27

India: Diversity and Complexity in Action

Jagdeep S. Chhokar
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

India is a country of great diversity. There are substantial regional, linguistic, cultural, and religious variations across the country. Given the wide range of variation, it should be impossible to generalize not only about the society, organizations, and leaders in India, but also about organizational and leadership practices in Indian organizations. There is, however, hope because:

It is in this spirit that this chapter reports the India-specific findings of the GLOBE Research Project. The following section attempts to describe the evolution of India's society and culture, concluding with a description of the current situation. It is followed by a brief description of leadership in India. The methodology of GLOBE research in India is described next, followed by presentation of the results of the qualitative and quantitative analyses. A brief note containing some basic information on India can be found in Appendix A.

1.  SOCIETY AND CULTURE IN INDIA

Any attempt at describing society and culture in India must begin with three assertions. One, though the political entity that is today known as India formally came into being only 50 years ago, the broader region that has been the cradle for what is called Indian culture, society, and civilization, has long been a loose, informal confederation joined by an indefinable similarity of social and cultural customs and practices. It is therefore more accurate to refer to it as a cultural unit rather than a political entity. Two, the physical boundaries of this cultural unit have differed during various periods of history. The boundaries were almost never identical to what the boundaries of today's India are. The cultural unit in terms of geographical area was almost always larger than what India is today. Lastly, India as it exists today is a composite of multiple influences in a civilization that has continued to evolve for more than 5,000 years. What may be termed as the culture of India today is the outcome of, or merely the current stage in, a process of evolution of a continually living and changing culture. What follows is a brief, somewhat inadequate description of the origins and evolution of Indian culture, because any attempt at capturing the mosaic of Indian culture in a few pages is bound to be inadequate.

The social and cultural roots of India are shrouded in antiquity. Archaeological excavations of the Indus Valley civilization at several locations, of which Harappa and Mohenjo Daro are the best known, attest to a highly developed civilization in the third millennium BC (Basham, 1954/1967).

The study of ancient Indian civilization in the Western scientific mode began in the mid-1700s during the British period. However, India had a long tradition of oral history. Indian folklore is full of kings and noblemen of all shades—good, brave, wise to bad, cowardly, and foolish. A constant refrain in folklore is the presence of sages, seers, and saints who renounced the material world, and practiced and propagated spiritualism. Though agriculture was the predominant occupation, other activities such as trade and commerce, art (e.g., Ajanta cave paintings), architecture (temples), performing arts (classical dance forms), music, poetry, education (e.g., Taxsila and Nalanda Universities¹), science (particularly astronomy), urban planning and design (Indus Valley cities), and religion also thrived.

Basham (1954/1967) claims that Indian history emerged from “legend and dubious tradition” in the sixth century BC, and what emerged was a society highly developed materially, intellectually, and spiritually. It was also characterized by a great sense of fairness in social and civic relations. “In no other early civilization were slaves so few in number, and in no other ancient law book are their rights so well protected as in the Arthasastra. No other ancient lawgiver proclaimed such noble ideals of fair play in battle as did Manu.… The most striking feature of ancient India's civilization is its humanity” (Basham, 1954/1967, p. 8).

Basham stresses the “secular literature, sculpture, and painting” of the time and points out that the “people enjoyed life, passionately delighting both in the things of the senses and the things of the spirit” (p. 9). He describes ancient India as “a cheerful land, whose people, each finding a niche in a complex and slowly evolving social system, reached a higher level of kindliness and gentleness in their mutual relationship than any other nation in antiquity” (p. 9). The collectivist and humane nature of Indian society can thus possibly be traced back to these ancient roots.

The predominant political system was of kings ruling their individual territories. Though kings were originally elected, the system soon became one of succession based on heredity, with the king being succeeded by the eldest son. Women were excluded from succession though there were a few exceptions. The equivalent of modern-day councils of ministers and state assemblies often existed, but the authority and responsibility for governance rested almost exclusively with the king. Nehru (1985) describes the king in ancient India as an “autocratic monarch” who most of the time functioned within established conventions. This possibly contributes to the fairly widespread preference for “strong” leadership in India even today.

