What does a young heir of a strictly vegetarian business family do when there’s a minor uprising in his company because employees want to be served meat?
In a recent book titled Reimagining India: Unlocking the Potential of Asia’s Next Superpower, an essay titled ‘Butter Chicken at Birla’, written by Aditya Birla Group chairman, Kumar Mangalam Birla answers this very question as he recounts how his group adapted with the times:
When I took over the company in 1996 at age twenty-nine, after the sudden death of my father, no meat was cooked in Birla cafeterias, no wine or whiskey was served at company functions. Seven years later, we bought a small copper mine in Australia. The deal wasn’t a huge one, worth only about $12.5 million, but it presented me with a unique challenge of the sort I had not yet faced as chairman. Our newest employees were understandably worried about how life might change under Indian ownership. Would they have to give up their Foster’s and barbecues at company events? Of course not, we assured them.
But then several of my Indian managers asked me why they should have to go meatless at parties if employees abroad did not. At Marwari business houses, including Birla, the top ranks of executives traditionally have been filled with other Marwaris. I had introduced some managers from other firms and communities, and they had raised a valid point. I was genuinely flustered. My lieutenants were relentless — I had never faced a situation where my own people felt so strongly about something. Yet, at the same time, I knew vegetarianism was a part of our values as a family and as a company — a core belief! I had broken a lot of family norms, but I thought this one was going to be multi-dimensionally disastrous for me.
Fortunately, my grandparents merely laughed when I approached them with my dilemma: They understood better that our company had to change with the times.
It is a great sign of maturity for an individual as well as a corporation to understand and accept change. And, above all that, to comprehend whether the impending change will be for the good, the bad or just not be significant enough. Well, the AB Group is today one of India’s “most globalised conglomerates with operations in thirty-six countries in five continents, employing 136,000 people”, as Birla describes it.
But can change always be induced so easily?
Look at this case of Arundhati Bhattacharya, chairman, SBI. The more observant of you must have made a mental note of my error in the previous statement and some of you may have smiled, thinking of how habitual terms don’t spare even the most careful. But I must insist that she has been officially appointed chairman, not chairwoman or the more gender-neutral chairperson. This is no gender bias. Very simply- and interestingly- The SBI Act of 1955 provides for ‘Chairman’ as the highest post in the Bank. To call her anything else would actually require an amendment in the act.
So should such a change be initiated? What sort of a change do you think this would be? A major or a minor change? Something with immediate effect or a general adjustment for modern times? And would it impact Ms Bhattacharya’s position or standing in any way?
Your views are welcome.
I think that while it can be initiated just as a correction to accommodate modern realities. It doesn’t, really, adversely impact her position or that of women in general. It doesn’t belittle her in any way. In fact, I am quite sure, around the dinner table it may have provided just a bit of a chuckle. That women are in these positions, itself, speaks for the general trends in the business place.
So should we bring about change or not should be dependent on the expected impact and the cost of the change. We don’t need to sweat over the small stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment