Meritocracy. Performance gets rewarded. In a socialist, governmental work environment there’s no incentive to perform. In the private sector if you perform well you get the due rewards. In the government way of working a call from the right person to the right person will ensure you grow whereas in private, commercial world nothing like this happens. One doesn’t have to suck up to his boss and talent alone is enough for a person to grow in this private sector meritocracy.

These are the beliefs under which I lived at least for a decade of my professional life. Then slowly I realized, very painfully, that these beliefs are nothing but myths and a part of my own make believe and idealistic world. When we start our career and are on the first rung of the ladder we are all together. But within two to three years pyramid starts building and suddenly we see that some of the batch mates have moved ahead of the lot. Sometime, this is not necessarily in terms of hierarchical growth but also in terms of plum positions and assignments. More often than not, differentiation between the people who have moved ahead and who’ve got left behind is not so stark. But it happens and the attrition starts. People who get left behind start thinking of quitting and many actually leave their jobs. Sometimes they do better than what they would’ve done in the previous job and sometime they lose. But this process stays with them all their professional lives in the pyramidical structure that is present in modern corporations.

Many years ago I found myself very upset around the annual appraisal time. I was interested in getting a key position in my organization. Also, everybody around me knew that I was the most suited candidate for that position. But everybody, including me, was also aware that the possibility of my getting that position was not very high. I went to a colleague of mine who was much older than me and had seen rough and tumble of life. He had risen from the ground and was not typical MBA types. I knew that he had a soft corner for me. We asked for a cup of coffee and I bared my worry to him. He heard me patiently and then shared age old wisdom with me by simply asking a question – Sanjay, do you think any king got the crown on a platter? If you want the crown, you have to learn to fight for yourself. Don’t expect anyone else to fight for your crown. Make your intentions clear, make your thoughts known, throw your hat in the ring and fight for the position. O My God! What a statement? Dripping with wisdom and truth. For an idealist who believed that performance alone is enough in the world of meritocracy this was a wakeup call.

Since then I’ve been observing the events around me, connecting with history and trying to relate this phenomenon with various facets of life. Darwin in his theory of evolution had said, ‘only the fittest survive’. One may use it in multiple context of animal kingdom, various species, within the species, societies, nations, people, individuals and leaders etc. It is true that the fittest only survive. Fittest doesn’t mean in the sense of intellect, capability, sincerity etc only. It has an essential component of being able to fight for your rights and survival. Nowhere is it truer than in the contest for the leadership position, irrespective of the fact whether it is the king of the jungle, the lion, or human beings. It is said that when there are many lions in a jungle they fight within themselves with some of them losing and getting killed by the rest. Others create their own area of influence, or the fiefdom.

If we have a cursory glance at the history we will see that there have been two kinds of rulers – One, hereditary and two, forms of governance where anyone can reach the top like democracies, communism or even military dictatorships. Except for a miniscule portion of hereditary dictatorships every leader had to mandatorily fight for the crown. Even in case of hereditary dictatorships one of the ancestors had to fight for the crown like in cases of Chandragupt Maurya or the Mughals. Maurya dynasty lost its glory in the third generation with Ashok. In case of Mughals though, heredity itself was no guarantee to get the crown. So we saw fathers and brothers being imprisoned or killed like in case of Shahjehan or Dara Shikoh. Getting the crown, the leadership mantle, always had an element of contest, an element of jealousy, an element of leg pullers, an element of conspiracy and back stabbing. To get the crown these people first had to fight the internal rivals who were their blood relations and subsequently the external enemies to get and retain the crown.

