Read full version essay Leadership Vs Management

Leadership Vs Management

Print version essay is available for you! You can search Free Term Papers and College Essay Examples written by students!.
Join Essays24.com and get instant access to Leadership Vs Management and over 30,000 other Papers and Essays

Category: Business

Autor: anton 15 June 2011

Words: 10404 | Pages: 42

Leadership vs. Management

The biggest difference between managers and leaders is the way they motivate the people who work or follow them, and this sets the tone for most other aspects of what they do.

Many people, by the way, are both. They have management jobs, but they realize that you cannot buy hearts, especially to follow them down a difficult path, and so act as leaders too.

Managers have subordinates

By definition, managers have subordinates - unless their title is honorary and given as a mark of seniority, in which case the title is a misnomer and their power over others is other than formal authority.

Authoritarian, transactional style

Managers have a position of authority vested in them by the company, and their subordinates work for them and largely do as they are told. Management style is transactional, in that the manager tells the subordinate what to do, and the subordinate does this not because they are a blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward (at minimum their salary) for doing so.

Work focus

Managers are paid to get things done (they are subordinates too), often within tight constraints of time and money. They thus naturally pass on this work focus to their subordinates.

Seek comfort

An interesting research finding about managers is that they tend to come from stable home backgrounds and led relatively normal and comfortable lives. This leads them to be relatively risk-averse and they will seek to avoid conflict where possible. In terms of people, they generally like to run a 'happy ship'.

Leaders have followers

Leaders do not have subordinates - at least not when they are leading. Many organizational leaders do have subordinates, but only because they are also managers. But when they want to lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.

Charismatic, transformational style

Telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow you. You have to appeal to them, showing how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you enough to stop what they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they would not normally consider risking.

People focus

Although many leaders have a charismatic style to some extent, this does not require a loud personality. They are always good with people, and quiet styles that give credit to others (and takes blame on themselves) are very effective at creating the loyalty that great leaders engender.

Although leaders are good with people, this does not mean they are friendly with them. In order to keep the mystique of leadership, they often retain a degree of separation and aloofness.

This does not mean that leaders do not pay attention to tasks - in fact they are often very achievement-focused. What they do realize, however, is the importance of enthusing others to work towards their vision.

Seek risk

In the same study that showed managers as risk-averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking, although they are not blind thrill-seekers. When pursuing their vision, they consider it natural to encounter problems and hurdles that must be overcome along the way. They are thus comfortable with risk and will see routes that others avoid as potential opportunities for advantage and will happily break rules in order to get things done.

A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their lives which they had to overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had problems such as dyslexia, others were shorter than average.

It is often difficult to understand the difference between managers and leaders. Do managers lead? Do leaders manage? To understand how these two concepts are distinct yet different, here are 7 ways to understand them.

1. Course and Steering. The word "leadership" comes from the Old English word "lad" for a "course". A "lode" is a vein that leads or guides to ore; a lodestone is a magnetic stone that guides; the lode-star is the name for the star that guides sailors, the Pole star. The word "management" comes from the Latin word "manus", the hand, from which we also get "maintenance" and "mainstay". Leadership guides by setting a ship's course. Management keeps a hand on the tiller.

2. Growth and Survival. Organisations are no different from any other living organism: they need both to survive and grow. Survival is necessary in order to meet the basic requirements of life: in individuals, food, water and shelter; in organisations, a profit, customers, premises, and work. Growth is also necessary so that, like the individual person, an organisation can make the most of what it is capable of. The maintenance of the organisation is essentially a management function: measuring, looking back, assessing, taking stock, taking careful decisions. Taking the organisation into areas of growth, change and development, to make the most of it, is what leadership is all about.

3. Resources and Potential. Management measures what it can count and see. A person in the enterprise is described by their name and title, measured by their output, listed in the database according to their skills and added in the accounts under the heading "manpower resources". Management deals with the past and how people performed to date. Leadership,on the other hand, sees people as capable of things you cannot measure and doing things they never thought possible. It deals with the future and how people could perform if their potential were realised.

4. Left and Right Brains. The left hemisphere of the brain is the seat of our logical and rational thinking. The right brain is the seat of our imaginative, creative and emotional thinking. While these two sides are distinct, they also work best when whole. The left brain is an analogy for management. It deals with what can be counted; detail; control; domination; worldly interests; action; analysis; measurement; and order. The right brain is an analogy for leadership. It deals with what cannot be counted; seeing things as a whole; synthesis; possibilities; belief; vision; artistry; intuition; and imagination.

5. The Seven S’s. Richard Pascale says that the processes that take place in organisations fall under seven "S" headings: strategy, structure, systems, shared values, staff, skills and style. The functions of strategy, structure, and systems are the hard S’s and the proper concern of managers because they deal with things or technology. The functions of staff, skills, style, and shared values are the soft S’s and the proper concern of leaders because they deal with people.

6. Art and Science. John Adair in his book "Leadership" compares management and leadership to the old dichotomy of Art and Science. Managers are of the mind, accurate, calculated, routine, statistical, methodical. Management is a science. Leaders are of the spirit, compounded of personality and vision. Leadership is an art. Managers are necessary; leaders are essential.

7. Short-Term and Long. When an organisation thinks about now and the near-future, it thinks of itself as a production unit. It sees the problems it might face as technical problems needing technical answers. When an organisation thinks about the distant future, it thinks about building, learning and growing. It seeks to identify and develop its opportunities. It defines itself by what it is, not by what it does. The difference between short-term and long-term thinking is the difference between an organisation that holds on tight to what it has and an organisation that stays loose and lets things grow. Organisations that need quick fixes rely on managers. Organisations that want to grow rely on leaders.

The difference between management and leadership is like the difference between male and female, sun and moon, night and day, fat and thin, hot and cold, coming and going, and so on. They are two sides to the same coin. In being the one, we see the other. While different and distinct, they are parts of the whole: essential contrasts, that in contrasting, make clearer the other.

The Difference Between Management And Leadership

Leadership and management are two notions that are often used interchangeably. However, these words actually describe two different concepts. In this section, we shall discuss these differences and explain why both terms are thought to be similar.

