in integrating digital strategy across the enterprise; in others, a CDO fights with the CIO over the platforms and with the CMO over the customer data and also duplicates the CTO’s innovation strategy (I – Information; M – Marketing; T – Technology).

 

The article goes on to suggest remedies, some of which make for interesting reading. One was about ‘seams’ or the places where functions intersect to form competitive muscle (for example, the seam between product and sales enables service delivery; between the supply chain and finance drives efficiency; and between R&D and marketing accelerates innovation), where it says that good CEOs don’t assume seams will work out on their own, they design Ex-Ts to ensure that this happens.

 

But this note is not about remedies, it is about what I think about the above. So, here goes!

 

One, I agree with the main contention that a good Ex-T is necessary (but not sufficient) for a CEO to be effective, and the cost of a non-functional one is high. Having seen a few Ex-Ts in action, I can also confidently state that, while the ‘status’ myth is a reality, there is a caste-system within the Cs and many of them do not sit in an Ex-T and do not report to the CEO. It is common for some positions to report directly to the CEO but not sit in an Ex-T (such as the head of forensic accounts, or government relations, for example). Problems in an Ex-T usually boil down to unsuitable people (you will be shocked at the number of bozos, assholes – check out the book ‘The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t’ by Robert Sutton – and characterless butt-kissers in the ranks of senior leadership) getting onto the table, and to groupthink and yes-man-ship due to a CEO’s inability to delegate decision-making.

 

Two, I am uncomfortable with the Chief Strategy Officer being cited as an example of the ‘capabilities’ myth. Given the connect between the Ex-T and organizational strategy, it is critical for the latter’s custodian to have a seat at the table (and they usually do). This observation, it must be said, may be tempered by the fact that I retired as a CSO.

 

And three, for those who aspire to reaching the C-suite, there is a Russian curse that goes, ‘may you get everything that you want’.

Stoicism 101

 Stoicism 101

 

A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri: February 2026

 

 

What do you give the man who has everything?

 

My friend and schoolmate Sam solved this conundrum by gifting me a 2-week on-line course on Stoic philosophy (thanks Sam). This note is a short account of my peregrinations into Stoicism.

 

An Internet search reveals that the word ‘stoic’ depicts someone who suffers pain and difficulty without complaining. An AI overview suggests that Stoicism isn’t inherently good or bad – it has benefits like resilience, inner peace, and virtuous living; and pitfalls like emotional suppression, passivity, and detachment. It also distinguishes between the philosophy of Stoicism (using reason to accept what you can’t change) and the trait of stoicism (an unemotional coping style).

 

The course delved into the thinking of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who famously said ‘you have power over your mind, not outside events – realize this, and you will find strength’; Seneca the Younger who tutored the Emperor Nero and provided an ethical framework for philosophers to get politically involved; and the Greek Epictetus who had the complicated social position of being a slave with a personal connection to imperial power.

 

In the process, I was introduced to some of Stoicism’s foundational thinking. This included –

 

One – premeditato malorum or the practice of preparing for life’s disruptions by visualizing things that could go wrong and considering actions for when they did. The purpose is to build resilience because life isn’t fair and things don’t always go as planned.

 

Two – momento mori or ‘remember, thou art mortal’ and therefore don’t postpone things.

 

Three – amor fati or love your fate and ‘do not seek for things to happen the way you want; rather, wish that what happens happens the way it happens: then you will be happy” (Epictetus).

 

Four – focus on what’s in your control by steadying your nerves; controlling your emotions; practising objectivity; making a contemptuous expression; altering your perspective; living in the present moment; and looking for opportunities with the belief that ‘the impediment to action advances action, and what stands in the way becomes the way’.

 

Five – write a daily journal to prepare on the day ahead; reflect on the day gone by; premeditate on evils; and remind oneself of wisdom learnt. Incidentally, the most known Stoic work, “Meditations”, was Marcus Aurelius’ journal, written purely for his own consumption.

 

Six – find a mentor. Life is short, time for learning and creativity is limited, and valuable years will be wasted trying to gain knowledge from different sources.

 

Seven – observe the following virtues and realize that no single virtue is possible without the moderating and clarifying influences of the others because, for example, ‘courage without conduct is the virtue of a robber or a tyrant’ (Mary Renault).