The culture of ancient India was continuously modified by a series of invasions, the last one being the British, which ended in 1947. These began about 2000 BC with what has come to be called the Aryan invasion. “The Aryan invasion of India was not a single concerted action, but one covering centuries and involving many tribes, perhaps not all of the same race and language” (Basham, 1954/1967, p. 30). The native people of India were peace-loving agriculturalists, and did not offer much resistance to the invading tribes. All these tribes got assimilated and absorbed in to the native population in a thorough mix. The system of a king being the head of a tribe that occupied a demarcated geographical area continued. This was also the period when the well-known spiritual texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads, were composed, and to which the popular epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, are attributed. The sixth century BC saw the advent of Buddhism and Jainism as separate religions. Buddha himself was a prince who renounced the material world for the spiritual. India was invaded by the famous Greek general, Alexander of Macedon (also called Alexander the Great) in 326 BC, who left behind garrisons, and appointed satraps to govern the conquered territories. However revolts in Indian provinces and the death of Alexander in 323 BC lessened the Greek control, and the last of Alexander's generals, Eudamus, left the Indian northwest in 317 BC.

The first major Muslim invasion of India was by the Turkish chieftain Mahmud, who had established a powerful kingdom at Gazni in Afghanistan. Mahmud of Gazni conducted 17 raids on northwestern India between 1001 and 1027 AD. These were essentially pillaging raids and Mahmud did not stay to reign. Mahmud died in 1030 AD, and the next important invasion was that by Shahab-ud-din Ghuri, another Afghan, who conquered Delhi in 1192 AD. Such periodic incursions continued until the beginning of the Mughal Empire in India when Babar, a Turco-Mongol and a prince of the Timurid line in central Asia, occupied Delhi in 1526. The Mughal Empire lasted for about 200 years and its decline started with the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. After a period of strife and struggle, the British Empire began its reign in 1757 when Robert Clive won the battle of Plassey in Bengal.² There were, however, other smaller invasions that had taken place in between. Following a visit by Vasco de Gama to Calicut, on the western coast of south India, the Portuguese set up a colony in Goa in the early 1500s. British rule ended with the independence of India in 1947 and the present Republic of India was proclaimed in 1950 with the adoption of a new constitution.

Throughout these long periods of domination, by the Mughals and the British, the political structure in the region remained more or less the same. There were territories directly administered by the conquerors, along with a large number of local “princely” states that had individual and varying relationships with a major ruling administration. Some were semiautonomous and were formal protectorates of the ruling administration; some were quite independent and had a friendly relationship, whereas others maintained an independent and antagonistic relationship. Most of the invaders, except the Greeks and the British, stayed on in India, and in some ways got absorbed and assimilated in to the local indigenous social and cultural milieu, also influencing and changing it in the process. The British period, for example, resulted in a new group referred to as “Anglo-Indians” consisting of the offspring from the marriages between the British and native Indians, which continues to exist as an integral part of Indian society even today. Intermarriages among the invaders-turned-local-rulers and the indigenous nobility, though not frequent, did take place from time to time. There were long, almost continuous periods of ferment when India reacted to these new situations subconsciously, absorbing the new foreign elements into itself, and herself changing in the process. These influences percolated all aspects of culture including language, religion, and traditions, and resulted in a situation where the different groups coexisted in mutual harmony despite the differences of language and religion.

Caste System

One of the most widely known and commented upon features of Indian society is the caste system. The origin of this particular usage of the term caste is traced by Basham (1954/1967) to the 16th century when the Portuguese came to India and “found the Hindu community divided into many separate groups which they [the Portuguese] called castas, meaning tribes, clans or families” (p. 149). The well-known four fold classification—Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras—in descending order of social status, is believed to have been first enunciated by the ancient law giver Manu some time in the Vedic period (1500–1000 BC). These four are the varnas, aggregated macro groupings, which were further divided into a myriad castes and subcastes. Each varna, caste, and subcaste had an internal hierarchical social order. The distinctions between adjacent hierarchical levels both between and within a varna, caste, and subcaste were somewhat blurred, particularly at the boundaries.

Caste is often “defined as a system of groups within the class which are normally endogamous (marriage being legitimate only within the group), commensal (food to be received from and eaten only in the presence of members of the same or higher group), and craft-exclusive (each man to live by the trade or profession of his own group, and not take up that of another)” (Basham, 1954/1967, p. 149). Though the origins and rationale of the caste system are obscure, it gradually evolved into a social as well as economic structuring of society. Originally a feature of Hindu society, the influence of caste often transcended religion, and most non-Hindu religions in India developed their own versions of something like a caste system. Though it is the maladies of the caste system that attract the most comment today, there is also a view that maintains that the caste system served a useful purpose in society. It is claimed that the system provided “economic security in spite of obvious inequalities; and this security was guaranteed both by law and by custom” (Bose, 1967, p. 221).