Leadership is a facet of management

Leadership is just one of the many assets a successful manager must possess. Care must be taken in distinguishing between the two concepts. The main aim of a manager is to maximise the output of the organisation through administrative implementation. To achieve this, managers must undertake the following functions:

• organisation

• planning

• staffing

• directing

• controlling

Leadership is just one important component of the directing function. A manager cannot just be a leader, he also needs formal authority to be effective. "For any quality initiative to take hold, senior management must be involved and act as a role model. This involvement cannot be delegated." [1]

In some circumstances, leadership is not required. For example, self motivated groups may not require a single leader and may find leaders dominating. The fact that a leader is not always required proves that leadership is just an asset and is not essential.

Differences In Perspectives

Managers think incrementally, whilst leaders think radically. "Managers do things right, while leaders do the right thing." [2]. This means that managers do things by the book and follow company policy, while leaders follow their own intuition, which may in turn be of more benefit to the company. A leader is more emotional than a manager . "Men are governed by their emotions rather than their intelligence" [3]. This quotation illustrates why teams choose to follow leaders.

"Leaders stand out by being different. They question assumption and are suspicious of tradition. They seek out the truth and make decisions based on fact, not prejudice. They have a preference for innovation." [4]

Subordinate As A Leader

Often with small groups, it is not the manager who emerges as the leader. In many cases it is a subordinate member with specific talents who leads the group in a certain direction. "Leaders must let vision, strategies, goals, and values be the guide-post for action and behaviour rather than attempting to control others." [5]

When a natural leader emerges in a group containing a manager, conflict may arise if they have different views. When a manager sees the group looking towards someone else for leadership he may feel his authority is being questioned.

Loyalty

Groups are often more loyal to a leader than a manager. This loyalty is created by the leader taking responsibility in areas such as:

• Taking the blame when things go wrong.

• Celebrating group achievements, even minor ones.

• Giving credit where it is due.

"The leader must take a point of highlighting the successes within a team, using charts or graphs, with little presentations and fun ideas" [6]

"Leaders are observant and sensitive people. They know their team and develop mutual confidence within it." [7]

The Leader Is Followed. The Manager Rules

A leader is someone who people naturally follow through their own choice, whereas a manager must be obeyed. A manager may only have obtained his position of authority through time and loyalty given to the company, not as a result of his leadership qualities. A leader may have no organisational skills, but his vision unites people behind him.

Management Knows How It Works

Management usually consists of people who are experienced in their field, and who have worked their way up the company. A manager knows how each layer of the system works and may also possess a good technical knowledge. A leader can be a new arrival to a company who has bold, fresh, new ideas but might not have experience or wisdom.

Conclusion

Managing and leading are two different ways of organising people. The manager uses a formal, rational method whilst the leader uses passion and stirs emotions. William Wallace is one excellent example of a brilliant leader but could never be thought of as the manager of the Scots!

Leadership from India’s Retail Czar Kishore Biyani

Born into a small trading family, India’s retail czar, Kishore Biyani, replaced conventional wisdom with “guts and instincts” to create Future Group, a $1 billion company that includes Pantaloon Retail, a department store group; Big Bazaar, the company’s name for hypermarkets; Food Bazaar supermarkets, and Central Mall, a more upscale aggregation of merchandise. Known for his insights into Indian consumer behavior, Biyani also represents an enigma to the country’s emerging retail players, both domestic and foreign. He offers some glimpses into what makes him tick in his recent biography titled, It Happened in India: The Story of Pantaloons, Big Bazaar, Central and the Great Indian Consumer, co-authored with Dipayan Baishya. The book has sold some 100,000 copies, more than any other business book published in India so far. In an interview with India Knowledge@Wharton, Biyani, who has often been called “the Sam Walton of India,” talked about leadership, the Indian retail market and why he would never consider collaborating with Wal-Mart, among other topics. Excerpts from the interview follow.

India Knowledge@Wharton: What does leadership mean to you?

Biyani: In the last six months, I have read many articles on leadership and met a couple of experts on that subject. But I still could not find an answer to what, exactly, leadership means.

There are two types of leadership. The first is all about thought leadership, which is original thought, believing in it and making things happen based on those thoughts. The second type is skills leadership, which refers to doing things consistently and in your own style.

India Knowledge@Wharton: What part of leadership is inborn and what can be developed?

Biyani:For me, leadership is all about thought leadership, not skills leadership.Skills leadership can be developed even after the age of 24 or 25, but thought leadership cannot be developed after a certain age.

India Knowledge@Wharton: How do you define thought leadership?

Biyani: Thought leadership is about building scenarios and making them happen. I believe everybody is a victim of systemic thinking and has their own mental syntax. First things come first, and everything else is a reflection of where you started on that first thing. If you change that syntax, things change. If you have a business school orientation, your syntax of thinking will be in a particular direction. I am a businessman and entrepreneur, so my syntax of thinking will be in a different direction. Each has a unique method of sequencing to arrive at answers.

One would have to change everything to look at things differently. That is a very difficult thing to do as we have our own mental maps. We are not trained to change mental models. Business schools also have not been trained to do that. Business schools work on creating efficiencies, creating productivity and managing consistency. But life is not like that. Life is chaotic.

….

India Knowledge@Wharton: How have you developed leadership in your organization?

Biyani: We have developed a very different style of leadership. We run a seamless organization. We don’t have structures; it is a non-hierarchical organization that works with people coming together to do things.

It is also a very design-driven organization. We believe the structure has to be broken up to change; the design has to be altered to change things. A design-driven organization has flexibility and maneuverability. It is an amorphous organization that can be given any shape and any direction anytime.

India Knowledge@Wharton: Can you give an example of how that works?

Biyani: We can chop and change anything we do, anytime. Nothing is constant for us. Nothing is constant here. We believe in destroying what we have created.

India Knowledge@Wharton: In your book, you have described three types of entrepreneurs. You say your father and uncles were “preservers” and you call yourself a “creator” and a “destroyer.”

Biyani: Most people are trained to be preservers. It is great to be a preserver. But for us, whoever has to create has to destroy. Without destroying, you cannot create anything new.

That is also the law of nature. Look at the seasons. Everything gets destroyed to create something new. But unfortunately, business does not take any cues from nature. None of the business schools takes anything from nature. One cannot go against the flow of nature. In our group, we don’t follow business principles. We follow the principles of nature.

One of the biggest principles we follow, as I have said in the book, is to go with the flow. We never do anything against the flow of nature. And when you follow the principles of nature, ideas will get destroyed and recreated.