Courage	Bravery, fortitude, honour, sacrifice
Justice	Fairness, service, fellowship, kindness
Temperance	Self-control, moderation, composure, balance
Wisdom	Knowledge, education, truth, self-reflection, serenity
“If you’re not humble, life will visit humbleness upon you.” (Mike Tyson)

 

Also, observe the following non-actions –

A Stoic doesn’t judge other people	“Other people’s mistakes? Leave them to their makers.” “Be tolerant with others and strict with yourself.” (Aurelius)
A Stoic doesn’t talk about his/her philosophy	“Don’t explain your philosophy. Embody it!” (Epictetus)

 

The course raised two questions. Am I a Stoic? And, would Stoicism make for a better world?

 

On the first, I find that I already practise some of it – anyone working in disaster response would prepare plans B and C with the same rigour as plan A in line with premeditato malorum; I have learnt to enjoy, and not merely accept, my fate and to find positives in the darkest of situations; and I don’t talk too much. There are aspects I wish I could practise but know I cannot – I am judgemental; I do postpone things; and I would hesitate to write an honest journal in an age where everything lands up in the public domain. There are elements I have no truck with – the virtues seem overbearing; I like that I get angry at injustices, even if my anger often stops at ranting and raving rather than doing something about it; and as for mentors, I for one am happy to learn from mistakes and believe that the term ‘guru’ is in vogue only because ‘charlatan’ is difficult to spell. And then there are things I find ridiculous, such as practising a contemptuous expression – this sounds like a 1970s guideline for Soviet visitors to a western supermarket.

 

Irrespective of the above, I felt a tone of condescension in Stoicism, of having discovered the way and shining the light for lesser mortals, that prevents me from wholeheartedly taking to it. As a proud lesser mortal, I am uncomfortable at being talked down to. There is a saying that goes, ‘mandir masjid dono mein sir jhuka ke jaata hoon; insaan se khuda na banoon, isliye thoda sa paap bhi kartaa hoon’ (by Anwar Akela, translating to ‘I bow my head while visiting temples and mosques; but, so that I don’t turn from man into God, I do a few bad things as well’).

 

The second question, to me, is more confusing. At one level, who could have issues with societal values that coincide with Stoic virtues? At another, I am unsure as to how Stoicism would address structural injustices such as those pertaining to caste and gender? Would it enable and perpetuate them with its focus on acceptance, albeit with the moderating influence of the virtues, or would it change and/or destroy them? Would Stoicism enable the Ambedkars and Mandelas to flower, or would we be stuck in a world where the ruling caste rules, the educated caste acquires knowledge, the mercantile caste rakes in the bucks, and the rest of us clean shit?

World Athletics - Upto Day 3

 

The World Athletics Championships 2025 – Up to Day 3 – Some Takeaways

A plus of retirement is being able to watch sports events without having to fake illness, and I have been following the ongoing World Athletics Championships that is now into its fourth day. The highlights thus far, for me, have been –

1. A world record in the pole vault – Mondo Duplantis took it to 6.30m. Most notable, to me, was the way the other finalists supported him in his endeavour – they hung around like a group of friends at a barbecue, with the silver medallist Karalis cooling him with a fan between his world record attempts.

2. Both marathons ended with sprint finishes. In the men’s, the difference between first and second was 0.03s (to compare, in the men’s 100m it was 0.05s), with Alphonse Simbu winning Tanzania’s first ever athletics medal at the Worlds. Those who participate in the Mumbai Marathon may remember him as the winner in 2017.

3. For glamour, nothing beats the women’s 100 hurdles. The final line-up included the Olympic champion (Russel), the world record holder (Amusan), and several athletes who could have been supermodels (Visser and Skrzyszowska come to mind). It was won by the beautiful (and beautifully named) Ditaji Kambundji.

4. Some caught the eye for their youth. The front runner in the 3000-steeplechase final was the 17-year-old Edmund Serem – he ended up with bronze. The race was notable for the multiple Olympic champion and world record holder El Bakkali straggling at last place for most of the race (you would have bet on him being lapped if you didn’t know who he was), changing gears in the last lap and moving through the field, cruising with a huge lead in the last 50m, and then being beaten to the line because he couldn’t see Geordie Beamish closing him down and, by the time he did, it was too late. The other kid who caught the eye was in the women’s hammer throw, where the 18-year-old Jiale Zhang took bronze in a Chinese 2-3.