The complementary noncompetitiveness was not confined to occupations; it also extended to the use of natural resources. Some recent analyses and interpretations of the workings of traditional Indian villages maintain that these were sustainable societies consisting of various castes. Each caste was dependent on a different component of the natural resource base for their primary economic activity. “Caste groups tended to pursue a relatively specialized and hereditary mode of subsistence. With their overlapping distributions and occupational specializations, the different caste groups were linked together in a web of mutually supportive relationships. This is not to say that caste society was at all egalitarian. It was in fact a sharply stratified society” (Gadgil & Guha, 1992, p. 93).

Though most descriptions portray the caste system as a rigid hierarchy, its actual practice appeared to have had at least some scope for changes. Basham (1954/1967) maintains that “castes rise and fall in the social scale, and old castes die out and new ones are formed” (p. 149). Srinivas (1966) referred to the concept of “sanskritisation” to denote attempts of lower castes to raise their status in society. The continued, though dynamic, existence of the caste system is one of the major sources of the high power distance index for India found in Hofstede's (1980) studies.

The caste system, being the basis of social and economic structuring of society, has obviously influenced the practice of leadership in India over the centuries. The ability to lead in wars with other states being a major requirement to defend a state, warrior-kings belonging to the martial group, Kshatriya, were very common. The kings were however often guided by the high priest, who belonged to the highest group, Brahmin, and had an exalted position in the king's court. Business, trading, and commerce, not being considered very noble activities, were left to the third level, Vaisya. These patterns of leadership continued until very recently, and can be seen in operation even today. A lot of social and political leaders have been from the so-called higher castes, whereas a number of business leaders continue to be from the lower castes. There has however been a distinct though gradual shift in political leadership with more leaders from the lower castes emerging, possibly as a result of the universal franchise system introduced since independence.

The Current Situation

The evolution of Indian society and culture has continued its course along with the march of time. The current situation is captured well by the People of India, a large-scale ethnographic project undertaken by the Anthropological Survey of India from 1985 to 1992 (Singh, 1992). It was found that “caste has weakened to some extent in recent years in terms of its adherence to hereditary occupation and norms of purity and pollution. It has also acquired new strength in a political sense as a constituency and as a vote bank” (p. 24).

The survey found that about 75% of the 4635 communities studied followed Hinduism, 12% followed Islam, 7% Christianity, 2.5% Sikhism; 2% each, Jainism and Buddhism; and about 0.2% for both Judaism and Zoroastrianism. An interesting finding was that as many as 393 communities comprised followers of two religions, and 16 had followers of as many as three religions. Linguistically, the survey identified a total of 325 languages belonging to 12 different language families. Apart from the languages, 24 different scripts were found to be in use. The incidence of bilingualism was found to be as high as 65.51% in terms of the number of communities.

The change in the rigidity and influence of the caste system also continues. The emerging national identity seems to coexist with the castes and communities acquiring clearly identifiable political identities:

The ferment in Indian society continues. With universal adult suffrage adopted as part of the Constitution of the Republic in 1950, the general populace has gradually come to realize the power of their franchise. This has led to a political awareness that differs from the political movement to end colonial rule. The Constitution also put in place a program for the uplift of the depressed sections of society by way of quotas and reservations for certain groups in employment, education, and so on. This affirmative action program, according to the Constitution, was originally meant for certain exceptionally disadvantaged groups and was to be in place for 10 years, which was considered an adequate length of time to bring them into the mainstream. It has subsequently been expanded to cover more groups, and has also been extended from time to time—almost indefinitely. There have been attempts by several communities to get into these special categories that get preferential treatment, prompting some social commentators to refer to the phenomenon as “de-sanskritisation.” These developments have led to a much more acute desire for equality, social as well as economic, on the part of large sections of society. It has also resulted in the emergence of several political formations whose ideology is essentially based on what is referred to as “social justice.” The entire system is thus embroiled in an intense and broad-based struggle with multiple stakeholders and contestants who are forever increasing in numbers and hence resulting in the formation of new groups.

Yet another struggle is at the religious and cultural levels, broadly coinciding with the resurgence of strong religious beliefs elsewhere in the world (e.g., Islam, Christianity, etc). Also in India there has been a resurgence of some strong beliefs in Hinduism, once described as a very broad-based, tolerant, and resilient faith (Basham, 1954/1967, p. 347). In Nehru's words, “Hinduism as a faith, is vague, amorphous, many sided, all things to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the word. In its present form, and even in the past, it embraces many beliefs and practices, from the highest to the lowest, often opposed to or contradicting each other. Its essential spirit seems to be to live and let live” (Nehru, 1985, p. 75). Being so amorphous, Hinduism allows itself to varying and differing interpretations. Some political groupings have chosen Hinduism as a platform that they feel would help them attain political power. Coinciding with religious resurgence elsewhere in the world, as suggested by changes in Iran, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the United States, it has also become an important and potentially contentious social and political issue in recent times.