If you look at nature, human beings have not changed over a period of so many years. Love, hate and all the other emotions are still the same. But we all complicate things. We create segments, psychographics and other indices. It is a simple world, but we break it up and start looking at it through lenses that are very different. You will find all the answers in nature.

Are India’s Business Leaders Different?

For some time now, the world has watched as Indian companies — once relatively unknown outside the country — have grown by leaps and bounds to become world-class competitors in many industries. It was high time that someone asked the obvious questions: Do Indian CEOs and business leaders operate in a way that is markedly different from those in other parts of the world? What is the source of their competitive advantage? Can other managers learn from their experiences?

Four Wharton professors set out to answer these questions in a new study titled, “The DNA of Indian Leadership: The Governance, Management and Leadership of Leading Indian Firms,” co-sponsored by India’s National Human Resources Development Network. Based on interviews with 100 chief executives of leading Indian companies, the researchers –management professorsPeter Cappelli, Harbir Singh, Jitendra Singh (now dean of the Nanyang business school in Singapore) and Michael Useem – concluded that while top Indian leaders do share several attributes with their U.S. counterparts, they also have distinctive characteristics.

In contrast to U.S. business leaders, Indian CEOs tend to be more preoccupied with internal management, long-term strategic vision and organizational culture. Financial matters, on the other hand, are not at the top of their agendas. In addition, the research showed that Indian leaders seem to care a good deal more about motivating employees and setting an example than about currying favor with shareholders or the markets.

Advantage: Leadership?

In defining the scope of their research, the professors describe their objective as follows: “Our ultimate goal for the project is to see whether the practices and priorities of the [Indian] CEOs in our study suggest something like a different or distinctive model for leading and managing business enterprises. Since World War II, the study of business and especially of leadership has been dominated by models from the U.S. This reflected in large part the dominance of U.S. multinational companies. In the 1980s, the strong performance of the Japanese economy, particularly in international markets, led to greater interest in, and teaching about, a ‘Japanese’ model of management that was distinctive in its management of employees. The rise of the Indian economy, and especially the international competitiveness of Indian businesses now, raises the question as to whether there is a distinctive Indian model and, if so, what that model might be.”

Each CEO in the study was asked a set of questions about leadership competencies, competitive advantage and governance. When asked what they thought were the competencies most important to their success in the past five years, the Indian executives felt that shared values and vision, as well as building the top team, were some of the most important capacities.

For example, B. Muthuraman, managing director of Tata Steel — a company that has become widely known after its acquisition of Britain’s Corus Steel last year — talked about “being a visionary” as an important capacity: “By being visionary,” he said, “I mean somebody who is able to make people envision their future [as well as] energize, enthuse and empower them.” Such answers revealed a common interest in strategic thinking and talent management. The respondents also noted that leading from the front and leading by example were important personal characteristics.

In this respect, leaders like Muthuraman are like U.S. CEOs, who also emphasize the importance of vision to leadership. According to the report, “This is consistent with the views of their Western counterparts, such as IBM CEO Lou Gerstner and GE CEO Jack Welch, who placed great emphasis on company culture. A number of the Indian business leaders also stressed that their vision for the company should be rooted in its underlying values, and that the vision in turn should energize and excite the company’s employees.”

The researchers also asked how Indian leaders might be different from their Western counterparts. The CEOs responded that Indian business executives were marked by flexibility, being in a family ownership structure and entrepreneurship/risk-taking. The leaders noted that the strict regulatory climate and challenging infrastructure environment in India necessitated a capacity to be resilient, adapt and move forward in the face of adversity.

Subhash Chandra, chairman of Zee Entertainment Enterprises, believes that Indian leaders are “more flexible” than those in the U.S. “We can bring our level of thinking down and meet with a truck driver and deal with him at his level, and at the same time we can also bring ourselves up to the level of the head of the state if required and then deal with him at that level,” he told the researchers. (Of course, this trait is not unique among Indian CEOs; U.S. business leaders, such as Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines or Jon Huntsman, founder of Huntsman Industries, demonstrate the same ability in their dealings with people around them.)

Anu Aga, former chairperson of Thermax India, an energy and environment management firm, pointed to the many obstacles Indian companies have to deal with, such as “roads in terrible conditions” and “ports in terrible conditions.” Family ownership stakes sometimes helped leaders have a more long-term approach to strategy, reported the respondents. In addition, they noted that being entrepreneurial was important in order to get large companies to act nimbly and take advantage of the changing marketplace.

The CEOs believed that their firms’ competitive advantage lay in their high-performance culture, customer focus, innovation and entrepreneurship, and low cost. Even when asked how their roles are changing, they overwhelmingly noted that they spend more time these days setting strategy and dealing with customers rather than worrying about shareholders.

3 Responses to “Are Indian Business Leaders Different?”

1. on November 16, 2007 at 11:17 pm1 Raseel

I don’t know how relevant this is with the current topic, but a recent remark of a close friend came to my mind as I read this post. He said, and I quote, “For 50 years India was trying to be globalized ……. now the world is trying to be Indianised”

2.

your buddy is true raseel, even google is trying to expand its operation to each and every possible corner of india.

why indianised? because by 2030 indian will become more populated country which means more biz opportunity and FMCG segment will kick thier biz so fast. There is proportionality, i.e more population means more biz wihch is ultimately more lucre flowing.

M Pawas

I think Indians in general are very patriotic and passionate of being Indians and they are more emotional towards that compared to other countries in the world. That kind of culture has been in exist for so many centuries.

I recon this passionate and high commitment (like the Japanese had just after World War 2 until the late nineties) is a clear competitive advantage that the Indian leaders are making use of along with the high level economic policy changes.

This kind of thirst for development for a country as a whole with the top level support and dedication rises the Indian busines.

Other than that there is no significant difference in the leadership style which could drive the growth compared to other countries.

Narayanamurthy most admired business leader

Software major Infosys Technologies Chief Mentor N R Narayanamurthy has, for the fifth year running, emerged the most admired business leader of India among Business Schools across the country.

The study conducted by Brand-comm, a leading Brand Consulting, Advertising and PR firm, also found Infosys to be the most attractive company.

Mr Narayanamurthy the study says, is popular among 42 per cent of 545 students from 13 top notch Business Schools, including IIMs, with the next best being Mr Ratan Tata who was way behind with Nine per cent.

Breaking into the top ten business leaders this year was UB Group head Vijay Mallya. Perhaps the popularity of the Kingfisher Airlines had boosted him to the top rung from no where, Mr Ramanuham Sridhar, CEO of Brand Comm told newsmen here today.

