Valmiki Ramayan: On Leading People...

Man is a creature by nature adapted for life in apolis, or city-state, said Aristotle, the
philosopher, for whom the individual man and the individual family appeared too weak
and too limited to be self-supporting. He felt that the State provides an environment in
which the individual can achieve the proper telos of a manenjoyment of happiness
emerging from the practice of intellectual and moral virtues.

At the same time, Aristotle believed that developed man is the best of all animals; but
he can also become the worst of all if he has distanced himself from the customs and
laws of the State. He also said that injustice, when strengthened by weapons, becomes
most oppressive. Therefore, to have a just State in which a man can fully develop,
political partnerships must be properly planned for and implemented. Which is why
justice-driven-ruling and being ruled have emerged over the course of civilization as
the necessary tools for a just State.

In short, to rule a state, a person should be best in the state of soul and body. And to
achieve such a sane disposition, a ruler must obviously have more of some good or
other. The good that a ruler must have so as to rule a State is identified as the virtue of
practical wisdom. That aside, virtue, when aided by external means, supremely
enables a man to use force and in turn ensures that benevolence prevails in the State.

This led to the conclusion that to rule a State, a ruler needs a different kind of education.
And the best way for a ruler to learn is by being ruled, just as one learns how to lead
cavalry by serving in the cavalry or to become a general by serving under one; and
similarly in the case of a company commander or a platoon commander. Thus emerged
the political rule in the Greek school of politics: One cannot learn how to rule properly
without having been ruled, and there appears to be a lot in that saying, as Aristotle
emphasized.

Coming to the Indian ethos, it is held that attainment of Uttamapurusha is possible
only when there is order in society that enables an individual to
pursue purusharthas andvarnasrama dharma. And importantly, such an order, along
with its required social, economic and political aspects, has to flow from dharma itself.
Here what they mean by dharma is: a composite tradition of justice, impartiality and
benevolence and is associated with the five distinct concepts of artha (economic
good), dharma (ethics), kala (time),matra (measure), and parishad (counsel). Dharma
moralizes the authority of the State and the rights and duties of the subjects. Driven by
these values, the State is expected to promote the three ideals of life
Dharma, Artha and Kama.

The means for state to accomplish these ideals flow from dandacoercive power
which according to Kautilya is the law of punishment. It helps the ruler to maintain
order, provided his danda is based on dharma. Dharma is, thus, the ruler of rulers.
Such is its importance in the conduct of both the ruler and the ruled. Dharma, thus, not
only enjoins on the ruler a wide area of activity and control but also imposes a check on
the ruler limiting the control of the state. Thus, a ruler is traditionally expected to be a
father figure and also the regulator of morals and customs.

Although there are certain differences between these two schools of thought, there is a
fair amount of agreement on the fact of mans finiteness. Man, being what he is, is a
limited, imperfect, incomplete being. At the same time, both these schools of thought
believe that mans goal is to attain the state of completeness, fulfillment, and perfection.
Indian thinkers are, of course, more concerned with seeing the man not only as he is but
what he might be. His journey is from imperfection to perfection. Incidentally, in this
journey of mans search for the realization of his potential, rulers have a great role to
play.

Realizing the importance of the ruler and the ruled, the leader and the led, intellectuals
have been reflecting on this dynamic relationship ever since the dawn of civilization and
refining their understanding about this enigmatic relationship. Thinkers, including the
modern-day management gurus, are grappling with newer and newer ideas to
understand the concepts of leader, followers, and leadership and management. This
investigation encompasses the governance of every conceivable
institution/organization.

Against this backdrop, let us now take a critical look at what poet Valmiki makes Rama
teach his brother Bharata on how to rule the kingdom of Ayodhya. This ancient thought
is not antiquarian; it never goes out of date, for it makes living contribution to our
present enquiry into the philosophy of leadership.

The Makings of a King
The shocking news of Ramas sudden exile immediately following the proposed
coronation, that too, at the behest of his mother, Kaikeyi, upsets the innocent and
devoted brother of Rama, Bharata. Anxious to establish his innocence, Bharata rushes to
Chitrakuta to remind Rama of the Ikshavaku familys tradition of the eldest son
succeeding to the throne; to inform him of his strong desire for the failure of his
mothers scheming, for he was not for profit from it; to inform him of the unanimous
wish of the people of the kingdom that Rama should return and take charge of Ayodhya,
and finally plead for his return to Ayodhya and get crowned.

On seeing Rama in humble conditions in the forest, Bharata wails thus: Here is that
very elder brother of mine, who deserves to be attended upon by ministers in a royal
assembly sitting in the company of wild deer. How is this person of my celebrated elder
brother who deserves comforts, has met with this misfortune on my account? Woe to
my life, condemned by the world, cruel as I am. Crying at the top of his voice, My
noble brother, Bharata bows down at the feet of Rama, as he could not speak further for
his throat dries up and eyes are filled with tears.

