TRANSFORMING ICRISAT: THE LEADERSHIP OF DR.

WILLIAM DAR As he walked into the Hyderabad, India campus of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Dr. William Dar, ICRISATs recently appointed director general (DG), saw several things that bothered him. From overgrown shrubs to uninspired employees and a generally uncongenial work environment, a number of points required improvement at ICRISAT. As a result, the sprawling 3,000-acre campus appeared to be desolate. Dar had observed this less-than-satisfactory state of affairs from an early point in his involvement with the institute and had politely conveyed his concerns to the chief of general services; however, even after a month, there was no visible improvement to the campus. Sitting in his office, Dar asked himself whether he had made the right decision in leaving a secure and highly influential position in the Philippines and relocating to India. Prior to joining ICRISAT as the DG only two weeks ago, Dar had served as the presidential advisor for rural development and as the secretary of agriculture. Now he was considering giving up on his new assignment and returning to the Philippines where his previous job awaited him, rather than sticking with the riskier option of attempting to revive the ailing institute as DG. Unstable leadership over the past three years had resulted in stunted growth and had negatively impacted research at ICRISAT. Dar had tried to remain confident that he had everything to gain and nothing to lose by staying with the institute-but now he was not so sure that was true. A SUCCESSION OF CHALLENGES The past few years had been particularly difficult for ICRISAT. Leadership had failed at all levels, staff morale was low and research output was abysmal. Employee turnover rates were unusually high-particularly at senior management levels- and the leadership at ICRISAT had been unable to decrease them. Prior to Dars appointment, the institute had been through four director generals and four deputy director general (DDGs) in quick succession. The contrasting personalities and divergent views of these leaders had added further uncertainty to the already volatile atmosphere at ICRISAT. In addition to withstanding unstable leadership, the institute had also faced financial problems. Until the late 1990s, ICRISAT had had the luxury of virtual unlimited funding and unrestricted spending due to generous support from the donor; however, by the time Dar joined the institute, the donors had started questioning ICRISATs funding due to its poor performance and research output in recent years, initiating a marked reduction in financial resources. When Dar was appointed DG, he found that in the past five year the institutes

funding had been reduced by 50 per cent, which was making it difficult to sustain minimal research even at existing levels. The governing body, which consisted of independent members, had recently decided to reduce funding further and had asked ICRISAT to achieve self-sustainability if it wanted to continue to exist as a research institute. Compounding difficulties was the fact that ICRISAT was due for a major external review from the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in the coming year. CGIAR was a global partnership and a nodal body coordinating the research being carried out by various organizations for sustainable development. Its vision was to reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition and enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, partnership and leadership. Since CGIAR had a controlling stake in the organizations existence, the institute had good cause to worry. Due to ICRISATs unsatisfactory research output, CGIAR had already asked the ICRISAT management and governing board to assess the viability of the organization for the future (taking further financial reductions into account) and to propose a plan for its contribution to agricultural development. This was a direct indication of the loss of trust that ICRISAT faced from its donors and CGIAR, and the increasingly difficult circumstances that were expected in the future. In order to survive, the institute was going to have to perform admirably despite huge cuts in finances. All of these problems and significantly affected the atmosphere at ICRISAT and the grim state of affairs was reflected openly in the strategic drift the organization was currently experiencing. The shifting of ICRISAT headquarters to Africa was another challenge threatening the future of the organization. An external review panel had recently indicated that there was a need to shift the institutes major centres of administration and research to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). CGIAR, which had carried out an external program review (EPR), reported that ICRISAT was losing its competitive advantage in Asia. It felt that the institute did not have a strong base in Africa where there was an urgent need for agricultural research and development, and that many activities that could prove significant for development in Africa needed to be phased out in Asia and moved to Africa. To this effect, the panel had strongly recommended the transfer of ICRISATs headquarters and all of its programs to Africa-with the exception of the genetic resources management and enhancement program, which was the only branch of ICRISAT that would be retained at the Hyderabad campus. From the Dar became DG, there was tremendous pressure on him to facilitate the process of shifting ICRISATs programs and headquarters from India to Africa. Another major issue that plagued ICRISAT was that of low staff morale, Just prior to Dars appointment as DG, many staff members had been coerced into accepting a kind of golden handshake scheme that provided certain employees with security in the event of loss of