Mr Narayanamurthy is admired by Business School students for being a socially responsible individual and is being look up as a leader who was honest and passionate about his work.

The clarity and consistency in Mr Narayanamurthy's personal branding and positioning seem to have been highly effective for the last five years, the study says.

Mr Sridhar said the changing face of Indian economy seems to have triggered the entry of a whole new set of business leaders into the top ten this year. With the retail industry seeing a boom, Badshah of Retail, Kishore Biyani had found his way to the top ten of the most admired B school leaders. Other new names having a mention were Mr Subroto Bagchi of MindTree Consulting, Air Deccan Managing Director G R Gopinath Mr K V Kamath of ICICI and Infosys CEO Nandan Nilekani.

Late Dirubhai Ambani takes the third slot followed by Ambani siblings Anil and Mukesh. together the Ambanis logged seven per cent. Wipro Chairman Azim Premji was behind them securing five per cent and in the same bracket were Vijay Mallya, and Kumaramangalam Birla.

Tatas were second among the most attractive company with Nine per cent followed by Wipro, Mckensey, ICICI (all three per cent), MindTree, Reliance, Hindustan Lever and ITC with two per cent.

Are Indian Business Leaders Different?

A new study explores the Indian corporate leadership model.

By: Knowledge@Wharton

For some time now, the world has watched as Indian companies - once relatively unknown outside the country - have grown by leaps and bounds to become world-class competitors in many industries. It was high time that someone asked the obvious questions: Do Indian CEOs and business leaders operate in a way that is markedly different from those in other parts of the world? What is the source of their competitive advantage? Can other managers learn from their experiences?

Four University of Pennsylvania professors set out to answer these questions in a new study titled, "The DNA of Indian Leadership: The Governance, Management and Leadership of Leading Indian Firms," co-sponsored by India's National Human Resources Development Network. Based on interviews with 100 chief executives of leading Indian companies, the researchers - management professors Peter Cappelli, Harbir Singh, Jitendra Singh (currently dean of the Nanyang Business School in Singapore) and Michael Useem - concluded that while top Indian leaders do share several attributes with their U.S. counterparts, they also have distinctive characteristics.

In contrast to U.S. business leaders, Indian CEOs tend to be more preoccupied with internal management, long-term strategic vision and organizational culture. Financial matters, on the other hand, are not at the top of their agendas. In addition, the research showed that Indian leaders seem to care a good deal more about motivating employees and setting an example than about currying favor with shareholders or the markets.

Advantage: Leadership?

In defining the scope of their research, the professors describe their objective as follows: "Since World War II, the study of business and especially of leadership has been dominated by models from the U.S. This reflected in large part the dominance of U.S. multinational companies. In the 1980s, the strong performance of the Japanese economy, particularly in international markets, led to greater interest in, and teaching about, a 'Japanese' model of management that was distinctive in its management of employees. The rise of the Indian economy, and especially the international competitiveness of Indian businesses now, raises the question as to whether there is a distinctive Indian model and, if so, what that model might be."

Each CEO in the study was asked a set of questions about leadership competencies, competitive advantage and governance. When asked what they thought were the competencies most important to their success in the past five years, the Indian executives felt that shared values and vision, as well as building the top team, were some of the most important capacities.

For example, B. Muthuraman, managing director of Tata Steel, a company that has become widely known after its acquisition of Britain's Corus Steel last yeartalked about "being a visionary" as an important capacity: "By being visionary," he said, "I mean somebody who is able to make people envision their future [as well as] energize, enthuse and empower them." Such answers revealed a common interest in strategic thinking and talent management. The respondents also noted that leading from the front and leading by example were important personal characteristics.

In this respect, leaders like Muthuraman are like U.S. CEOs, who also emphasize the importance of vision to leadership. According to the report, "This is consistent with the views of their Western counterparts, such as IBM CEO Lou Gerstner and GE CEO Jack Welch, who placed great emphasis on company culture. A number of the Indian business leaders also stressed that their vision for the company should be rooted in its underlying values, and that the vision in turn should energize and excite the company's employees."

The researchers also asked how Indian leaders might be different from their Western counterparts. The CEOs responded that Indian business executives were marked by flexibility, being in a family ownership structure and entrepreneurship/risk-taking. The leaders noted that the strict regulatory climate and challenging infrastructure environment in India necessitated a capacity to be resilient, adapt and move forward in the face of adversity.

Subhash Chandra, chairman of Zee Entertainment Enterprises, believes that Indian leaders are "more flexible" than those in the U.S. "We can bring our level of thinking down and meet with a truck driver and deal with him at his level, and at the same time we can also bring ourselves up to the level of the head of the state if required and then deal with him at that level," he told the researchers. (Of course, this trait is not unique among Indian CEOs; U.S. business leaders, such as Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines or Jon Huntsman, founder of Huntsman Industries, demonstrate the same ability in their dealings.)

Anu Aga, former chairperson of Thermax India, an energy and environment management firm, pointed to the many obstacles Indian companies have to deal with, such as "roads in terrible conditions" and "ports in terrible conditions." Family ownership stakes sometimes helped leaders have a more long-term approach to strategy, reported the respondents. In addition, they noted that being entrepreneurial was important in order to get large companies to act nimbly and take advantage of the changing marketplace.

The CEOs believed that their firms' competitive advantage lay in their high-performance culture, customer focus, innovation and entrepreneurship, and low cost. Even when asked how their roles are changing, they overwhelmingly noted that they spend more time these days setting strategy and dealing with customers rather than worrying about shareholders.

Look Inside to Get Ahead?

Perhaps the most telling responses were the CEOs' ranking of their management priorities. They chose "Chief input for business strategy," "Keeper of organizational culture" and "Guide or teacher for employees" as the top three. "Unlike CEOs in America, Indian leaders tend to focus much more on internal issues - on people management, motivating employees and so forth," says Cappelli. "U.S. CEOs spend a lot more of their time on shareholder issuesRajesh Hukku, founder of i-flex Solutions, a financial services software firm that was later acquired by Oracle, emphasized two key differences in his interview with the researchers. He said: "First, Indian leaders do not ascribe to the 'hire and fire policy' which is prevalent in the U.S. Indian leaders look at their people as long-term assets, and company behaviors and policies have evolved accordingly. Broadly, it is about taking a longer-term view versus a quarter-by-quarter view. Second, Indian leaders are finally becoming more confident, but they still tend to operate in safe waters." According to the report, Hukku cited the example of Larry Ellison, who founded Oracle. "Hukku wondered why Indian businesses were not striving to produce the next Microsoft or Oracle. In his words, 'We don't want to go to uncharted waters - whether we look at business or at Hindi movies that have had the same story for the last 30 years. We are formula-based.'" The report adds, however that Hukku "perceives a major shift that has occurred in the last four or five years typified by Tata Steel buying Corus Steel and Reliance launching its retail initiative despite Wal-Mart's planned India foray."