Moved to tears on thus beholding Bharata with joined palms, Rama, touching his head
as an expression of his affection for him and placing him on his lap, tenderly questions
him: What brings you here now to the forest with all this paraphernalia?

Continuing his pleasant enquiries about the king, Ayodhya, its sages, and the welfare of
its people, Rama subtly shifts his dialogue to the finer elements of judicaturewithout,
of course, giving any scope to the listener to feel that he is being taughtby making
matter-of-fact statements or raising questions such as:
O, gentle brother! I hope the eternal kingdom has in no way suffered from your
youthful experience. My darling! Are you rendering service to our father, who is
truly valiant?
The source of victory for kings indeed comes from a closely guarded counsel by
ministers, who are well-versed in political sciences and who can keep their
thoughts to themselves.
I hope that you do not deliberate alone, nor indeed with numerous men. I hope
the decision arrived at by you through such deliberation does not reach to the
public even before it is carried out.
O, Bharata! I hope every undertaking launched by you has maximum benefit with
minimum cost.
I hope you seek one wise man rather than a thousand fools, for a wise man can be
of a great help to you in difficult matters.
Even one wise, valiant, sagacious, efficient minister alone can cause to achieve
great prosperity for the king.
I hope that superior servants are assigned superior works while the mediocre are
attending to mediocre works, and inferior servants inferior works.
I hope you are appointing those as ministers who are eminent, incorruptible,
born of the fathers and descendants of good family, and who are full of integrity
in matters of great importance.
I hope you have selected a cheerful, wise, courageous, valiant, well-behaved, born
in a good family and who is beloved by his subordinates as the army chief.
I hope those warriors who are excellent, strong, skilled in warfare, whose
excellent actions were seen before, and the most courageous ones are duly
honored and respected by you.
When there is delay in giving bread and wages, the servants become incensed
against their master and become corrupt; and that is said to be a great
unfortunate occurrence.
I hope that a knowledgeable man living in your own country, a wise man, a
skilled person endowed with presence of mind, and the one who knows how to
speak to the point is selected as an ambassador by you.
I hope your income is abundant and expenditure minimum. I hope your bounty
does not reach undeserving people, O, Bharata!
I hope that you seek to administer pleasingly by following three means, namely
gifts, a loving mind, and polite words.
The tears that drop from the eyes of men falsely convicted, O scion of Raghu,
destroy the sons and cattle of a king who rules the people merely for the sake of
pleasure.
Do you abjure the following fourteen failings of kings, viz., disbelief in the other
world, mendacity, anger, neglect of kingly duties, procrastination, shunning the
wise, sloth, thralldom by the five senses, devoting thought to the affairs of the
State without seeking the advice of others, taking counsel with those of perverted
insight, failure to launch projects already decided upon, failure to keep secrets,
failure to utter auspicious words at the beginning of every undertaking, and rising
from ones seat to receive all?
O, the very wise Bharata! I hope you understand the following and deal with them
properly: the ten evils attendant on royalty; the five kinds of fortifications; the
four expedients; the seven limbs of State; the eight evils born of anger or the eight
measures, the three objects of human pursuit or three kinds of power; the three
branches of learning; subjugation of the senses, the six strategic expedients;
adversity brought about by divine agencies and by human agencies; the twenty
types of monarchs, and the entire population of the kingdom, setting about on an
expedition, drawing up an army in a battle-array and the two bases, viz., peace
and war.
o Ten evils attendant on royalty to be eschewed: Hunting, gambling,
sleeping during the day, lustfulness, inebriation, pride, calumny, lounging
about idly or aimlessly, diversions such as singing and dancing.
o Five kinds of fortifications: By moat, high bank, trees thickly planted, a
space destitute of grain or provisions, and the turning of waters.
o Four expedients: Making peace, liberality, sowing dissension, and
chastisement.
o Seven limbs of State: King, ministers, friends, treasure, territory, forts, and
army.
o Three objects of human pursuit: Religious merit, material wealth and
sensuous enjoyment or the three kinds of power (viz., energy, power of
dominion, and power of counsel).
o Three branches of learning: The three Vedas, the knowledge relating to
agriculture, commerce and other vocational pursuits, and political
science.
o Six strategic expedients: Coming to terms with the enemy, waging war
against him, marching against him, biding ones time to seek a favorable
opportunity, causing dissension in the enemys ranks, and seeking
protection of a powerful ally.
o Adversity brought about by divine agencies: Fire, water in the shape of
excessive rains or floods, epidemic or endemic diseases, famine and
pestilence, and earthquakes and tsunamis.
o Adversity brought about by human agencies: officials, thieves, enemies,
kings favorites, and king himself when actuated by greed.
o Twenty types of monarchs who are not worth negotiating with: a king
who is yet a child; aged; who has been ailing for a long time; who has
been ostracized by his own kith and kin; who is characterized by a
cowardly attitude; who is surrounded by cowards; who is greedy; who has
greedy associates; who has estranged his ministers and others; who
confers with fickle-minded persons; who speaks ill of divine beings; who
excessively indulges in sensuous pleasures and luxuries; who is ill-fated; a
fatalist who believes that all things are predetermined or subject to fate;
who is afflicted by famine; and by military reverses; who mostly remains
away from home; who has numerous enemies; who is in the clutches of
adverse times; and who is not devoted to truth and piety.
Do you follow the way of life that is in accordance with the way of the virtuous
and which is righteous, which our father treads and which our forbears trod?
Interestingly, all these dictums that poet Valmiki puts before us through Rama have
relevance to the governance of todays sovereigns or, for that matter, even modern-day
businesses toothe need to place the right man in the right job; right age and
experience; the willingness of the CEO to put the organizational interest before his own
interests; observance of proper etiquette while interacting with stakeholders; the
necessity of personal sacrifice of the CEOs for the top performance of the companies;
commitment to righteousness, etc. are ever important. By making Rama enquire
Bharata, O, gentle brother! I hope the eternal kingdom has in no way suffered from
your youthful experience, Valmiki highlights the need for years of seasoning, which
even modern management pundits like Jay A Conger, the Henry Kravis Chaired
Professor of Leadership at Claremont McKenna College in California, consider as an
essential aid for a leader to be effective.