If we come closer to the present day scenario of the winning of the crown and see the oldest and the largest democracies, US and India, we will find that situation hasn’t changed much. On one hand we have a hereditary situation of passing the mantle in case of Congress and on the other hand we have open contest like in case of BJP. While currently Congress is in the hereditary situation, even in the recent past the situation was not exactly the same. Had Sanjay Gandhi been alive things may have been very different. It is absence of real internal rivalry that the current situation exists. And this has resulted in not the fittest rising to the top who could effectively counter the external forces resulting in the decline of the party. But interesting story is about the rise of leaders like President Obama and Prime Minister Modi. Their first challenge was not external rivalries. Both had to first grapple with internal rivals. Both had tough contests fighting their own. Eventually both had one worthy rival – Hillary Clinton in the US and L K Advani in India. Leaders won the internal battles and emerged on top to subsequently vanquish the external rivals. Now that the head who would wear the crown was decided, the previous internal rivals had two choices – either to accept the leadership of the new king and work under him or to surrender and completely go in oblivion. So Hillary accepted that Obama beat her and became a minister under him, whereas Advani accepted that he has no more role in the new scheme of things and side stepped completely. He didn’t really accept Modi as his leader, but acknowledged that he has lost by getting out of the way. Isn’t it something like in olden days when either the losing king accepted to suzerainty of the new king and paid him taxes to retain his fiefdom or risked losing all, including his life?

It is said that more we change more we remain same. Indeed, it is almost the same in modern organizations that have pyramidical structures. Defence forces are like this. But as an institution they have analysed issues related to leadership like no one else and created robust and time tested mechanism. So after a particular rank retirement age keeps increasing with the rank, thereby removing internal rivals from the scene completely. Once in a while we find that there are overt supersessions in which case there are few resignations. But despite a strong process to pre-identify the leader we are witnessing increasing contests for the crown these days.

But we see an interesting scenario in the private corporations which are at least on paper merit driven. On one hand we have owner driven corporations and on the other hand we have supposedly places where leadership is not by heredity. In case of promoter driven companies it is known who the supreme leader is. One may keep getting intermediate leadership positions but as he comes closer to the top the element of merit and competency alone keeps getting diluted. Many other factors become more relevant like loyalty, personal chemistry, partners in spoils etc. Even if a person gets the top position, it will remain a nominated one and available only at the pleasure of the promoter. There innumerable examples of the same. Essentials point that I’m trying to make here is that while competency may be important to get to the leadership position, which in any case is a partial leadership, this by itself is not enough and one needs to deal with rivals and also inculcate the essential other qualities. Since the leadership is partial in nature, the contest for the position is also partial.

Most interesting scenario emerges in the non-promoter driven companies. What is witnessed is the classic tale of crabs pulling each other. In almost all such organizations we have many suiters for the top position. Each one would be pulling the leg of anyone who tries to raise his head above the group. Real rivals would do it openly but are closet rivals also, who will use someone else’s hand to pull the rising person. This continues till it is decided whose head will wear the crown. If this person happens to be one from the group, some bitter rivals will seek to exit the scene, some will accept the new leader as their unquestioned leader and some will continue to take a shot at the leader even while professing as his well-wishers. But these will eventually get into the above two categories, either they will exit over a period of time or will accept the leadership of the other person. Sometime, when the selectors are aware of the crab mentality of the group and possible internecine war if one of the crabs were to be pulled up, they get a person from the external environment. Though this often satisfies the crabs, it may not be necessarily the best choice since the merit and competency gets a secondary consideration with primary being that the crabs are not antagonized. This may happen not only in the corner room but also for intermediate leadership positions. Though I wanted to refrain from giving any examples here I’m unable to resist mentioning one iconic name – Infosys. Once the crop of promoter CEOs got over, they were unable to find an internal candidate worthy of the top job. It sounds inconceivable that internal talent was just not there. Indeed, few worthies left due to this. Eventually, an external candidate was nominated. I’m sure that internecine warfare of the crabs would have also weighed in the mind of the decision makers while deciding the head who wears the crown.

My Little Thought Of Life on this is that not everybody aspires to be a leader. By definition, number of followers has to be more than the leaders. But if you aspire for a leadership position at any level, it is essential to know that competency, skill, hard work etc. alone are not enough to achieve that even in an environment of meritocracy. Crown is never given in a platter. One has to throw his hat in the ring, one has to endure crabs, one has to be aware of higher risks, one must be willing to be lonely, one must be aware that a loss may mean a price to be paid and one must know that once you get the crown you need to command the leadership position and carry people along with you. If some pathological crabs still remain, they need to be identified and neutralized. Yes, exceptions are there and will always be there, but then exceptions need to be treated like exceptions and I’ll keep some other day for my thoughts on this.

I wish that my friends and readers understand themselves whether they are comfortable being led or would like to lead and then play their role accordingly. If they aspire to lead, they must know that one doesn’t get the crown on a platter.