Liberalization and restructuring of the economy has also been a major influence in recent years with particular emphasis on business and industry in India. India had been more or less a centrally planned economic system for almost four decades since its independence in 1947. Though there was a fairly well-developed and strong private sector, the overall economy was controlled and regulated by the government. Though some initial and tentative steps toward easing of controls were taken in the mid-1980s, a major exercise in restructuring and liberalization of the economy was undertaken from 1991 onward. Far-reaching changes in the economic environment have taken place in the last few years. Globalization is becoming an often-used expression. It is significant that broad economic policies have continued without any serious disturbance despite frequent changes in the government with political parties of different ideologies being in power.

Another feature of Indian society in the recent past has been the growth of materialism. In some ways it is also linked with economic liberalization and restructuring, and the information explosion resulting from the increasing spread of electronic mass media, particularly television. The rise of materialism coupled with a desire to get rich quickly has blurred the distinction between ends and means, resulting in fairly large-scale and deep-seated corruption. It has not been confined only to the lower levels of government officials but has also spread to almost the entire political system (Walsh, 1996).

The disillusionment with corruption in high places is somewhat counterbalanced by the judiciary, which has, over the last few years, become quite proactive. India has the fairly standard system of the three organs of the state—the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary—each being independent of one another as a system of checks and balances. The judiciary, for most of the time, had been a conservative, reactive, and sedate upholder of the law and interpreter of the statutes and the Constitution. Over the last few years, with the general populace losing confidence in the executive, particularly the bureaucracy, and becoming clearly disenchanted with the political class, the judiciary seems to have taken on its role much more actively. “Public interest litigation” in which concerned citizens file suits in court on matters of public and social interest, although they may not be affected by it individually, has become quite common. In some major and sensitive cases, the courts monitor the progress of investigations by decreeing that the investigating agencies report to them periodically, at specified intervals.

A major change is also under way concerning the political governance in the country. For almost 35 years since independence, the ruling party at the central government and in most state governments was the Indian National Congress, which had also been at the forefront of the independence movement. Some of the states had been governed by non-Congress parties for varying durations, and there were two short-lived attempts at a non-Congress government at the center. In the last 5 to 7 years however, a majority of states have voted non-Congress parties to power, and there is currently a coalition of 13 non-Congress parties in power at the center. Another distinguishing feature is that a number of parties in power in the states are regional in character, several confined solely to their respective states. Some of these regional parties also play significant roles in the coalition government at the center. The era of strong national parties and single-party governments at the center and in the states seems to be giving way to a system of strong regional parties that work together for mutual benefit at the national level. The political governance system thus seems to be moving from a unitary to a truly federal one.

All of the aforementioned developments are taking place against a general backdrop of increasing urbanization, gradual breakdown of the traditional rigidities of the caste system particularly in urban areas, increasing spread of literacy and education,³ and above all, rising levels of awareness and expectations. The situation in India therefore appears to be one of “sharing of environment and ethos by communities and of their vibrant participation in political and economic processes and ritual roles [and] a sense of harmony … in spite of conflicts and contradictions” (Singh, 1992, pp. 100–101). This situation suggests that India is likely to score high on the GLOBE societal collectivism dimension.

One of the leading social commentators, reviewing the developments in India as it approached the completion of 50 years of independence, described India to be a “major socio-historical entity representing one idea of one civil society that is composed of a small set of closely interrelated attributes. One large unity composed of diverse yet co-terminating pluralities” (Kothari, 1997, p. 7). He identified the following three major forces that have strongly influenced India over time and whose interactions have got “deeper and sharper [as] the Indian cultural landscape took a more political thrust”:

GLOBE Dimensions of Societal Culture

Given this kind of a background in society and culture, how may India be expected to show up on the core GLOBE dimensions of societal culture? This is a tricky question given the diversity and complexity of Indian culture and the transition it seems to be going through. Nonetheless some assessments follow. Collectivism, Humane Orientation, and Power Distance can be expected to be relatively high. Gender Egalitarianism is likely to be low because India continues to be a male-dominated society, like many others in spite of all sorts of laws and reforms that have been initiated from time to time. A high tolerance for uncertainty can be expected; hence low values of Uncertainty Avoidance. On similar lines, one may expect high Future Orientation. Both of these are based on the general long-term and even “hereafter” approach that is not too uncommon. Performance Orientation is more difficult to comment on and perhaps an expectation of moderate Performance Orientation is the most reasonable. This is in some way influenced by the teachings of what has been called “the most famous ethical text of ancient India, the Bhagvad Gita.” The essence of the teachings “is summed up in the maxim ‘your business is with the deed, and not the result.’” The general philosophy is that:

It enjoins people to do their duty without thinking about or expecting the outcome or results.