Harbir Singh explains that the reason Indian CEOs tend to focus more on internal issues involving people is that India, unlike the U.S., has no safety net - such as unemployment benefits or social security - for employees once a company lets them go. "In the U.S., CEOs often see shareholders or the board as their primary constituency. In India, CEOs need to focus on employees because of the safety net factor. Now the Indian economy is booming, and there is a shortage of talent, so investing in employees is the right thing to do. In fact, it is the right thing to do even in the U.S."

Cappelli agrees, and points out that the American model may be the exception. "What we see in Indian leaders is a lot of what we say all CEOs should be doing - they are pretty much following the best practices of management and leadership," he says. "In some ways, the puzzle is actually why we see U.S. CEOs more focused on shareholder concerns. It could have something to do with the governance system and with the way they are compensated. In any case, the U.S. is in some way the outlier in this."

Cappelli notes that the best way to be successful as a manager is not to focus solely on short-term profits and to reward or punish leaders based on such performance: "If you're a manager, it's hard to motivate employees when the big goal is to increase quarterly profits by a half-percentage point. Not enough pay is at risk for that to be sufficient motivation. Imagine a conversation where a U.S. CEO is motivating an employee - and a similar conversation between an Indian CEO and his employee. In India, the leader is saying, 'We're asking you to work hard to demonstrate that the Indian economy can be part of the leadership of the world, that we can pull parts of our community out of poverty.' The U.S. CEO has to explain to the employee why it's important to improve quarterly profitability. Which one will work better?"

Not all the differences between Indian and U.S. CEOs that emerged in the study paint the Indians in a positive light. According to the report, some of the Indian CEOs pointed out that they tended to be hierarchical, which they viewed as a negative trait. For example, Subodh Bhargava, CEO of telecommunications firm VSNL, told the researchers that, "In India we tend to be hierarchical, not just in."administrative and management structure hierarchy, but we are very conscious of personal hierarchy in our position. In fact, many companies have fallen by the wayside ... because they couldn't shed their hierarchical mindsets. Second, in India we are over-emotional, and a lot of big decisions tend to be emotional. The attachment or other softer dimensions emerge, whether it's an acquisition or an investment or while evaluating people or opportunities. I think emotions play a greater role than I find among my peers in Europe or America. Finally, I think that in India, one of our biggest weaknesses is that we are unable to use scientific, reasonable assessment of white-collar productivity. [When] it comes to judging people and their capabilities and expectations, we tend to be poor judges."

Cappelli notes that while the darlings of the U.S. business press - Southwest Airlines and similar companies - are touted for doing business more like the Indian CEOs, the investor community tends to favor the opposite - firms like Wal-Mart that are focused on financial gain and shareholder interests.

Are Indian CEOs simply better at internalizing best practices that they have read in management textbooks? "Of course, they have seen a lot of how U.S. CEOs operate," says Cappelli. "They know that U.S. leaders are more concerned with shareholders; they have been exposed to U.S. models and best practices. But then why did they take it up, and not the American CEOs? I think it's more organic than that." Cappelli notes that many U.S. employers were exposed to Japanese models of management for some time. "But right when the Japanese model was hot - that's when U.S. employers were abandoning it," he notes. "It's just not the way they saw themselves, and they didn't adopt it

Time-Tested or Flash in the Pan?

It is tempting to think that Indian CEOs can afford to indulge in their inward preoccupation simply because the country's economy and markets haven't developed quite as much as they have in the U.S. But the study indicates otherwise, says Cappelli: "It doesn't appear that convergence is going to occur as far as leadership focus. Maybe certain aspects of corporate governance may become similar to their U.S. counterparts, but that's it." Even though Indian companies are competing with U.S. and other Western firms, the CEOs don't report that they are subject to the same investor pressures.

"While the Indian CEOs certainly engaged in some self-criticism - they admitted that some aspects of management could be more professionalized, their staff could have more competences or deeper expertise - they didn't feel that the financial aspects needed more attention," says Cappelli. "It was quite remarkable in that there was no significant dissent on this. When asked about their legacy, they talked about their firm's performance, about growth, influence and reputation - not about share prices]

Business Leaders, India's New Hot Export

Citigroup Inc. provided this file photo Vikram Pandit. The ascension of Indian-born leaders like Pandit, the new CEO of Citigroup Inc., tracks the economic rise of their home country, once seen by U.S. business as a large market or a source of low-cost technology workers, now viewed as a business power that rivals the U.S. in some industries. (AP Photo/Citigroup)

By ELLEN SIMON

AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - The ascension of Indian-born leaders like Vikram Pandit, the new CEO of Citigroup Inc., tracks the economic rise of their home country, once seen by U.S. business as a large market and a source of low-cost technology workers, now viewed as a business power that rivals the U.S. in some industries.

The change is visible on the board of the U.S.-India Business Council, once comprised only of executives from U.S. companies doing business in India. Now, the board includes executives from global companies with business in India, Indian-Americans heading global businesses and Indian companies with interest in the U.S.

Board members include Arun Kumar, head partner at KPMG International, Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo Inc. and Lakshmi Narayanan, vice chairman of Cognizant Technology Solutions, an outsourcing company that bills itself as "the best of both worlds."

ArcelorMittal has grown into the world's largest steelmaker, offering $1.65 billion Friday for the remaining shares of Chinese steelmaker China Oriental Group Co. it doesn't already own. While the company is based in the Netherlands, its Indian CEO and founder, Lakshmi Mittal, controls nearly half its shares.

India's outsourcing companies have grown to take on more valuable contracts, pitting them against U.S.-based giants such as IBM Corp. and Accenture Ltd.

For instance, India's Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. in October announced a $1.2 billion contract from American market research firm Nielsen, the largest outsourcing order ever won by an Indian company and one that includes services from information technology infrastructure management to payroll processing.