Box 7.1 George Merck: The Leader Who Put profit second
The Merck & Co., boss didnt worry about Wall Street and grew profits 50-
fold.

Late one afternoon in 1978, Dr. William Campbell did what all great
researchers do: He wondered at the data. While testing a new compound to
battle parasites in animals, he was struck with the idea that it might be
effective against another parasite one that causes blindness and itching in
humans so horrific that some victims have committed suicide. Campbell
might have simply scribbled a note in the files and gone to lunch. After all, the
potential customers tribal people in remote tropical locations would
have no money to buy it. Undaunted, Campbell penned a memo to his
employer, Merck & Co., urging pursuit of the idea. Today 30 million people a
year receive Mectizan, the drug inspired by his observation, largely free of
charge. The most exceptional part of the story is that it wasnt an exception.
Medicine is for people, not for the profits, George Merck II declared on the
cover of Time in August 1952 a rule his company observed in dispensing
Streptomycin to Japanese children following World War II. Yet fuzzy-headed
moralistic fervor wasnt George Merck. Austere and patrician, he simply
believed that the purpose of a corporation is to do something useful, and to
do it very well. And if we have remembered that, the profits have never failed
to appear, he explained. The better we remembered, the larger they have
been. Its the mirror image of CEOs whose unhealthy fixations with Wall
Street have served neither people nor profits: Merck served shareholders so
well precisely because he served others first.

Source: Adapted from The 10 Greatest CEOs of All Time, Jim Collins,
Effective Executive, September 2010, pp. 42-47


What poet Valmiki makes Rama teach his brother, Bharata, who is to be the ruler of
Ayodhya, as to what, as a scion of Raghu clan, he is supposed to do and how he, as the
ruler of Ayodhya, should conduct himself, is what Conger puts forth in different words:
if we have to teach and train managers to be leaders, they must be made to appreciate
at a very personal level the demands of being an effective leader. Valmikis articulation
about the importance of assigning the various duties to appropriately qualified people
and seeking advice from wise people for ensuring the welfare of the people makes it
clear that no single individual, however mighty he is, can do everything by himself. The
importance of this advice is highlighted by Michael Dell and Kevin Rollins, joint CEOs of
Dell, in their interview toHarvard Business ReviewDell: Its a myth that one person
can really run a company; Rollins: Either he doesnt actually run it, or he dies
trying.
3
Valmikis Rama, besides making Bharata thus understand the personal
discipline and high standards that one has to set for oneself as the king, also shows him
how he can fail.
Rama, the Teacher, Walks the Talk

According to Conger, The leader must consistently role-model the critical behaviors
that he or she wishes for followers to embrace. Indeed, this is what Valmiki too
highlights in the next Canto in which Bharatahaving been asked by Rama, What
brings you here now to the forest with all this paraphernalia?begins his attempt to get
Rama back to Ayodhya.

Bharata first emphasizes to Rama the unbroken tradition in the Ikshvaku family, that of
the eldest son succeeding to the throne. Second, he says that he is not willing to submit
to his mothers improper wish: My mothers attempt should be completely foiled; I do
not wish to profit from it. Indeed he goes to the extent of saying, My father was
induced to these ill-proceedings by Kaikeyi. She has ruined her great name through
history and she has committed a great sin. Continuing with his pleading, Bharata says,
The power to emulate your ruling capacity does not lie in me, and implores Rama to
oblige him by accepting the throne of Ayodhya.