5. A kid I look forward to seeing is 17-year-old Gout Gout in the 200m. The last kid I had heard about with a strange name and a reputation for running like the wind was in the early 2000s, and he was a certain Usain Bolt. I look forward to the 200m for another reason – our very own Animesh Kujur will be running – he is at #40 the lowest ranked in his heat and will have two-time Olympic silver medallist Kenny Bednarek, who missed a bronze in the 100m by 0.03s, alongside him – but so what. All the best, Animesh!!

Three Games In

THREE GAMES IN – SOME QUESTIONS

By Ajit Chaudhuri

It’s back! The football lover’s equivalent of a long and lonely winter, extending from the whistle that ends the Champions League final in end-May to the ‘here comes the sun’ moment when the EPL kicks off in mid-August, is finally over.

And it’s three games in! What are my thoughts, from three weekends spent doing my favourite thing – putting on a TV, lying on a couch, and switching off from the world?

Here are the six top questions that have come to mind thus far –

1. Will transfer spend translate into trophies?

This has been a record-breaking transfer window in the EPL – GBP 3 billion plus spent (up from GBP 2.36 billion two summers ago), with Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U and Newcastle all spending more than GBP 200 million.

Liverpool is an interesting case because it is rare for a defending champion to revamp its roster to such an extent, but probably necessitated by outwards movements (Alexander-Arnold, Diaz, Nunez) and a death (Jota). Most of its GBP 400 million outlay is on attacking talent (Isak, Wirtz, Ekitike) and flying wingbacks (Kerkez, Frimpong) and, despite the only all-win record thus far, two questions remain unanswered. One, how will Coach Slot adjust Wirtz (who cost GBP 100 million plus, i.e., not the sort of money a club spends for someone destined to warm a bench) into the rock-solid midfield that laid the foundation for their title win last season? And two, will the transfer that did not happen, of the brilliant England defender Guehi (Crystal Palace nixed it at the last moment) define their season (they shipped two goals to Bournemouth and two more to Newcastle, who were on ten men)?

Arsenal bought Eze, who I first saw as a kid operating beside Palace legend Zaha and not being outshone, and I would love to watch him and Saka on opposite flanks except for the man in between, their other major signing Gyokeres, proving a dud thus far. Newcastle had the pulling power of a skunk in a perfumery (Isak didn’t want to stay, and targets Sesko, Joao Pedro, Delap, Ekitike, et al, refused to go there) before shelling out on an unknown German (Woltemade did light up the Euro U-21s last year, and none other than Manny Neuer referred to him as ‘Woltemessi’) and then on Wissa to play up front alongside him. Chelsea did what it always does, getting rid of unwanted players at a significant premium, and more about Man U later in this note.

2. Has Pep lost his mojo?

Last year, we said that a brilliant team had grown old and comfortable together, having already won everything there was to win. Or that Rodri, the reigning Ballon d’Or winner, was out for the season. Or whatever. This year, what will we say? Underwhelming recruitment? Reijnders impressed in one game, leading to an expectation of memes coming up at Christmas, but he’s no De Bruyne. Cherki – already injured. The others – nobodies, other than two signings for the one position that did not require replacement, i.e., goalkeeper, with young Trafford probably wishing he had gone to Old Trafford given the subsequent coming of Donnarumma. Or is it outdated tactics?

EPL coaching standards are the highest in the world, and tiki-taka football has been read and countered. Teams now break a press using one of three methods – through it by beating a defender one-on-one and forcing a readjust of the press, which is now one short; around it by drawing the press to one side of the field and switching play to the other; and over it via route 1. Also, a brilliant defensive midfielder cum deep lying playmaker is key to tiki-taka, and Pep had Yaya and Busquets in his Barcelona teams, Schweinsteiger at Munich, and Fernandinho and then Rodri at Man City.

Will he be able to play another style? Can he? Does he have the necessary personnel?

3. What’s with the analytics?

It happened first in baseball, and some Brad Pitt film was made. It transferred to basketball and made the NBA unwatchable, with all teams operating with the same tactic – reach the three-point line, set up a shield, take a shot – no more Jordanesque sky hooks, no more Shaq dunks. European basketball is more attractive now.