2.  LEADERSHIP IN INDIA

Leadership is a very popular issue in India. It is, or at least leaders are, a very common topic of discussion among people from all sections of Indian society. Whereas discussions about political leadership are possibly the most common, often with a certain amount of disdain, cynicism, and even disgust, leaders in other areas such as the captain of the Indian cricket team, and owners, founders, chief executives of leading business houses, are also discussed often. The importance of leadership is also attested to by the fact that statues of a variety of leaders—political, social, and religious—are erected all over, from big cities to small towns. A large number of public-service institutions such as hospitals, schools, colleges, and airports are named after leaders. Portraits of historical and religious leaders are often voluntarily displayed in public places such as shops, cafes, and offices.

India has obviously produced a large number and a wide variety of leaders over the centuries, and several of them have been very popular. The range of effective leadership can be illustrated by four examples, those of Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Akbar, and Gandhi. Chandragupta Maurya ruled for 24 years around 320 BC and has been described as the chief architect of the greatest of India's ancient empires (Basham, 1954/1967). He was a warrior-king who consolidated several smaller states into one large kingdom. He was the beneficiary of the advice from Chanakya (also known as Kautilya) who is believed to be the author of Arthasastra, a treatise on statecraft and governance. Chandragupta therefore was also very skillful at political manipulation. Ashoka, whose reign began around 269 BC, ruled as a tyrant for the first 8 years, which culminated in the conquest of Kalinga in which more than 100,000 people were believed to have been killed and over 150,000 captured. Ashoka then had a change of heart and became a pacifist. This is found in many of his “own inscriptions which are the oldest surviving Indian written documents of any historical significance … [consisting] of a series of edicts engraved in a very similar form on rocks and pillars at widely scattered points all over India” (Basham, 1954/1967, p. 53). These show Ashoka to be a benevolent king who introduced humanity in to his internal administration and abandoned aggressive warfare in his dealings with other states. He also strongly supported the doctrine of ahimsa, meaning nonviolence and noninjury to humans as well as animals, which was used very effectively centuries later by Gandhi in the Indian struggle for independence from the British rule. After his first 8 years, Ashoka became a prime example of a philosopher-king, an example that in a way was later repeated in modern India when Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, a scholar and professor of philosophy, was elected as the president of India in 1962.

The third example of historically effective leadership is that of Akbar (1555–1606), who was one of the Mughal Emperors. He seemed to have understood the complexity of Indian society and polity, and realized that tolerance of differences in religion, language, social customs, and so forth, was essential for the empire to survive. He abolished all preferences and discriminations based on religion, appointing people to high state offices with disregard to their religious beliefs, and encouraged intercommunal marriages by setting an example himself. He even tried to propagate a new integrative religion, Din-e-Illahi, which attempted to combine the best of all existing religions in India at that time. Akbar could thus be considered an enlightened pragmatic ruler.

The last example is that of Gandhi, who symbolized a unique style of leadership that converted materialistic weaknesses into spiritual and political strengths. Starting his professional life as a barrister, trained in Britain, and evolving into something like a self-sacrificing saint, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi⁴ was without doubt the most important leader of the 20th century who shaped the destiny of modern India. He is referred to as the “Father of the Nation” due to his signal contribution to the Indian freedom movement against the British rule. His approach consisting of nonviolent struggle and civil disobedience, which had its beginnings during his stay in South Africa, had a profound impact on the course of the Indian freedom struggle. His concept of Satyagraha (literal translation meaning “insistence on truth”) has found a permanent place in the industrial relations scenario in India as a common method of protest by unions and dissatisfied employees. It often takes the form of the employees sitting down and refusing to move unless their demands are met or satisfactory negotiations are concluded. Gandhi's statues are found in almost all cities and towns, roads and public buildings are often named after him, his birthday is observed as a national holiday, and his philosophy and teachings are invoked on numerous public occasions, though very little of it is followed in practice. It is not easy to label Gandhi's leadership style but charismatic, inspirational, visionary, and value based come closest to capturing the essence of his impact on the multitude of his followers.