employment. Ironically, this actually suggested serious insecurity in the minds of many staff members, and a number of senior scientists and employees opted for voluntary retirement schemes and joined other more stable research organizations instead. Those who remained at ICRISAT were overburdened with work thrust upon them due to the exodus of employees. This added and unjustifiable workload further demoralized any staff any staff that had stayed. The egress of talent and high turnover among staff resulted in inconsistencies in research and development, further reducing the institutes research output. In addition, after the financial cuts of the past few years, obtaining sufficient funding for new staff positions had become extremely challenging and serious concerns regarding ICRISATs insufficient research output were being registered by monitoring agencies. ABOUT THE INSTITUTE: ICRISAT The genesis of ICRISAT lay in the widespread awareness that developed in the 1960s and early 1970s about famine and hunger in certain underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa. The suffering seen in these regions mobilized more than 50 countries and other developmental agencies and banks into action. After extensive consultations and research it was observed that, of all the difficulties that plagued these regions, lack of food was the most critical. Thus, the need for research in agriculture was felt to be a major factor in the alleviation of poverty. Once the need for agricultural research was acknowledged, an informal network was established and this body came to be known as CGRIAR. CGIAR began with one centre in the South Indian city of Hyderabad in 1972 and eventually grew to 16 centres, mainly located in developing nations (see exhibit 1). In addition to the main centre in India, two regional hubs were established in Kenya and Mali and four other centres were established in Niger, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique. The organization felt that these centres represented areas in the greatest need of efforts to eradicate poverty. Established on July 5, 1972, ICRISAT originated as an international research centre for improving crop yield and drought-resistant growth (see Exhibit 2). The institute observed that agricultural development of the semi-arid tropics (SAT) in Asia and Africa was in a state of neglect. The main crops of these regions were certain cereals and legumes that were crucial resources for the people that lived in these areas. As these crops were not a staple of the average diet in the developed world, research of these crops had been ignored; however, unless this research was addressed, it was unlikely that the SAT region would emerge from the food security problems it faced. Based on the needs of SAT populations, ICRISATs prime areas of agricultural research included crops such as sorghum, pearl millet, chickpeas, pigeon peas and groundnuts, which were staples among the diets of these populations.

The SAT region included major portions of the South Asian Peninsula, certain parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America, and the entire continent of Africa-with some exceptions in the central and southern parts of the continent. Nearly 20 per cent of the worlds population lived in this region, which suffered from harsh weather conditions, marginal soil, erratic rainfall, overexploitation of land, land degradation and overpopulation. All these factors posed tremendous challenges to agricultural production and the less advantaged (i.e., the majority of the population in the SAT region) inevitably bore the brunt of these difficulties. VISION AND MISSION OF ICRISAT While ICRISATs goal was to harness the power of technology for agricultural development, food security, poverty alleviation and environmental protection, its overall objective was to improve the quality of crops in order to provide better nourishment to subsistence farmers while simultaneously providing them with an opportunity to increase their household incomes through higher productivity of land. Based on these goals, ICRISATs mission was to improve the well-being of the marginal farmers in the SAT region by increasing agricultural productivity, providing food security and reducing poverty through agricultural research. In accordance with this objective, the primary role of ICRISAT was to carry out research in developing robust crops capable of withstanding the extreme climate of the SAT region. Such crops would lead to enhancement and sustainable production and improvement in conservation of the limited natural resources of the area. Once such crops were developed, ICRISAT was required to disseminate the information through available platforms, including workshops, networks, training, library services and publishing. Within India, these new developments reached ICRISATs target group (local farmers) with the help of central government departments like the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), state government departments like the Department of Agriculture and agricultural universities. ICRISAT was responsible for liaising between all four agencies-researchers, central government agencies, state government agencies and the farmers. The onset of the new millennium brought significantly increased donor expectations for ICRISAT. The United Nations proposed Millennium Development Goals included poverty/hunger reduction and environmental sustainability as a part of its agenda, and noted that agricultural research was one of the primary factors that could help in eradicating poverty and hunger. It was therefore expected that ICRISAT would take a major role in achieving these convergent goals. In pursuing the vision and mission of ICRISAT, the DG was responsible for fostering, sustaining and enabling a collaborative environment that would encourage excellence in