It is now in football. I could handle the first-gen stats, i.e., possession percentage, shots on goal, and shots on target. I managed the move to the second gen, i.e., field tilt, PPDA, progressions, etc., and then to the xG revolution (not to worry, the exact definitions of these are in annexure). I now find something called ‘NPxG + xA’ to judge the creative ability of a player – for those with an interest, Haaland is head and shoulders above the others on this statistic, and the difference between him and no. 2 Semenyo is more than the difference between no. 2 and no. 25; good to see Grealish at no. 12; and the main surprise is no. 7 Estevao, recruited by Chelsea for bench strength, getting game time due to injuries, and now creating the selection dilemma that coaches dream about – who to play when the big boys return.

Where will all this end? Ultimately, statistics is like a bikini, no matter how much it shows, it always covers the critical stuff. And I, for one, like the measure ‘goals scored minus goals conceded’ the most – it has one hundred percent validity.

4. Will Man U regain its lost glory?

Personally, I don’t give a crap, but here is my two-paisa bit given that many readers follow this team. Great teams have great spines, i.e., goalie, central defender, defensive mid, attacking mid, and striker combos. Not good ones, great ones! Like Cech-Terry-Essien-Lampard-Drogba at Mou’s first Chelsea team. Like Casillas-Ramos-Alonso-Xavi/Iniesta-Torres of that Spain side. And my favourite, young Schmeichel-Morgan-Kante-Drinkwater-Vardy, only one of whom would be considered a great of the game and the subject of the saying ‘two-thirds of earth is covered by water; the rest is covered by N’golo Kante’, but who together had a great period of play in 2015-16.

Onana-Maguire-Mainoo-Fernandes-Hjolund/Zirkzee? Bayindir-De Ligt-Casemiro-Fernandes-Sesko? I just don’t see it happening with the current personnel.

An interesting element is Sesko. How will he fit in? I have seen him for Leipzig and Slovenia, and he has all the makings of a top striker. But strikers from the Bundesliga are hit-and-miss in the EPL, and for every Haaland there is a Werner and a Fullkrug. And, if Man U is slowly turning into a graveyard for talent, it would be hard to reverse.

5. What’s going on with VAR?

Having watched football from the early-1980s and seen some awful refereeing decisions – Schumacher’s assault on Battiston in 1982; Lampard’s disallowed goal in 2010 – I am pro VAR because it gets decisions right. It is my experience that referees err on the side of big teams, and that marginal decisions, too, go one way and not the other. VAR is worth the wait, worth the disruption in play, and worth the tentative goal celebrations.

Some events of this weekend shook my belief. I saw a beautiful goal for Fulham against Chelsea overturned (according to the columnist Marcotti, ‘VAR disallowed King’s counter-attacking goal for an imaginary Muniz foul on Chalobah – when you have possession of the ball and step on the foot of the opponent behind you, who you can’t see since you don’t have eyes on the back of your head, it is not a foul’). And I saw Barcelona being awarded a dubious penalty against Rayo Vallecano which the VAR could not review because it was not functional at that time. WTF!! The EPL bosses have acknowledged the error, de-rostered the concerned VAR ref, and reprimanded the on-field ref for changing his original (correct) decision. And it was a home game for Rayo, so their VAR contractor was at fault. But, still, WTF!!

6. Will the EPL-Championship yo-yo continue?

The last two seasons saw all three promoted teams being relegated back into the Championship. Will it happen again this season? The indications are that it won’t, the three promotees have shown signs of fight and have garnered points on the board. My bet is on Sunderland staying up because of one of the most under-the-radar signings of the transfer window, ex-Arsenal and Bayer Leverkusen captain Xhaka, who brings steel onto the field and into the dressing room, and who continues to have a wand of a left foot as seen from his pinpoint assist at the end of their 2-1 win over Brentford.

 

Annexure: Football Analytics

1. Field Tilt (%)  ((Team’s final third passes) / (Total no. of final third passes)) * 100  tells us how much attacking territory a team is controlling.

2. NPxG + xA  non-penalty expected goals plus expected assists  judges a player’s ability to create.

3. PPDA  Passes Per Defensive Action  (Total opponent passes in their defensive and the middle thirds) / (Total defensive actions by the team, including tackles, interceptions, fouls, challenges, in the same thirds)  measures the number of passes a team allows its opponent to make before it attempts a defensive action – this describes the intensity of a press; lower means more aggressive.

4. Progressions  Number of times a player runs with the ball for 5 metres or more.

5. xA  Expected Assists  assesses the likelihood that a given pass will directly lead to a goal  allows us to value the underlying contributions of creative players.

6. xG  Expected Goals  assesses the quality of goal scoring chances in a game and also measures whether a striker is better or worse than expected, whether a team is creating high quality chances, and was a win deserved, based on quality of chances and not just number of goals  takes into account variables such as shot type (header, foot shot, volley, bicycle kick, backheel, etc.), shot location (distance to goal, from the centre or from out wide, etc.), assist type (through ball, cross, cut back, set piece, etc.), defensive pressure, goalkeeper positioning, inter alia.

The Short War Fallacy

The Short War Fallacy

A Two-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri – July 2025

“It is when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you look for ways to solve problems without using violence” – attributed to Confucius.

Despite being designated a dinosaur, i.e., someone who grew up in the days before mobile telephony and the Internet and therefore doesn’t know one’s pronouns, I am sometimes asked for an opinion. One such occasion was in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, when there was a clamour to ‘finish them off once and for all’, blah, blah, blah, when I was asked whether we did the right thing by agreeing to a ceasefire.

I sidestepped the question with a “How does it matter what I think?”

But I do have a view – that we were fortunate to extricate ourselves from a situation that we did not want (and were not prepared for) with our dignity (somewhat) intact.

Why?

The primary reason, in my opinion, is that the key assumption underlying the ‘finish them off’ school of thought – that such a war would be short, decisive, and victorious, and that our overwhelming military superiority combined with the speed, direction, and ruthlessness of our initial attack would quickly overwhelm them – is fundamentally flawed. This is because, one, it is known in military circles that audacious surprise attacks usually deliver far less than promised. Two, it is easier to start wars than to end them. Three, our western neighbour may be an economic basket case, but its armed forces are not – it has the same British Indian Army military traditions as ours without the constraints of civilian oversight; it has cheap, high-quality weapons with assured supply lines; and, unlike us, it has powerful all-weather allies. Four, what would victory mean anyway? The very thought of us administrating the frontier agency areas bordering Afghanistan has me not knowing whether to shudder or to laugh, these are, after all, places that the best administrators in history, the British, chose to leave alone.

The chances therefore are that, assuming nukes are not used (and a credible theory of victory in a nuclear war over an adversary who is able to retaliate in kind is yet to be formulated), continued hostilities would have resulted in yet another ‘forever war’.

The article “The Age of Forever Wars: Why Military Strategy No Longer Delivers Victory” by Lawrence D. Freedman in the Foreign Affairs issue of May/June 2025 throws some light upon this term. It says that there was a view in the late 19th century that surprise offensives could produce decisive victories, leading to – European leaders in the summer of 1914 assuring their respective publics that the coming war would be over by Christmas (it went on till 1918); the German blitzkrieg of the early 1940s overrunning western Europe in weeks and rapidly advancing into the USSR; and Japan attacking Pearl Harbour in December 1941 (we know what happened to both countries).

More recently, towards the turn of the century, the contrast between Operation Desert Storm (or the first Iraq war of 1991) and the US’s campaign in Vietnam and the USSR’s in Afghanistan resulted in a theory that an enemy could be defeated with speed, manoeuvrability, and real time intelligence, along with overwhelming force and smart weapons. This too proved short-lived, with the US’s counterinsurgency campaigns of the early decades of this century coming to be labelled as the ‘forever’ wars. In fact, the early successes of most wars since the end of the Cold War have faltered, lost momentum, and transformed into far more intractable conflicts.

Despite this, short wars (i.e., immediate success at a tolerable cost) retain an allure, resulting in – failure to appreciate the limits of military powers; setting of objectives that can be achieved, if at all, only through prolonged struggle; and an emphasis on immediate battlefield results that neglect broader elements necessary for success such as achieving conditions for a durable peace and effectively managing an occupied country where a hostile regime has been toppled – to the extent that, for a politician on the warpath, even admitting to the possibility of protracted conflict is seen as having doubts on one’s armed forces. And when a short war transforms into a ‘forever’ one, it imposes different demands on the military, the economy, and society (see below).

Short Wars

• Are fought with existing resources.

• Present only temporary disruptions to the economy and society.

• Do not require extensive supply lines.

Long Wars

• Require development of capabilities that can adjust to changing operational imperatives.