Other important leaders of the 20th century were all those who contributed to the freedom struggle. Although there is almost a pantheon of these, two stand out: Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel. Nehru was the prime minister of the country for the first 17 years of its independent existence, until his death in 1963. He is credited with creating the industrial and technical infrastructure that India today has in terms of basic industries, though his economic policies of a planned economy have become a matter of debate over the last few years. Vallabhbhai Patel, often referred to as the Iron Man of India, was the minister for home affairs in the government of independent India. He was reputed to be a very able and strong administrator. He is credited with bringing about the merger of all the “princely” states with the Union of India, thus making the geographic expanse of India into a single political entity. Though both Nehru and Patel were extremely close to Gandhi, it is believed that Gandhi chose Nehru as his successor. It is widely speculated that independent India may have evolved into a very different kind of country had the practical and action-oriented administrator, Patel, been chosen by Gandhi instead of the romantic intellectual and visionary, Nehru, with his belief in Fabian socialism.⁵

It is interesting, as well as curious, that in spite of such widespread interest in leaders, rigorous academic research studies have been lacking. A review of research by Sinha (1994) identified two broad streams of leadership studies. One of these streams dealt with the personal characteristics and traits, distinguishing leaders from nonleaders, and did not yield any theoretical formulation. The other dealt directly with effective leadership styles that reflected a mixture of concern for task, for turbulent environment, and for the cultural needs and values. Culturally specific phenomena such as personalized and dependency relationship, power distance, care, consideration, and familial attachment were all found to affect leadership practices.

Whereas there is a dearth of rigorous research-based writing, there is a plethora of writing on leadership in the popular press. Political leadership is of course the most common topic for such writings. The writings cover a wide spectrum—from profiles and lives of political leaders, to serious conceptual issues such as the implications of the waning of charisma for democratic politics (Beteille, 1996). There is also a lot written on and about business, religious, and social leaders. Most of the writing on religious and social leaders is done by their followers, sects, or cults, but business leaders are written about by a wide cross-section of people (e.g., Karkaria, 1992; Lomax, 1986; Piramal, 1996). The business press also often writes about various aspects of leadership such as leadership training (Jayakar & Parthasarathy, 1996), and requirement of leadership for the emerging business environment (Jayakar, 1996).

Political leadership in India has become highly discredited over the last few years. Expedience, self-serving actions, use of caste, community, corruption, and religion for political and vote-gathering purposes, all are commonplace. It has been described as “a brazen-faced game of power, competitive in all its pejorative connotations … [with] commercialization and criminalization of politics and its caste and class based in-breeding [leading to] manipulation of mass psyche, blatant communalization and misdirection on the basis of narrow, partisan identities” (Kabra, 1994, p. 285). There is a general disenchantment with political leaders and a hankering for what it was like in the past. “We had wonderful leaders, people who had sacrificed everything for their country” recalls P. N. Bhagwati, who was chief justice of the Supreme Court in the mid-1980s (Time, 1996, p. 36).

Leadership of business organizations is however somewhat different. There are big business houses whose founders, and even some of their successors, are often looked up to with admiration, adulation, and respect. The House of Tatas is one such example whose founder Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, and later his successor JRD Tata, have both been admired (Fyzee, 1991; Harris, 1958). The business press writes about leaders, leadership, and related issues quite frequently. A recent feature titled “How to Use the New Leadership to Run Your Company” in one of the business magazines, based on interviews with leaders from some prominent business organizations, proposed five “leadership qualities and behaviors that the CEO of the futurcorp must demonstrate.” These were leading by vision, by inspiration, by influence, by empowerment, and by expertise. The feature concluded that currently the situation in India is one whereby a business leader needed to “inspire highly-empowered employees to greater heights. … Set organizational goals more audacious than ever thought possible. … Lead his people to fulfilling those ambitions by convincing them of the need for doing so. Greatness, not efficiency, is his guiding passion” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 82). Extracts from some of the interviews are given in Appendix B.

3.  METHODOLOGY OF GLOBE RESEARCH IN INDIA

The GLOBE research in India consisted of focus groups, interviews, media analysis, literature review, participant and unobtrusive observation, and questionnaire-based data collection. Three focus groups were conducted, two in India, one in the United States. Of the two in India, one was carried out with nine managers from the Indian subsidiary of an American company. This company was very close to the private sector, the free-market end of the continuum of Indian economy. All of the nine participants worked at a manufacturing plant located in western India. The second focus group in India had eight participants; all were managers of a very large bank owned and operated by the government. This bank came very close to the public sector– controlled economy end of the Indian economy. Although the bank operated all over the country and its managers could be located anywhere, participants in the focus group had only been situated in one of the states in western India. The work experience of the participants in these two focus groups ranged from 8 to 32 years with a mean of 18.26 years, and they belonged to different levels of middle management. Participants in both the focus groups in India were given a preparatory assignment prior to the focus group. The assignment is shown in Appendix C.