And India's Tata Group has expressed its interest in buying troubled Ford Motor Co.'s Jaguar and Land Rover units.

"It's harder to see the borders now," said Gregory Kalbaugh, director and counsel of the U.S.-India Business Council.

As the Indian economy has been on a tear, clocking 6 to 8 percent annual growth, Indian and U.S. political leaders have viewed business ties as a way to bring the countries closer. Pres. George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh handpicked members of the US-India CEO Forum, launched in 2005, to plan increased partnership and cooperation.

Meanwhile, U.S. businesses, increasingly dependent on foreign trade, have intensified their interest in promoting an international group of executives. Nearly half of sales for 238 of the largest U.S. companies was from outside the U.S. for fiscal year 2006, up from one-third of sales in fiscal 2001, according to Standard & Poor's.

At the same time, Indians who came to the U.S. to study 30 years ago have worked their way up the ranks of American companies. The latest round of promotions includes Shantanu Narayen, who joined Adobe Systems Inc. in 1998 and was appointed CEO this month.

Others have been in their jobs far longer, such as Ramani Ayer, chairman and CEO of Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., who has led the company since 1997.

Some of the rising stars:

_K.S. (Sonny) Kalsi, managing director and global head of Morgan Stanley's real estate investing business, which has $88.3 billion in assets under management

_Meena Mutyala, vice president of engineering and product management for Westinghouse Electric Corp.'s nuclear fuel business worldwide.

_ Sheila Hooda, senior managing director, strategy at $437 billion investment company TIAA-CREF, who was previously a managing director in the investment banking division at Credit Suisse.

The rise of Indian-born executives such as Pandit, who on Monday was named CEO of Citigroup, the world's largest bank, follows by more than a decade the advances of Indian business consultants.

A handful of Indian-born academics, especially Ram Charan and C.K. Prahalad, long-ago established themselves at the upper echelons of business consulting; consultant and author Charan was reportedly the first outsider Jeffrey Immelt turned to for advice when he became CEO of General Electric Co.

Rajat Gupta, who joined McKinsey & Co. in 1973, was elected managing director of the management consulting firm in 1994, then re-elected to two more three-year terms in 1997 and 2000. Gupta is leaving McKinsey at the end of this year to concentrate on his board positions.

One of Gupta's latest gigs: Special adviser on management reform to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

NEW YORK (AP) - The ascension of Indian-born leaders like Vikram Pandit, the new CEO of Citigroup Inc., tracks the economic rise of their home country, once seen by U.S. business as a large market and a source of low-cost technology workers, now viewed as a business power that rivals the U.S. in some industries.

The change is visible on the board of the U.S.-India Business Council, once comprised only of executives from U.S. companies doing business in India. Now, the board includes executives from global companies with business in India, Indian-Americans heading global businesses and Indian companies with interest in the U.S.

Board members include Arun Kumar, head partner at KPMG International, Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo Inc. and Lakshmi Narayanan, vice chairman of Cognizant Technology Solutions, an outsourcing company that bills itself as "the best of both worlds."

ArcelorMittal has grown into the world's largest steelmaker, offering $1.65 billion Friday for the remaining shares of Chinese steelmaker China Oriental Group Co. it doesn't already own. While the company is based in the Netherlands, its Indian CEO and founder, Lakshmi Mittal, controls nearly half its shares.

India's outsourcing companies have grown to take on more valuable contracts, pitting them against U.S.-based giants such as IBM Corp. and Accenture Ltd.

For instance, India's Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. in October announced a $1.2 billion contract from American market research firm Nielsen, the largest outsourcing order ever won by an Indian company and one that includes services from information technology infrastructure management to payroll processing.

And India's Tata Group has expressed its interest in buying troubled Ford Motor Co.'s Jaguar and Land Rover units.

"It's harder to see the borders now," said Gregory Kalbaugh, director and counsel of the U.S.-India Business Council.

As the Indian economy has been on a tear, clocking 6 to 8 percent annual growth, Indian and U.S. political leaders have viewed business ties as a way to bring the countries closer. Pres. George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh handpicked members of the US-India CEO Forum, launched in 2005, to plan increased partnership and cooperation.

Meanwhile, U.S. businesses, increasingly dependent on foreign trade, have intensified their interest in promoting an international group of executives. Nearly half of sales for 238 of the largest U.S. companies was from outside the U.S. for fiscal year 2006, up from one-third of sales in fiscal 2001, according to Standard & Poor's.

At the same time, Indians who came to the U.S. to study 30 years ago have worked their way up the ranks of American companies. The latest round of promotions includes Shantanu Narayen, who joined Adobe Systems Inc. in 1998 and was appointed CEO this month.

Others have been in their jobs far longer, such as Ramani Ayer, chairman and CEO of Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., who has led the company since 1997.

Some of the rising stars:

_K.S. (Sonny) Kalsi, managing director and global head of Morgan Stanley's real estate investing business, which has $88.3 billion in assets under management

_Meena Mutyala, vice president of engineering and product management for Westinghouse Electric Corp.'s nuclear fuel business worldwide.

_ Sheila Hooda, senior managing director, strategy at $437 billion investment company TIAA-CREF, who was previously a managing director in the investment banking division at Credit Suisse.

The rise of Indian-born executives such as Pandit, who on Monday was named CEO of Citigroup, the world's largest bank, follows by more than a decade the advances of Indian business consultants.

A handful of Indian-born academics, especially Ram Charan and C.K. Prahalad, long-ago established themselves at the upper echelons of business consulting; consultant and author Charan was reportedly the first outsider Jeffrey Immelt turned to for advice when he became CEO of General Electric Co.

Rajat Gupta, who joined McKinsey & Co. in 1973, was elected managing director of the management consulting firm in 1994, then re-elected to two more three-year terms in 1997 and 2000. Gupta is leaving McKinsey at the end of this year to concentrate on his board positions.

One of Gupta's latest gigs: Special adviser on management reform to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Political Leadership (CASE STUDY)

Narendra Modi: He came, he spoke and he conquered!

Nardendra Modi has given his detractors both outside and within his party a fitting lesson and he has done so within the electoral process. Sweeping the Gujarat polls, he has returned with vengeance.

NO MATTER what is uttered about Narendra Modi he has proved himself following the massive victory in the Gujarat election.

Here is a leader who can speak extempore and the audience just swallows what he has to say, irrespective of facts in the speech.