• Demand strategies for –

o Maintaining popular support

o Re-arming and replenishing troops

o Keeping the economy functional

Some examples of successful short wars –

• Israel v Arabs, the Six-Day War, 1967

• Indo-Pak War, 1971

• Falklands War, 1982

• Operation Desert Storm, 1991

Some examples of short wars that transformed into long wars –

• The US in Afghanistan – the longest military campaign in US history – unsuccessful.

• Russia v Ukraine, 2022 onwards – was meant to overrun Ukraine in days – still on.

Proposals to end a ‘forever’ war in which neither side can impose a victory on the other even if both or one are occasionally able to improve their positions usually take the form of a ceasefire. The problem with them is that the parties to the conflict usually regard them as mere pauses in the fighting, offering both sides the opportunity to recover and reconstitute for the next round – they have little effect on the underlying dispute. Yet, some last – the Korean War ceasefire of 1953 continues to hold despite the conflict remaining unresolved and both sides preparing for a future war.

To conclude, dear fellow Indians, please remember – wars start and end through political decisions. The ones to initiate armed conflict usually assume a short war. The ones that bring fighting to an end usually reflect the cost and consequences of a ‘forever’ war. Do not let politicians and their puppet media houses sell you the allure of a military’s ability to bring conflicts to quick and decisive conclusions – in practise, this is rarely the case. Cut their water supply, shame them in international forums, whatever, but, if you are not prepared for a ‘forever’ war, it is best not to go in for war at all.

Organizational Values, Culture, Behaviour

 Organizational Values, Culture, and Behaviour

Ajit Chaudhuri – October 2024

 

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” – Peter Drucker

 

I taught strategy earlier this year to a bunch of non-typical management students (i.e., mostly non-engineers, mostly ladies, and mostly prioritizing making the world a better place over becoming masters of the universe). It was interesting for many reasons, including that I had to make a case for quantitative over qualitative methods for project monitoring from first principles (an male-engineer-dominant group would consider this a given) and revert to my PhD reading material on research methods to do so; I was exposed to terms such as ‘girl math’ (see box); and I was subjected to an array of insights that had me questioning my assumptions.

 

Girl Math	Boy Math (the feminist backlash to )
·       It costs under Rs. 500? It’s free. ·       Will not spend Rs. 5,000 on Amazon but will spend Rs. 1,000 five times.	·       Have only three pairs of socks to my name but am afraid of gold diggers. ·       Want a traditional woman who pays the bills

 

One such insight, during a discussion on the soft components of strategy, was on whether an organization should publicly state its values. The counter arguments made were that most stated values are the same everywhere (integrity, excellence, blah, blah, blah, usually articulated as abstract absolute positives); most are unconnected with the organization’s actual values; and actual values are what they are, whether you state them or not. Unless stated values reflect actual values and influence the organization’s culture and the behaviour of employees towards each other and towards external stakeholders, they are just some nice words on a website, much like a Tinder profile.

 

So, should organizational values be articulated? If they are, should they be stated publicly? And how can they influence organizational culture and behaviour?

 

My thinking on these matters is influenced by long stints in two organizations.

 

The first is IRMA, where I spent 2 years (1987-89) working towards a master’s in rural management and then 3 years (2011-14) before flunking out of its doctoral programme. The first of these was interesting because the institution had no stated values but very strong actual ones – and it had most students on board with them from the time we spent 10 weeks in remote corners of rural India (a description of my own stint in north Bihar is available at https://kaaluontheroad.blogspot.com/2007/03/another-world-bihar.html) . The second was interesting because the world had changed – the private sector was much more influential; Dr. Kurien was not at the helm anymore; and IRMA was struggling to distinguish itself from the smorgasbord of management institutes that had sprung up – and it had a website-full of carefully articulated vision, mission, values, etc., statements to communicate what it stood for.

 

The second was in the Tata group (I was there from 2014 to 2023), where the actual values derived from a statement by the group’s founder that ‘the community is not just another stakeholder in business, but is in fact the very purpose of its existence’ (and I know this because I led the group’s disaster response function, where a value system is stress-tested to the extreme) and were different from its stated ones, which were the same old boring corpcomm-concocted stuff cleverly acronym-ed to I-PURE (you can guess what this stands for and I am sure you will be right).