But Rama was not to be won over by such earnest appeals. Embracing Bharata, Rama
says: How can a man of noble descent perpetrate a sinful act for the sake of
sovereignty? I do not discover even a minute fault in you. Nor should you reproach
your mother through ignorance. Scriptures permit freedom of action to elders with
reference to their esteemed wife and progeny. The emperor [King Dasaratha] was
perfectly within his rights to send me to a forest with the bark of trees wrapped about
me and wearing the skin of a black buck about my loins or install me on the throne of
Ayodhya. Commanded by the parents, to proceed to the forest, how can I do anything
else?

Then Bharata argues that A son who honours only a good deviation (from
righteousness) of a father is accepted as a real son in this world. He who acts otherwise
than this would be facing a quite reverse situation. You be that real son. Do not submit
yourself to the improper act, committed by our father, which in this world, confident
men freely condemn. He further pleads: I am only a boy. Dont put too much on my
unripe shoulders I have brought everything from the capital I have brought all the
gurus; Vasishtha is here all things are here. It is my intention to have you crowned
here Let me anoint you here. Persisting with his fervent appeal, Bharata beseeches
Rama, shirasaa tvaa abhiyaace aham kuruShva karuNaam mayi / baandhaveShu ca
sarveShu bhuuteShu iva mahaa iishavaraH (2-106:31)I request you by bowing my
head before you. Show compassion on me and on all our relatives like Lord Shiva on all
beings.

Rama is however absolutely firm about his dharma when he says, Father has laid on me
one dutygoing to the forest. He has laid on you another duty, being king at Ayodhya.
Go and get yourself crowned.... Carry out our fathers wish as I am carrying out his
wish.

At some point, as these two brothers are trying to convince each other of their respective
point of view with due respect to each other, Vasishtha intervenes saying, in the
Ikshvaku family, in every single case a dead king had been succeeded by the eldest
son, sanaatanam kula dharmam (2-110:36)This is the eternal tradition of your race;
so, you better come and rule the kingdom O, Rama the tormentator of the enemies! I
am the spiritual Preceptor to your father and to you too. In obeying my words, you will
not transgress the path of the virtuous. But Rama politely refuses to accept his view
saying, No son can ever adequately repay what he takes from his parents ... aajnaatam
yan mayaa tasya na tan mithyaa bhaviShyati (2-111:11) Indeed I will not fail to do
what my father bade me to do.

Bharata then says, I am going to perform prayopavesa as my brother is not willing to
yield to me. I will lie down on the kusa grass. I refuse to eat, refuse to sleep until my
brother yields. Then Rama chides him saying: This is quite wrong prayopavesa is
not our, warrior class, province. We ought not to do it.

Even after noticing Ramas disapproval, Bharata does not at once get up from
the upavesa. Instead he asks the people who accompanied him, Why dont you say a
word to my brother? See how obstinate he is? Speak to him. Though they are all
interested in getting Rama back, they could not but say, What are we to do? Your
brother seems to be right.

As a last resort to get Rama back, Bharata says, Brother, this kingdom is yours. You
accept it and if you want, then appoint a regent, whom you feel suitable to rule on your
behalf. Pleased to hear what Bharata said, Rama says, Through the extraordinary
humility that you have now shown, you have proved to me your competence to rule the
kingdom. If still there are any doubts, you can always take the advice of ministers. So,
giving up any hope that you might have of my returning to Ayodhya abandoning the
promise given by me to parents, or my dharma, please go and rule the kingdom. Lastly,
Rama also advises Bharata to treat Kaikeyi as a mother should be treated.

Their contention for surrendering their right to sovereignty, of course, comes to an end
with Bharata accepting to rule Ayodhya as the trustee of Rama by placing the sandals of
Rama on the throne. But what poet Valmiki wants todays leaders to learn from this
enlightening discourse between Rama and Bharatain which both brothers decline
their legitimate right to power, though both of them had a claim over the kingdom in
their own way, which neither of them wanted to exerciseis: never go against the
canons of human values and importantly Dharma.


Box 7.2 Azim Hasham Premjis Value-Based Leadership at
Wipro
On the sudden demise of his father, M H Premji, Azim Hasham Premji
(Premji) was called upon to manage Wipro when he was just 21 years old.
He therefore quit his studies at Stanford University, USA to take over the
management of family business. In 1966, when he took over the
management, Wiprothe 2-million companywas engaged in the
manufacturing of hydrogenated cooking fats.

Since then, the company has been on a rapid growth path. In the late
1970s, when IBM was expelled from India, Premji seized the opportunity
and started manufacturing mini-computers to capitalize on the growing
demand for computers in India. Although he had no knowledge or
experience in the field, Premji, collaborating with scientists from the
Indian Institute of Science (IIS) in Bangalore, could achieve success with
his product line. Thus was born the company Wipro Technologies in 1980.
In 1984, Wipro Systems Ltd. was established as Wipros software products
subsidiary. Later on, when the Indian markets were liberalized in 1991,
Wipro started producing software for export to the US. In 1994, as a move
towards business integration, all the subsidiaries were merged into Wipro
Ltd.