He is the ‘man of the moment.’ We can only begin to imagine the height this man has achieved.

Everything was against him- the opposition’s tallest leader Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul and all other top leaders were just waiting to do him in. The intellectuals like Teesta Setalvad, Javed Akthar and all those who find minority appeasement as the base of their secular credentials have always targeted this leader in all possible ways. Leave alone outsiders, his own party members like Keshubhai Patel, Suresh Mehta and other leaders operated like Bhimishan to defeat Modi. They advertised in the print media not to vote for him.

Barring few, most of the national leaders were against Modi. The same can be said about RSS and its other sister organization.

But this man rose above all, crushed everything and everyone and triumphed.

We heard a Muslim saying in Godhra, “Even Allah wants Modi to rule Gujarat”.

We can see the level of leadership in Modi. When he was asked about the victory he said “This is not my victory nor BJP’s but the victory of 5.5 crore Gujaratis with the effort of thousands of BJP workers”. His slogan of “Jeetega Gujarat” had a mass appeal.

It is rightly said about Modi “You hate him, you love him but you can’t ignore him”.

We will see further rise of this leader in the coming years. Maybe we will see him as the Prime Minister of India!

A Profile of Narendra Modi

Ahmedabad (PTI): Narendra Modi, who assumed reins of power in Gujarat for the third consecutive time on Tuesday after single-handedly stymying the Congress challenge, symbolises aggressive Hindutva that could catapult him to the centre stage of BJP.

The 57-year-old former RSS pracharak, who was dubbed villian by his Sangh Parivar detractors and hero by followers of hardline Hindutva, has come a long way in acquiring the Hindutva posterboy image.

'Brand Modi' powered the BJP to a fourth successive term overcoming anti-incumbency, rebellion from within BJP and a combined onslaught by the Congress-led Opposition.

He has virtually re-written the rules of the electoral game by convincingly winning for the second time even in the face of opposition from a powerful section of the Sangh Parivar.

Modi has created a record of sorts in BJP as no other party Chief Minister had so far been able to beat the anti-incumbency factor for the second time in a row.

He has struck a rare chord with the people of Gujarat with his rabble-rousing speeches. Though hated by his critics, the Modi-style of politics has won him rich dividends in Gujarat.

This was evident in the recent election when he began his campaign by dwelling on issues of development and then switched to Hindutva, fired by Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's "merchants of death" remarks.

What distinguishes Modi from others is his ability to exploit situations, be it the devastation that came in the form of the earthquake of 2001 and the Godhra carnage a year later.

Controversies and criticisms like the post-Godhra riots and the fake encounter killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his Mian-Musharraf remarks could do little to deflect Modi from strident ideological moorings.

Born in a Ghanchi community, which belongs to Other Backward Castes (OBC) family on September 17, 1950, Modi completed his schooling in Vadnagar and did his Masters degree in Political Science from Gujarat University in 1980s while being a RSS pracharak.

Modi's leadership qualities showed in the early days of his student life when he became the student leader of Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad.

He began his journey in active politics in 1987 by joining BJP. Within a year, he was elevated to the post of general secretary of Gujarat unit of the party.

However, after the split in BJP in Gujarat effected by its senior leader Shankarsinh Vaghela that saw the saffron party losing power, Modi was moved to Delhi in 1995 and was made the national secretary of the party in-charge of five major states.

Modi, however, was sent back to Gujarat by BJP when the state was despondent after the massive quake and the then Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel faced criticism from many quarters for his government's performance.

As he assumed Chief Ministership replacing Patel on October 6, 2001, Modi had little idea that he was set to a play long innings at the helm of affairs in the state.

He had said that he had come to play a "one day match" in Gujarat. But the attack on Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002 and the subsequent communal riots changed everything and ensured he became the longest-serving Chief Minister of Gujarat.

Despite coming under fire from almost all quarters for handling of post-Godhra riots, Modi used it to his electoral advantage by taking out `Gaurav Yatra' and helping BJP to post a landslide victory in state assembly elections held in December 2002.

Modi was sworn in as the Chief minister for the second term on December 22, 2002 after which he tried to do a make-over to his "Hindutva" image by projecting himself as a development-oriented person.

His last five-year tenure will largely be remembered for his attempt to attract industries and investments into Gujarat by organising investment summits under the banner of "Vibrant Gujarat".

Apart from trying to make Gujarat a favourite investment destination, Modi also tried to woo tourists by popularising local festivals of Navratri and Uttarayan (Kite).

He also took the intiative to raise the controversial Narmada Dam's height above 100 meters. Though criticised by environment activists, Modi went on to raise the dam's height to 121 meters.

Though large sections of farmers and other communities were unhappy with his policies, industries thrived during his regime and the condition of the infrastructure in the state improved.

Modi's style of functioning earned him several critics within BJP and he had to grapple with revolt to his leadership with the rebels rallying around Keshbubhai Patel.

However, Modi consolidated the grip over the party's state unit by building his own followers, purging some of his opponents by having the party take disciplinary action against them and adopting a carrot-and-stick policy.

Modi,A reformed man?

25 December 2007

WHO didn't expect Narendra Modi's resounding victory in the Gujarat elections? None. In fact, no election in India in recent times had been decided as clearly as this poll even before the first votes were cast. Therein lies a grim tale.

Narendra Modi is no superman; not even a super strategist. No ideology guides him, other than his own schemes for self-survival, supported in ample measure by his ability to act as a rabble rouser, even as it meant desecrating the basic political ethos; just as he once cited Newton's theory to stress that every action will have an equal and opposite reaction — by way of justifying the Hindu backlash against minority Muslims in his state in 2002. Yet, he has won elections for yet another time, helping him to remain as chief minister for another five years. That is, if he, by then, would not stake his claim for power in Delhi.

It is simply that situations conspired to help Modi carry on in power. That situation also involves, among other things, the sense of hopelessness gripping the Congress party in Gujarat for many years now, and the naturally supreme strides that the state has been making in the matter of economic development, the benefits of which are reaching out to the masses.

Under the circumstances, what would have robbed Modi of victory this time? Simply nothing. Those who think the assembly election would be decided on communal lines are being naпve. No way. For those who look at things from their own perspective, there was no alternative to Modi in Gujarat. The Congress party's leadership weaknesses in Gujarat was only a part of the tale: it failed to inspire from the centre as well. Sonia Gandhi has her positive sides, none of which, however, cuts any ice in Gujarat.