The focus group conducted in the United States had nine participants, all of whom had work experience in India ranging from 1 to 8 years with a mean of 3.2 years. All of the participants were engaged in graduate studies in the United States at the time of the focus group. Four participants had worked in public-sector organizations, four in the government, and one in a private-sector firm.⁶

Two types of interviews were conducted. Semistructured interviews were carried out with 15 managers (8 from the manufacturing plant and 7 from the bank) who had participated in the two focus groups in India. These interviewees, though belonging to different states, had spent a major portion, if not all, of their working lives in the same state in western India. The duration of these interviews ranged from 45 minutes to 1½ hours. These interviews were semistructured in the sense that though the interviewer had a list of questions to be asked, these were only possible and guiding questions, the later ones being open-ended questions. The interviews were thus essentially free-flowing in which the interviewees were actually encouraged to express themselves freely. Some of the guiding questions used in the interviews are given in Appendix D.

Interviews in the second set were almost completely unstructured and free-form. These were conducted with three middle managers from a financial services firm. This firm had a network of offices and branches all over the country. All three interviewees worked at the corporate office and their work experience ranged from 3 to 8 years. One of the three was a woman. The interviewees belonged to different parts of the country; one was from a western state, one from a state in the northwest of India, and one from the south. The duration of these interviews varied from 1½ to 2½ hours. The interviews began with a brief description of the project and the interviewees were asked to describe their perception and understanding of leadership. Some of the opening comments by the interviewer were as follows:

After the opening remarks, the interviewees expressed themselves as unhindered and the interviewer did not interfere except either to request clarification, or elaboration, or to ask a question when the interviewee seemed to come to the end of the description of an idea, an incident, or a concept. The three interviews were audiotaped and were subsequently transcribed. The transcriptions were content analyzed and the conclusions were shared with the interviewees in a follow-up discussion. The interviewees were asked for their reactions to the results of the content analysis of the transcripts. These discussions lasted for about half an hour with each interviewee. The interviewees agreed with most of the findings and did not suggest any significant changes in what had been inferred from the analysis as their view of leadership.

Media analysis was done by reviewing the contents of two daily newspapers, one general (The Times of India) and one business (The Economic Times) for two periods of two weeks each, with a gap of one month in between; and two news magazines, one general (India Today) and one business (Business India), two issues of each, with a gap of 1 month in between. The circulation figures for these four publications are given in the accompanying Table 27.1. The Times of India had the highest circulation among all the daily newspapers, and The Economic Times had the highest circulation among all the business, economic, and financial newspapers.

All reports that had anything to do with or referred even parenthetically to leadership were marked and extracted for analysis. These were then content analyzed with the objective of developing an understanding of leadership as it is viewed by society. Obviously this emergent view of leadership in society was to some extent influenced by the editorial slant of these four publications.

TABLE 27.1
Newspaper Circulation Rates

Note. From Audit Bureau of Circulations, New Delhi (July to December 1996).

Content analyses of the interviews and media reports were done by a research associate following guidelines contained within GLOBE documents authored by Agar (n.d.) and Thomas (n.d.). Findings of the analyses by the research associate were reviewed and crosschecked by the author. Participant and unobtrusive observations were made by some of the researchers involved in the project, and three other individuals who were considered informed and knowledgeable. These participants responded to a pool of items that could be observed by people who were part of the society.

The quantitative data were collected from a total of 214 middle-managerial respondents belonging to 10 organizations in two industries, financial services and food processing, with 113 and 101 respondents respectively. (Brief notes on these two industries are in Appendices E and F). There were five organizations in each industry. Six of the organizations were in the private sector and four were in the public sector. Seven were located in the western part of the country, two in the north, and one in the south. The number of respondents per organization varied from 10 to 44. Woman accounted for 30 out of the total 214 respondents. The average age of the respondents was 38.36 years, ranging from 21 to 63 years.

4.  RESULTS

The results of the qualitative analyses are presented first, followed by those of the quantitative data.

Qualitative Analysis

Focus Group and Semistructured Interviews

All participants in the focus groups and all the interviewees almost unanimously saw leadership and management to be different. A large majority felt that leadership was a broader and somewhat “higher level” function than that of management.

