The temple ethos in Indian management

T
he ethos of western management was derived essentially from the church
and the western army. When the Roman Catholic Church got organised,
proselytization was the main objective. Missionaries were sent around the world
in all types of civilized and uncivilised areas. The efforts carried out by the
individual missionary in a distant village in a forest had to be supported through a
lifeline of communications as well as flow of goods and services. This required
hierarchical organisation, where the information flowed upwards and decision
flowed downwards, in order to ensure that the missionary working in the middle
of the Amazon jungle had the support of the entire Roman Catholic
establishment.

Similarly, western army fought many wars on alien grounds and for this purpose
they required to have a similar hierarchical structure and a logistic support line.

The adaptation of these types of structures and systems in industrial

organizations was obvious, since the industry started in the west with a similar
aggressive campaign for procurement of materials and marketing of products.

The temple ethos

In contrast, the Indian temples never had a hierarchy of the Church type. Each
temple had its own management group which was not concerned about
proselytization – in fact most temples tried to keep people out rather than take
them in. The whole structure was to ensure protection within a limited area rather
than capture of additional areas.

Even the army in India, prior to British Rule, was built on similar lines. Typically a
Sultan would sub-contract most of his armies to the subedars and jagirdars who
would keep a few thousand soldiers and make them available to the sultan at the
 2

time of war. Many times, the subedars and jagirdars sub-contracted the army
further. As a result, there were community or locations based groups who owed
their allegiance to the immediate leader rather than to the subedar, jagirdar or
Sultan. Whilst troops were used periodically to loot surrounding areas – partly for
pecuniary gains and partly to keep in practice, annexation of territories was not a
major goal. Consequently, the idea of troops occupying distant lands to be
supported by logistic support line was not the mode of operation. In fact, when
the Peshwas tried to keep their troops in the north and tried to support them from
Pune, the operation was colossal failure.

The ethos of Indian management

The traditional India private sector has taken its approach essentially from the
temple and the pre-British Indian army, rather than from the Church and the
western army. Consequently, the following points emerge as distinct differences:
• The hierarchy is not necessarily in terms of authority but in terms of
seniority in age.
• A certain degree of confusion in systems and procedures is considered
natural since there is no clear-cut division of responsibilities and authorities.
• Personal loyalty is extremely important and people are judged on the
basis of their ability to be loyal to individuals.

The ‘Melting pot’

Today in India, we have three distinct management streams with their own
distinctive ethos.

The traditional private sector consisting of family controlled firms continue to work
according to ‘temple’ type organisations – although many of them have employed
managers educated in western management thinking.

The so-called professional sector comprising mainly the subsidiaries of

multinational corporations is operating according to the western ethos and they
have their own organisational structure based on the Church and the western
army.

The public sector very often has the worst of both the worlds. While it professes
to work according to the western ethos, the personal loyalties, regional
considerations, political affinity, etc., often play an important role at all levels of
 3

management. The situation becomes rather confused, since the procedures call
for ‘Church’ ethos, while the individuals have affinity for the ‘Temple’ ethos.

st
There has been a talk of preparing India for the 21 Century. There is also a talk
of preserving our socio-cultural and spiritual heritage. There is a talk of
increasing employment and even giving unemployment doles. And there is a talk
of increasing productivity. Such conflicting goals create confusion.

Indian heritage

Let us first look at out inherited values. In a heterogeneous country like India, no
set of values can be cited as those of 100 per cent of the people. However, a
significant majority of people seems to believe in the following tenets:
• The achievements in this world are illusory and we must concentrate on
making provision for the next world
• However, the success in this world is still to be strived for and the
success comprises acquiring assets primarily in terms of land and gold
• Spending these assets in a display of wealth in various rituals including
marriages and funerals contributes to the prestige of the person and his
family.

The ways, for providing for the next world, are indeed along a wide spectrum –
from and ascetic renouncing the world and going to Himalayas to a bania feeding
sugar to ants every morning and then adulterating his wares to increase his
profitability.

In every Indian language, there is a phrase “the person was so successful and
acquired so much assets that seven generations could eat without working!”
Thus, the sign of success is to make your successors non-productive!
Consuming without producing is considered a matter of “Kismat”.

At one time, it was believed that with education, vulgar display of wealth in rituals
would come down. It has not. Even highly educated, sophisticated people
celebrate marriages on a scale that only Maharajas of feudal India were
accustomed to.

Modern economy

The tenets of modern economy may be summarised as:

• Economic success is using Value to increase Value
 4

• Each job has to produce ‘Value’ i.e. satisfy some demand for goods and
services in the market
• Thus, the market mechanism of demand and supply decides what jobs
are created and what remuneration is available for each job.

According to these tenets, consuming without productivity is considered parasitic

and unacceptable. Even those who acquire or inherit substantial assets must try
to multiply them for increased production of goods and services.

This also means that employment cannot be “created”. The market requirement
has to create jobs fulfill the need for goods and services. Employment without
meaningful production is also parasitic.

Concept of productivity

Productivity is production of goods and services with minimum use of resources.