Under Premjis leadership, Wipro has grown into a company that has
varied businesses ranging from IT services to consumer goods worth $2.8
bn as of March 2012, serving customers across the globe. As of March
2012, Premji owns 78.18% of Wipro shares, making him one of the richest
men in India. According to Premji, the success of Wipro squarely rests on
the value system that the company has breathed in, which he describes as:
When I look at where we have come, what gives me tremendous personal
satisfaction is not so much the success, but the fact that we achieved this
success without compromising on the values we defined for ourselves.
Values combined with a powerful vision can turbo-charge a company to
scale new heights and make it succeed beyond ones wildest expectations.

In July 2007, Business Week nominated Premji as one of the top 30 all-
time great entrepreneurs in the world, along with Bill Gates and Michael
Dell. The magazine said, After making the company profitable Premji
led Wipro into the nascent tech economy in the 1970s. Premji is also a
hands-on manager involved in its day-to-day operations, even making sales
calls himself.

According to Steve Hamm, author of Bangalore Tiger: How Indian Tech
Upstart Wipro Is Rewriting the Rules of Global Competition (2006), One
of Premjis most important accomplishments has been creating a sinewy
management culture that thrives even under intense competitive pressure.
He established two core principles that are instrumental in building the
character of his leadership team. The first is rare among Indias family-
controlled companies: The chairman is not king. While Premji owns a
controlling stake in Wipro, he shares authority and responsibility with his
subordinates. The second key principle: Premji believes in a zero-politics
culture. At Wipro, backstabbing, playing favorites, and kissing up to the
bosstactics that sap much of American executives energysimply dont
work. Open and honest disagreements are not only tolerated, but also
required of everyone.

In a study conducted by Hewitt Associates in 2003, Premji was voted as the
top CEO of 2004 selected in the Asia-Pacific region. The study pointed out
that Premji was a leader who paid immense attention to the processes of
developing and attracting leaders.

Premji believed in empowering people so that they could express their
opinions and ideas freely. Employee feedback and communication was a
transparent process and was considered to be the cornerstone of progress
at Wipro.

Premji believed in: Values provide us with courage to stand up to any
distractions along the way. The strong desire to move ahead can at times
tempt businesses to cut corners or bend the rules. Values provide the
necessary brakes or limits to keep leadership from going astray. Values
essentially provide us with an internal discipline. According to him, values
also developed trust in the organization. Trust helped in building better
relationships with friends, peers, team-members and business associates.

Talking about Premjis leadership style, Pratik Kumar, Corporate Vice-
President, Human Resources, Wipro Limited said, He believes that
personal credibility is one of the most important traits of a leader.
Leadership must coach and energize others is what Mr. Premji
demonstrates at the training sessions. Mr. Premji knows when to back out
of the limelight and credit someone else in the organization with success.

Premji believed that excellence in the organization could be built by
creating an obsession with excellence. According to him, the driver of
excellence is internala battle that one has to fight with oneself by
constantly raising the bar and stretching oneself and ones team. He also
believes that excellence calls for self-confidence and this calls for a culture
of teaming at all levels. He says humility is another prerequisite of
excellenceelse one may become arrogant and lose the battle. Premji also
placed great importance on innovation and creativity in developing a
successful organization.

It is these leadership traits of Premji that made his competitor N R
Narayana Murthy, Chairman Emeritus, Infosys, say, Wipro is a good
competitor and full of decent people. I would give Azim Premji the credit
for the companys value system.

Source: Adapted from Azim Hasham Premjis Value-Based Leadership,
Case Folio The Icfai Journal of Management Case studies, August,
2008, pp 58-74.

So, What Is It Valmiki Is Teaching Us?
The poet is articulating about Dharma and the importance of adhering to it. Valmiki, by
depicting Rama as the upholder of Dharma, as the axis of the universe which revolves
around the twin poles of compassion and renunciation, is placing, to borrow the words
of modern management guru Peter Drucker, such great emphasis on the character of
managers [kings] and on the immense responsibilities they bear. Besides, the
characters of both the brothers, Rama and Bharata, are carved in such a way that they
both assert their individuality, nobility, freedom, and strengthall to stand by their
irreducible, unconquerable moral resolvesimply reflecting, in Druckers words, a
terrible urgency of moral purpose.

Secondly, Valmiki makes it abundantly clear how important it is for a leader to walk the
talk if he intends to make his followers adapt to his philosophy by deftly positioning
Ramas instructions to Bharata on good governance prior to his asserting his irrevocable
commitment to practice righteousness by refusing to yield to Bharatas prayer to return
to Ayodhya in the subsequent scene. It also proves what Hans-Paul Burkner, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Boston Consulting Group, once said: Good advice
comes in the form of deeds, not words.