research output and solidarity in the workplace. It was imperative that the DG have tact and excellent public relations skills in order to maintain good international relations as well as alliance and partnerships that would cultivate donors for resource mobilization and assist in disseminating research output to the end users (i.e., farmers). To facilitate the achievement of the institutes objectives, the DG was assisted by the four DDGs, who were responsible for guiding the DG in steering ICRISAT at an operational and strategic level-including managing the day-to-day functioning of ICRISAT, giving scientific direction and optimizing strategic and operational efficiency of the institute. BACKGROUND OF WILLIAM DAR William Dar was born in Danuman West, a village in the province of Santa Maria, Philippines. Being from a farming background, he first learned about farming from his father. Dar graduated from benguet State University (BSU-then the Mountain State Agricultural College) in 1973 with a bachelor of science degree in agricultural education, followed by a master of science in agronomy. He later entered a doctoral program in Horticulture at the University of the Philippines Los Banos and received his doctorate in 1980. Prior to joining ICRISAT, Dar had served as a professor and vice-president at BSU. He had been instrumental in expanding the universitys research capabilities and funding, and in the commencement of applicable agricultural training programs. His professional competence and leadership qualities resulted in his appointment as the first director of the Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR), where he managed the organization, formulated strategies for improving the quality of research output and took significant actions in implementing various projects of the Department of Agriculture. Dars leadership qualities and commitment to his work brought him recognition and he became the executive director of the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), a powerful national commission for administering knowledge-based agriculture and related sciences in the country. At PCARRD, he was active in implementing a number of programs to benefit farmers and led the council to new successes through empowerment, knowledge dissemination and resources mobilization. Dar believed that neither the government nor the farmers could sustain agriculture development in isolation; he therefore advocated the novel concept of publicprivate partnership, in which both parties worked together for mutual benefit. DARS LEADERSHIP STYLE During his work at BSU and BAR, Dars distinctive leadership style had drawn a lot of attention; he frequently challenged the status quo and believed in continuously raising the bar in achievement of organization objectives.

His personal involvement in research activities motivated and guided employees by ensuring that they were well supported in terms of their research development and their well-being. Dars decisive leadership methods encouraged proactive governance and decentralized management of research. Under his direction, free seeds and seedlings were distributed among the farmers in and around Hyderabad. Dar involved the DDGs in decisions and made sure that all the decision makers acted as a team. It became his mantra to take the team along and foster the active involvement of his subordinates in all initiatives. Although Dar understood the common resistance to change, he was determined to turn that resistance to commitment through involvement. He influenced people to go beyond their own interest for the betterment of the organization; for example, he encouraged all ICRISAT employees in contributing to the institutes larger vision of attaining self-sustainability, and discouraged them from restricting themselves to their limited domains. Furthermore, Dar believed that a free-flowing channel of communication at all levels facilitated faster adaptation to change. His main strength was the ability to clearly articulate a vision for the future, as was evident in his previous endeavours at Philippine Council for Agricultural Research and Rural Development (PCARRD). He believed that he had the ability to engineer a collaborative community of talented individuals who were willing to go beyond the normal standards of performance and align their own goals with the goals of the organization. Eradication of poverty was an issue close to Dars heart. While growing up in Phillipines, he had observed that unless extreme poverty was alleviated in underdeveloped and developing countries, there would be no respite from hunger and malnourishment. This core objective became imprinted in Dars style of leadership as he rose to positions of influence. Upon his appointment at ICRISAT, Dar created a shared vision for eradicating poverty and malnourishment in the SAT region through research in the field of agriculture, which was in alignment with CGIARs aim of breaking the stubborn grip of poverty, hunger, malnutrition and environmental degradation through agricultural development in the same areas. This helped Dar in convincing the board to support his ideas and goals for the future course of the institute. He argued that the research and development of agricultural science at ICRISAT would help reduce poverty by making farmers self-sustainable and that various projects undertaken by ICRISAT (such as watershed programs) would also reduce effects leading to environmental degradation. THE ROAD AHEAD