 

So, in my opinion, values are important for many reasons including that, if there is a mismatch between those of the organization and its stakeholders, it is a source of stress and tension (as many Tata employees who leave for competitors discover).

 

An organization should articulate its values only if they are worthy ones, its senior leadership observes and is seen to observe them, and it wishes its employees to use them as a guiding light; and it should publicly state them only if they bear resemblance to its actual ones or it is willing to do what it takes to change actual values to stated ones (which is quite a task, as those dealing with diametrically opposite value systems from, for example, the Tata group’s takeover of Air India, will know).

 

Else, it would be stupid to trumpet values all over the place. Claims of being ‘dedicated’, ‘motivated’, and ‘committed’, acceptable for a young NGO working for the poorest of the poor, would be less so when the same organization transforms into a family business that uses public money for the greater glory of its founder; and you can well imagine my reaction upon discovering that Indian Oil Corporation, who turn a blind eye to its now ex-customers (including me) being scammed at its outlets, includes ‘trust’ among its stated values. Hah!!

 

It is the third question, relating to the relationship between values, culture, and behaviour, that is a little nuanced. Conventional thinking is that values underpin culture, which in turn informs behaviour, and that senior leaders walking the talk and being seen to do so are critical enablers to desirable outcomes on these fronts in an organization.

 

A recent article (“Build a Corporate Culture That Works”, Erin Meyer, HBR of Jul-Aug 2024) claims that managing corporate culture is key to business success, and yet few organizations articulate their culture in a way that it guides employee behaviour. I am not sure I completely agree – I remember a talk on integrity by Dr. Kurien in which he said that honesty was like virginity (or was it pregnancy?), you either are or your aren’t; if you weren’t you did not have a future working with him; and that honesty could not be used as an excuse for poor performance, you had to get your work done AND not pay bribes – as clear an articulation of values, culture and desired behaviour as it gets.

 

The article suggests six guidelines to confront the challenges of culture-building, and I encapsulate five of these (the ones that made sense to me) in tabular form below.

Guideline	Description
#1: Build culture based on real world dilemmas.	·       It is a mistake to focus upon abstract absolute positives (such as integrity, respect, trust, etc.) – they make a statement but are unlikely to drive day-to-day decision-making. ·       Desired culture can come alive using debate and dilemmas – o   Identify tough dilemmas that employees routinely face and debate how they can be resolved. o   When employees face situations with multiple possible responses, they can make a choice based on personal preferences or be guided by organization culture. o   Create value statements that will guide employee responses. o   Encourage vigorous debate of the responses.
#2: Move culture from abstraction to action.	If building culture from scratch, debate it using dilemmas from the beginning. If there is a stated culture with abstract principles, dilemma-test them to determine whether they are actionable and usable in real decision-making situations. And use words carefully.   ·       Amazon – ‘Have backbone. Disagree and commit.’ ·       Airbnb – ‘Make space for introverts’
#3: Paint your culture in full colour.	Once a clear set of values are identified and dilemma-tested, articulate the desired culture using colourful images to get the values to stick.   ·       Amazon’s 2-pizza rule – ‘a team should not be made up of more people than two pizzas can feed’ – not ‘we value small teams’. ·       Airbnb – ‘elephants, dead fish, and vomit’ – leaders should transparently address unpleasant stuff that all are aware of but no one dares mention.
#4: Hire the right people, and they will build the culture.	·       ‘Garbage in, garbage out’ – if you hire people whose personalities don’t align with desired culture, you will not get desired behaviour. o   Patagonia – ‘we’ll take a risk on an itinerant rock climber over a run-of-the-mill MBA’. ·       Look at who you will fire. Should a company have a family ethos? Or should it be like an Olympic team? o   ‘Shopify is not a family. You are born into a family, they can’t un-family you. The danger of family thinking is that it becomes hard to let poor performers go. Shopify is a team’ – CEO, Shopify. ·       Deal with skilled, brilliant, effective but unsuitable employees? o   Netflix – ‘no brilliant jerks, the cost to teamwork is just too high.’ o   Shopify – ‘slack trolling, victimhood, us-vs-them divisiveness, and zero-sum thinking must be seen for the threat they are.’
#5: Don’t be a purist.	Culture should be a north star, not a strait jacket. Identify dilemmas where stated values do not apply; define which situations are over the limit. For e.g., with respect to transparency, should everyone know everyone else’s salary?