Thirdly, Valmiki, by making Bharata carry out Ramas advice (to fulfill his fathers
command of ruling Ayodhya) but in his own waykeeping Ramas sandals on throne
and ruling Ayodhya on Ramas behalfis subtly saying that acting on the advice works
best when you do it your way, a thought which Burkner proposed based on his own
experience: The best advice I ever got came not by listening, but by observing one of my
colleagues, Tom Lewisby watching his behavior, coming to understand his philosophy,
and then adapting it to my own style, the style of directness that came naturally to
me, as against Toms subtlety.

By making Rama listen to every argument put forward by Bharata, saint Vasishtha, and
others, by making him patiently reason out with them as to why the dharma does not
permit him to disobey his fathers command and why he cannot concede to the
pleadings of all those for his return to Ayodhya for taking up the kingship, and finally by
making him give his sandals to Bharata who wanted to rule the kingdom only on Ramas
behalf, Valmiki is emphasizing how important it is for leaders to care for the shubham
general good of all. No leader of today can afford to ignore this simple truth.

The style of interaction that Valmiki has structured between Rama and Bharata and its
outcome show that good relationships, as psychologist John M Gottman, Executive
Director, Relationship Research Institute, Seattle, says, arent about clear
communicationtheyre about small moments of attachment and intimacy. Secondly,
the whole act of Bharatas rushing to Chitrakuta accompanied by the ministers, sages,
mothers and other important people of Ayodhya and his earnest pleading with Rama to
accept the crown, and Ramas patient listening and careful answering, as also his
requesting Bharata to treat his mother honorably, shows that respect and affection are
the two most important things which matter for success in relationshipsa fact that
has also been inferred by Gottman from his experimental studies. So, the takeaway for
todays executives is: Be it within families, or at workplaces, it is only good relations that
ultimately result in shubham(general good of all)the summum bonum of the existence
of any organization.
Valmikis Hanuman : The Definition of Active-Loyalist


Loyalty is the acceptance of bonds that our relationships with others entail, and acting
in a way that defends and reinforces the attachment inherent in these relationships. It is
the cornerstone of stability in all our relationships. One can be loyal to many: friend,
lover, family, community, employer, country, etc. Some loyalties could be more
important to an individual than others. Simply put, loyalty is the counterpart of the
word my, said Timothy Keininham and Lerzan Aksoy.
1


Loyalty to an organization is more abstract than loyalty to a friend or family. This
emanates mostly from our friendship with colleagues, and it is this loyalty to our
colleagues and friends in the organization that serves as the glue between us and the
organization. Timothy Keininham and Lerzan Aksoy identify yet another reason for
loyalty towards organizations: it is the need to accomplish something, and to be a part
of something larger than ourselves. It indeed supports our view of ourselves within the
society. No matter whether it is loyalty towards a friend or lover, or towards an
organization, to be loyal, one needs to have commitmentemotional bond. But mere
commitment is not enough to prove that one is loyal, for loyalty demands recognition of
the bonds that one has with the other and action that reinforces those bonds. Which is
why loyalty is actionaction that strengthens the bondage. It is only when commitment
transforms into action that loyalty comes into existence.

Followers: All Are Not Same

In the case of organizations, the action of the employees is again defined by how actively
they associate themselves with the organizational pursuits and its leadership. In this
context it is desirable to have a look at how Barbara Kellerman
2
, a political scientist,
differentiated the followers of a leader based on their level of engagement in the
organizational affairs. According to her, followers can be divided into five groups, viz.,
isolatescompletely detached, do not care about their leaders, nor do they know anything
about them or respond to them in anyway, yet they are important, for their alienation is of
significance for a leader, and unwittingly strengthens the superiority of leaders;
bystandersthey observe, but do not participate, deliberately choose to
disengage themselves from their leader, indeed from whatever is the group
dynamic, thus help to maintain the status quo;
participantsthey are engaged in oneway or the other, clearly favor their leaders and the
groups to which they belong or oppose, in either case, they invest some of what they have to
leave an impact;
activiststhey are eager, energetic and engaged, indeed they feel strongly about their
leaders and act accordingly; they work vigorously either to elevate the leader or to unseat
him; and
diehardsthey are ready to sacrifice themselves for the cause they believe in, deeply
devoted to their leaders, or in contrast, can dethrone them from their seat by adopting every
means; in either case, they are quite dedicated to their cause.
In the opinion of Barbara, this typology helps both the leader and his followers to know
what they are made up of and translate that into what they can do. It indeed tells how
people with less power respond to those who have more powerfrom doing absolutely
nothing to going all out in full speed to work for organizational goals or vice versa.

Valmikis Classification of Followers
Interestingly, saint poet Valmiki makes Rama, the protagonist of his
epic Ramayana, classify agents of the master into three categories:

yo hi bhrityo niyuktah san bhartraa karmani dushhkare ||
kuryaattadunuraagena tamahuh purushhottamam |

yo niyuktah param kaaryam na kuryaannaripateh priyam ||
bhrityo yuktah samarthashcha tamaahurmadhyam naram |

niyukto nripateh kaaryam na kuryaadyah samaahitah ||
bhrityo yuktah samarthashcha tamaahuh purushhdhamam | (6-1:7-9)

People belonging to the first group are those who, noting their leaders intention, both
explicit and implicit, perform not only what their master told them expressly, but also
other tasks that will have a bearing on easy accomplishment of the main purpose. These
people have a brain of their own and also have devotion to the leader which impels them
to do all that is needed for their leader. The second group of people just do what they
have been asked to do, nothing more. The third group of people, when entrusted with a
duty, will return to say that they were not able to do it.