When he joined ICRISAT, Dar brought with him a history of experience in turning adversity into opportunity. He knew that poverty was one of the main problems in developing countries-in fact, he knew what it was like to in poverty-and he wanted to help make the world free from this malady. It was therefore his vision to improve the well-being of SAT populations through agricultural research undertaken by ICRISAT. Furthermore, in doing so, Dar felt that these disadvantaged population needed to be treated in a humane manner-an approach he referred to as science with a human face, which he incorporated into the ICRISAT logo. Recognizing the urgent need for transformational change at ICRISAT, Dar started by mapping out a new vision, mission and research strategy for the organization. Within a week of becoming DG, he had realized that ICRISAT had spawned substantial research output in the last 28 years; however, what was lacking now was the ability to turn that technology into practical assistance for small and marginal farmers. TGhis would help in revolutionizing agricultural productivity and, consequently, help in the reduction of poverty. While these efforts had been undertaken in the past on a trial basis at a few locations in India and Africa, Dars intent was to succeed at the global level. He wanted to capitalize on the transfer of technology to the farm sector by instituting positive public-private-farmer relationships. Since Dar was well versed in agricultural issues, he had quickly realized that it was in the institutes best interests for the ICRISAT headquarters to remain at the current location for two main reasons. Firstly, from a strategic perspective aimed at assisting developing countries, Southeast Asia represented an area in dire need of research, due to low yield in terms of acreage. Shifting the institutes headquarters to Africa may be unnecessary since many other aspects of ICRISAT had already been transferred to Africa, and such a move could result in Southeast Asia being ignored. Secondly, the current location at Hyderabad had the advantage of access to red, black and intermediate soil types, thus providing a variety of soils for research, unlike the African locations. For these reasons, Dar was sure he could convince the board that ICRISAT could generate sufficient funds to increase focus and investment for Africa without transferring headquarters. As far as the institutes survival w3as concerned, Dar was able to buy some time for ICRISAT from CGIAR and the board by convincing them of the importance of the institutes existence to the future of the SAT region and its farming communities. Since CGIAR was guided by a similar vision of reducing poverty, hunger and malnutrition, the concerted efforts toward poverty reduction through agricultural research advocated by Dar were viewed positively by the group. As part of his argument, Dar cited the agricultural prosperity seen in the vicinity of the Hyderabad campus and in central and southern India-primarily due to

intervention from ICRISAT scientists in the past, which demonstrated ICRISATs ability to influence the farmers in the SAT region. Next Dar tackled the issue of general untidiness and negative atmosphere on campus. He displayed his exemplary leadership skills when he summoned the chief security officer and established a plan to clean up the Hyderabad campus and to show Team ICRISAT that he meant business. By setting a personal example, he ensured that the campus was rid of all litter, and soon the departments started noticing that the new DG had very clear and firm views on the importance of the organizations image. Gradually, the employees began to help out willingly and things started looking up. However, several questions still remained unanswered regarding the future of ICRISATL: How should Dar address the other issues that were still pushing ICRISAT towards failure? How should he ensure proper projection of the institute so that the board would notice and appreciate its research focus? Most importantly, how should he convince the board and the donors about the need to provided fresh impetus to the institute?