This leads to the concept of “Value added”. In every production unit, some
resources have to be bought in at certain cost. When the output of the unit is
sold, some funds become available. The difference in the sales-value of the
product and the value paid for the resources bought in to produce the product is
the “Value Added” in the production unit.
This value added determines:
• The remuneration that can be paid to the persons operating in the unit
• The expenditure that can be incurred to expand the market and promote
the produc t
• The investment that can be available for modernisation, growth and/or
diversification
• The expenditure that can be incurred on amenities to employees and the
community.

Thus, productivity plays an important role in the value added and through that in
the viability and progress of the unit. Insisting on employment irrespective of its
impact on productivity ultimately leads to an adverse impact on the economic
viability and progress of the unit.

Management dilemma

Management is the agency through which the cultural ethos and economic
performance are synchronised. This involves some compromises regarding
economic performance to become acceptable to the community. However,
compromise affecting the organisational viability is obviously undesirable. As
 5

Drucker puts it: “Half-a-loaf is better than is a productive compromise; but half-a-
baby is not better than no baby – in fact it is a dead baby !”

It is interesting to find out how reputed organisations in India have handled this
situation. Following are some of the examples:
• Orienting employees to Work Culture: In one company, the trade union
issued a circular to the workers that every worker must be at his
workplace (machine) five minutes before the start of the shift. The reason
was, the union leaders were part of the team that visited Japan for
training with the Japanese collaborators. They found this practice
amongst Japanese workers and asked them why they did so. The
Japanese workers said, “if we are not at our work stations, the
production would suffer and so would the value added and our share of
it”
• Stopping “hereditary” recruitment: Giving jobs to children of the
employees was discontinued in another company to bring down the
workforce in tune with factory modernisation. However, to provide
earning opportunities to the children of the employees, craft training was
given so that a cooperative formed by them could supply ancillaries
required by factory.
• Training Worker-leaders: About 10 per cent of the workers are opinion-
leaders – even when such worker-leaders are not leaders of their unions.
Training worker – leaders in “Value added” concept and in conflict
management through empathy-compromise-tolerance route could make
the management -worker relationship more productivity-oriented.

A populist stance of creating employment without meaningful production is likely

to accentuate our feudal heritage of parasitic leisure ethic. Insisting on increasing
productivity and simultaneously investing in direct or indirect training to help the
aspiration of the workforce si the way to meet the management dilemma of
synchronising modern economic system with our inherited temple ethos.

Institution building

An institution starts with a person or a small group of persons who induce many
others into the process of building it up. The process of building up institutions
may be considered in two broad categories: with the Church Ethos and with the
Temple Ethos.

The basic characteristics of the Church Ethos are:

 6

• Aggressiveness about the institutional purpose

• Stress on structures and systems
• Loyalty to the institution – rather than to a person.

The Temple Ethos

The temple ethos typified by the Indian temples contrasts sharply with church
ethos. While the church ethos is aggressive, the temple ethos is exclusive.
Churches are built to get people in; temples are built to keep people out!

In the church ethos, structures and systems are developed to help in promoting
the institutional objectives. In the temple ethos, rituals are developed to help in
distinguishing the institution from other institutions.

As noted earlier, personal loyalty is extremely important in the temple ethos and
people are judged by their ability to be loyal to an individual.

Ethos of Indian institutions

Institutions in India often appear outwardly similar to the corresponding ones in

the western countries. However, a close examination often reveals the temple
ethos – barely hidden under a veneer of church ethos. This phenomenon can be
marked in all types of institutions ranging from industrial organisations,
educational institutions, research laboratories and social clubs to political parties.

The stress on exclusiveness is evident through progressively increasing

stringency of admission criteria in established institutions. Whatever might be the
demand, the supply is not increased since there is a special advantage seen in
scarcity. The institutions boast of the number of applicants seeking admissions
the way devotees describe the length of queues waiting to see the God in India
Temples. There is a great reluctanc e to expand the facilities and also a
resistance to the creation of additional institutions in the same field.

The exclusiveness is also demonstrated by a lack of cooperation and

collaboration between institutions in the same field – even in the same city. This
easily reminds one of the traditional rivalries between neighbouring temples.

Once an institution is established, it quickly creates its own rituals which are
different from structures and systems since they are not intended to facilitate the
specific institutional objectives, but to create distinction between that institution
 7

and other institutions. These rituals in admission and working procedures also
make collaboration between institutions more difficult.

However, the most significant aspect of the temple ethos is the requirement of
personal loyalty. Differences with the institutional head are often treated as
treason – even when the differences relate to facts and interpretations. Many a
sycophant occupies important positions in institutions in spite of inadequate
ability due to his unquestionable loyalty to the institutional head. Confidence
becomes more important than competence and informers are often considered
performers.

Consequences of Temple Ethos

The temple ethos in Indian institutions has taken its own toll. Although a lot has
been said about the inadequate expenditure on research and development, the
amount spent in absolute quantity has been substantial. Yet, the results have not
been very significant.

The institutions rarely attain stability and get sustained commitment – which
would result in continued increase in performance. The results come in “waves”
under a specific head and ebb under his successor. Even great institutions decay
fast as there is no structure and systems to hold them up and there is no
commitment of members to sustain them – reminding of the adage “Institutions
are built by people who want to do something and are ultimately captured by
people who want to be something”.

@ Sharu S. Rangnekar
31, Neelamber,

37-G, Deshmukh Marg,

Mumbai - 400026.