Obviously, when we talk about organizational loyalty, it is the people falling under the
groups activists and diehards of Barbara Kellerman, and the first group of people of
Valmiki who matter most. Indeed, Valmiki chiseled a few charactersof which
Hanuman and Vibhishana stand out as classic examples of activist followers with loyalty
for their leaderin Ramayana, perhaps, to prove how important it is for a leader to have
loyal activists in accomplishing his goals and how fateful it would be for a leader to
ignore the voice of concern aired by a loyal activist. Let us now take a critical look at
some of the scenes from the epic that throw light on these aspects.

Hanuman: A Classic Activist-Loyalist
In Sundarakanda, we come across Hanuman, who is wise, moderate in counsel, and of
forethought, executing the assignment of finding Sita in Lanka with utmost devotion,
rectitude and a sense of duty. Hanuman, like a comet spanning the whole sky, takes his
flight above the sea and having crossed it, lands on Mount Lamba in Lanka.

Then from Mount Trikuta, taking a look at the city of Lanka, he thinks that it will be a
tough job to conquer this city. Even a war against Ravana seems to be a tough
proposition. He decides to first search for Sita. His loyalty to the task can be gauged
from the fact that he worries that because of him Sita should not be put to any trouble.
He therefore decides to trace her only through crafty means, for there is no better way to
outsmart crafty people than through craft.

He then assumes a microscopic shape, thinking it is the best means for finding Sitas
whereabouts. As the moon spreads coolness across Lanka he starts the search
assiduously in the abodes of Prahasta, Kumbhakarna and others. There is no trace of
Sita. He then enters the interiors of Ravanas castle. Even there he could not find Sita.
Then he enters the pleasure resort of Ravana. Later, he enters Ravanas feasting room.
Seeing strange ladies lying carelessly, he questions himself, What am I to do? Is this
right of me? Feasting his eyes upon these ladies, he feels he might be transgressing the
moral code. He reflects: My fate has led me to see the women of another person lying
about and sleeping I have not done this before, but I am obliged now to do this
improper thing. Immediately, another reflection follows: Yes, I have seen these
women of Ravana, but I can say consciously that my mind is not in any way affected I
have come here to look for Sita. The natural thought is that she might be found among
the women. Am I to go and look for Sita among deer? He then reassures himself
thinkingMano hi hetuh sarvesam / Indriyanam pravartane, / Subha subhasu
avasthesu / Tat ca me suvyasthitam (5-11:41)that manasmind which directs the
senses in right ways and wrong ways, is under my full control and continues with the
task.

Interestingly, this genuine reflection of Hanuman upon his seeing Ravanas women
atyardham dharmalopam karishyati (5-11:37), it ruins my dharmais similar to
todays management theorists prescription that loyalty does not mean blind loyaltyof
surrendering ones values to the cause of organization. Like any virtue, loyalty, if it goes
too far, is in danger of becoming toxic, says Timothy Keininham and Lerzan Aksoy.
According to them, a follower should never ever ignore ones moral compass while
being loyal to a leader.

Telling himself thus, Hanuman searches the whole of Ravanas palace but could not find
any trace of Sita. He speaks to himself thus: My efforts have been a complete failure.
Can it be that she has yielded to Ravana? Had Ravana put an end to Sita, or could it be
that Sita, frightened by these terrible Raksasa women, herself took her life? What shall I
say to Rama who is anxiously waiting for information? If I go back to Kishkindha and
admit my failure, what will Sugriva think of me? and the unhappy brothers? and the
assembled and expectant monkeys? My return home will be attended with an endless
chain of deaths, the destruction of the royal family of Ayodhya and of the entire race of
vanaras If I stay away here, it is just possible that the heroic brothers will sustain
themselves with hope, and source my brethren the monkeys who have sunny
dispositions by nature. Frustrated in my mission, I had better turn anchorite. Or I
shall erect a funeral pyre and burn myself on it.

Here, in this stream of thought, we see Hanuman worrying, one, about the failure of the
mission; two, its impact on the leaders i.e., Rama and Lakshamana, and Sugriva; and
importantly, three, its impact on his colleagues, vanaras. A true loyal person remains
loyal not only to the establishment for which he works, but also to his colleagues there.
Indeed, as Timothy Keininham and Lerzan Aksoy observed, loyalty to an organization
emanates from the loyalty one cultivates towards the colleagues. That is the loyalty of
active followers: the acceptance of bonds that the relationships with others entail, and
acting in a way that strengthens and reinforces the attachment inherent in these
relationships. It is the cornerstone of stability in all our relationshipsloyalty at its
maximum.