To Modi's advantage, Gujarat is economically on the upswing. Add to this the clout the likes of the Ambanis and their petro-chemical complex has given to their home state.

Modi might not openly admit it, but the fact is that he has learned bitter lessons from the 2002 riots, when, as chief minister, he opted to look the other way and played flute. Which is why, he has made it a point to stress now that Gujarat, under him, would never again witness such spectacles. That alone however will not assuage the feelings of the victims of the 2002 violence, and Modi will do well to bend backwards to prove that he has reformed.

In electoral politics, success is often described as a step to defeat. Another election, and a hero can become a zero. Still, for the time being, there might be merit in the view that Brand Modi has arrived in Gujarat. The fact is also that the Modi magic has worked only in Gujarat; and that, the brand, per se, is anathema to major sections of the people across the nation. There still is no escape from the fact that the past hangs heavy on Modi; the only thing that works to his advantage being his CM (Common Man) image.

IBNLive Chat: 'Authoritarian streak, but Modi delivers'

DECODING MODI: The 'chappan ki chaati' remark exemplifies the success of Modi's personality cult.

'We hope he will work towards building an inclusive society in Gujarat.'

New Delhi: Gujarat has given its verdict — it's a resounding victory for Narendra Modi. With the stunning victory, Modi has overcome anti-incumbency factor, internal dissidence and, more importantly, ghosts of the past. How does one explain this Modi wave? What is it that gives Modi such an iconic image?

Rajdeep Sardesai, Editor-in-Chief, CNN-IBN, analysed these issues in a live chat on our chatroom on IBNlive.com on Monday. Here we reproduce the full transcript of the chat.

Vijay: English media is biased towards Modi and BJP. Many are pro-Congress. Easy way to increase the TRP is to rake up post-Godhra issue. Why you don't talk about Godhra or Nandigram?

Rajdeep Sardesai: I think there is an attempt to pigeonhole people, especially the English media, in pro- and anti-camps, especially in the context of Gujarat. Why can't we discuss issues honestly and dispassionately without attaching labels? At CNN-IBN, we speak on a range of issues from Godhra to post-Godhra to Nandigram.

Raju: Mr Rajdeep, can you accept it is a defeat of media, particularly CNN-IBN? Because media has been showing a wrong, maligned and insulting picture of Gujarat every time in the name of Modi!

Rajdeep Sardesai: A victory for Modi is not a defeat for the media, it is the defeat of the Congress party. Far from showing an insulting side of Gujarat, we have attempted to show all sides of the Gujarat story, the good, the bad and the ugly. I might add here that in every poll we did at CNN-IBN on Gujarat, we said Modi was winning.

Sarita: Why do you think media failed miserably to predict such overwhelming majority of BJP despite all odds? The English media was optimistic till the last minute that there would be a Congress swing and anti-establishment buzz throughout the state, but it didn't happen. Modi dislikes English media strongly for this biased and parochial attitude for the media's so-called pseudo-secular tilt. He has not yet given any interview to any news channel. Last time it was bad blood in the Karan Thapar show. How do you foresee: will the English media's relationship with Modi go from now? Will it be anti- or pro-Modi now when the Gujaratis have given their verdict in huge numbers?

Rajdeep Sardesai: I think the media and pollsters got Saurashtra horribly wrong. We cannot escape responsibility for that. But let me be honest: at no stage, did I feel that the Congress had any chance in Gujarat. In fact, I've just won a single malt bet for predicting more than a 110 seats for the BJP! I think we need to look at Narendra Modi and Moditva without the ideological blinkers. I think the media tends to look at the Modi phenomenon in black and white terms. We either demonise him or lionise him. We should analyse and report on him in a more complex manner.

JM:Your Exit poll was not perfect this time. What happened?

Rajdeep Sardesai: No Exit poll can ever be 'perfect'. We did predict a Modi victory. We could not predict the scale of the triumph. We got Saurashtra badly wrong in the belief that local factors there were working against Modi. The raw data actually did show Modi doing well, but we never captured the magnitude of the Modi appeal in Saurashtra. Hence, our prediction of a 100 seats versus the 117 that he ended up with.

PP:Is there something more to Hindutva that Modi carries with this success. As Hindutva alone can't make you win four consecutive elections? There still remains a question that isn't it necessary to have a 'chhapan ki chaati' as Mr Modi says to win an election. None of the CMs till date dare to touch hard on sensitive issues like collecting outstanding electricity bills from farmers as Mr Modi has done?

Rajdeep Sardesai: I think that's a good question. It's wrong to see Modi's success at the polls only in the context of communal polarisation or Hindutva politics. I think the 'chappan ki chaati' remark exemplifies the success of Modi's personality cult: tough, politically incorrect, and defiant of criticism, questioning political orthodoxy, promising good governance. There is an authoritarian streak in him, but also a demonstrated commitment to a strong administration. In contrast, the other leaders of Gujarat appear weak and effete.

Indranil: When the BJP wins, you say it's a victory of Modi. But at the same time why don't you portray the loss as Sonia's or Rahul's defeat?

Rajdeep Sardesai: That's also a good question. I think the Congress has an ostrich-like attitude to defeat. It is unwilling to introspect, or identify the real reasons for its defeat in states. I think the organisational crisis of the party is the real issue, not just the leadership of Sonia-Rahul. At the same time, don't be surprised if the Congress wins a series of state elections next year. Interestingly, a victory will be seen as a victory for Sonia-Rahul, while a defeat will be blamed on the state leadership of the party!!

Binu Thomas: Exit polls, including CNN-IBN's, was way off the mark. This has become a trend in recent elections, to get the final results quite wrong. What is CNN-IBN going to do to make sure it gets more accurate results in future?

Rajdeep Sardesai: If you look at our record over the last two years, we have got seven out of eight elections right in terms of trends. The one that we got wrong was Punjab. In Gujarat, we failed to predict the scale of the Modi triumph, but we said from day one that he was winning. I think we need to take a harder look at our polling systems. Led by Yogendra Yadav, we have the best team in the business and the in house post-mortems have begun to improve our polling systems.

Prabhu:Who is best of all MGR or Indira or NTR or Modi?

Rajdeep Sardesai: Interesting, you referred to MGR, Indira and NTR in the context of Modi. Like these three leaders, Modi's too is a triumph

Read Full Essay