Immediately following this frustration, Hanuman curses himself thus: Wretched fool!
What a dismal train of thought I have followed! To give way to despair is sure to lead to
mishaps. Holding on to life is the only way for successes. Come on, where is my courage
gone! Anirvedo hi satatam sarvarthesu pravartakah / Karoti saphalam jantoh karma
yat tat karoti sah (5-12:10&11)hope is the source of all good deeds. Everything is
obtained through exuberance. The wise men insist on enthusiastic effort in all human
endeavors. So I shall continue my search with renewed vigor. Where I have not looked
yet, I will go now and see. Like most of us, activists too, when assigned with great tasks,
sway between moods of confidence and pessimism, but will not give up easilyfor they
are eager, energetic and engaged.

Motivating the to be an Activist Follower
Coaxing himself thus, and praying to gods, Hanuman recommences the pursuit of the
mission. Here, we must appreciate one thing: the leader is not around, yet the follower,
Hanuman motivates himself afresh to undertake the task assigned. This makes one
wonder: Why does a follower follow a leaders instruction so steadfastly? Freud, writing
his last bookMoses and Monotheism
3
used the biblical theme to find an answer to
this most intriguing question: Why do people follow leaders? According to him, human
beings have a strong need for authority. This need is the consequence of our relationship
with the dominant father during our childhood. He then goes on to relate the need for
authority with our religionimplying that our relationship to God is similar to and
derives from our submissive relationship with father. In his view, all power relationships
will always have an element of admiration and envy on the one hand, and fear and
loathing on the other.

This leads to another question: Does this hold good even today? As Plato said, we, being
social animals, strive to be with a group that protects us from the other. Secondly,
consciously or unconsciously, we believe that our wants as individuals are well met if we
play the role of a follower, for leaders provide safety, security and a sense of order by
virtue of offering a community to which one can belong.

The obvious next question is: For what group benefits do we follow a leader? According
to Freud, our behavior as group members is quite different from our behavior as
individualsby the mere fact that one forms part of an organized group, a man
descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization. As an individual, one may be a
cultivated man, but as a member of crowd, he displays barbarism, merely acting on
instinct. So, groups need leaders, as otherwise there is a danger of their reverting to
barbarian, avers Freud. According to him, we want to be governed by unrestricted
force.
4
Robert Michels
5
too argues that it is the incompetency of the masses which
makes leaders indispensable. Barbara Kellarman states that people in groups follow
their leaders because they provide groups with a structure, with a goal and with
instruments of goal achievement, which are appealing.

The next question is how followers and leaders relate to each other? This, of course, has
a striking range. On the one hand, we have leaders who are brutes, tyrants, and dictators
like Ravana, with followers living at their mercy, while on the other, we have leaders
who are democrats, well-intentioned, like Rama, treating the followers as their partners.
Many theorists grappled with the question: What is the appropriate relationship
between the ruler and the ruled? And it has been constantly aired: equality. But this
appears to be a mere ideal, a fantasy.

Then came James MacGregor Burns who presumed that both democratic leadership and
democratic followership exist. He came up with transactional leadershipan economic
model in which leaders and followers have an exchange of some kind, from which both
parties stand to benefit. There could also be transforming leadershipwhere one or
more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one
another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Though these two are different,
there is nevertheless a similarity in them: they both take into account the needs and
wants of both leaders and followers. Sensing the slowly creeping change in the corporate
world, Burns opines: Leaders, in responding to their own motives, appeal to the
motives of potential followersas followers respond, a symbiotic relationship develops
that binds leader and follower together.

The next question is: How do followers behave? Literature reveals that followers of
charismatic leaders or cult leaders exhibit willingness to make personal sacrifices, like
Hanuman, in the interest of the mission and because of their strong emotional
attachment to their leaders. When it comes to ordinary leaderstransactional but not
transformationalit is predicted that the leaders ability to motivate followers is defined
by the strength of the leader to behave in a way that exemplifies the values and ideals
that are shared by the groups they lead. Now, the obvious question is: How do followers
behave when leaders are not charismatic? The answer is, perhaps, we know very little
except to predict that followers disengagemerely follow the leader, like the majority of
the Ravanas followers (unlike Vibhishana, Kumbhakarna, Maricha, and Mahadari), for
there is no alternative.

Though lot of research has been carried out on what makes a good leader, little is done
to understand what it calls for to become a good follower. In the recent past, researchers
have, however, started paying greater attention to questions like: What is a followers
role? What are the followers rights and responsibilities? This is indeed a healthy
development, for it is a pointer towards our viewing leadership as a relationship that
involves at least two people: one leader and one follower; and similarly, followership is
relationship involving one follower and one leader, says Barbara Kellerman.
Nonetheless, there are great followers, exemplary followers, and loyalist followers in
every organization without whom no organization can survive.