The most common descriptions of leadership included having a vision, and a clear and broad direction and goal or objective. Leaders were expected to carry people with them, inspire individuals, and get them to do near impossible things. Effective communications and risk taking were considered important components of leadership. Leaders were also described as “knowing the pulse of the people,” “finding out how people's minds tick and making it happen that way,” having an intuitive understanding of people, caring—almost like a parent or “a king in the old days,” being “natural,” courageous, and innovative. They were also expected to develop the trust and loyalty of the followers and command their respect without having to ask for it, to set an example through their behaviors and actions, and to practice what they preached. Demonstrated capacity to solve problems, being high on integrity, ability to get an active consensus from a core group, and maintaining a network of contacts and connections were some of the other characteristics of outstanding leaders.

Most participants considered political leaders to be different from business leaders. Political leaders were considered to be more self-serving, clever, and exploitative, whereas business leaders were normally considered to be visionaries and charismatic, particularly within the context of their business organizations. Some truly exceptional business leaders were felt to have transcended the boundaries of their organizations and become leaders in society at large.

The definitions of leadership that emerged were “steering a group of people to contribute willingly towards a vision” and the “ability to get people to work willingly and enthusiastically towards one's own and organizational goals and priorities.” A minority definition was “getting the job done through people.” This rather small proportion of respondents felt that leadership was one of the components of management and that this component was confined to people or the human element of management. They, unlike the majority, thought leadership to be a narrower function than management.

Outstanding Leadership. When asked to cite critical incidents to illustrate outstanding leadership, participants referred to unusual and almost dramatic behaviors such as Gandhi going on a fast to stop communal riots during India's partition and independence in 1947, and the chief executive of an organization making a decision, which he was apparently not authorized to make, publicly and on the spur of the moment, and sticking to it later. Outstanding leaders were thus expected to do things that were unusual, path breaking, and considered worthy, noble, innovative; and having done such things, were expected to stand by them and carry them through. Inspiring people, and being (a) a change agent and challenging the status quo, and (b) a visionary, were considered integral to being an outstanding leader. Perseverance, dedication, charisma, empathy, valuing people as individuals and as human beings and not only as followers or employees, capacity to spot the right people, high personal output, and going beyond the normal, were other characteristics of outstanding leaders. Courage, integrity, and self-confidence were considered to be the basic requirements for outstanding leadership.

Actions of leaders which significantly increased the motivation and commitment of the participants and made them “go above and beyond the call of duty” included (a) giving recognition for a job well done and for doing something that was not in the normal range of their responsibilities, (b) providing a sense of achievement to followers, (c) encouraging new, unusual initiatives, (d) reposing faith and confidence in followers, and giving them freedom,

(e) involving followers in areas of work not directly related to them, and (f) taking personal care of the well-being of followers.

Leadership Style. There were two broad conclusions. One, outstanding leaders have to be flexible in their behaviors and have to display a complex mixture of leadership styles depending on the situations they face. Two, there appeared to be general support and preference for proactive, morally principled and ideological, and bold and assertive styles of leadership as compared to reactive, pragmatic, and instrumental, and quiet and nurturing styles, respectively. Some participants felt that although expediency was acceptable, it had to be confined within certain limits saying “though achieving the end is what a leader is judged on, means are also important.” An overwhelming majority, however, maintained that ideological and moral commitment is essential for outstanding leadership. The greatest flexibility appeared to be expected and accepted on the bold/assertive and quiet/nurturing dimensions.

Obstacles and Constraints Faced by Outstanding Leaders. Two broad obstacles mentioned by respondents related to people (followers) not wanting to take responsibility, and communication problems and barriers. Leaders dealt with these by setting a personal example, and by clarifying the message and objective. Most respondents, however, felt that obstacles and constraints, though ubiquitous, do not really affect an outstanding leader. A common refrain was that obstacles and constraints can always be overcome if the leader is on high moral ground. One of the respondents said, “It is the mind-set which is more important.” Another way to deal with obstacles and constraints was to “change people's perceptions of the constraints and obstacles, and to modify people's limits of compromise.”

Role Models and Status. Leaders are expected to be role models of values such as righteousness, dynamism, and innovation. Leadership is considered as not only desirable but necessary and even admirable. Leaders usually have high status and are generally looked up to and respected.

However, not all individuals in positions of authority are considered to be leaders in the real or strict sense. Current political leaders are an interesting example. They are specifically referred to as “political” leaders because of their present positions or because they have made political activity or politics as their profession. They also have a somewhat high status and are given importance because they happen to be part of the political establishment and can be instrumental in getting things done in a society such as India where there is considerable political meddling in almost all walks of life.

However, they are generally not considered to be good role models and do not evoke real respect and admiration. Interestingly, out of the 19 people mentioned as examples of outstanding leadership during the focus groups and interviews, only 4 were political leaders. Three of these four belonged to an earlier generation that was involved in India's freedom struggle in the 1940s, and one was India's prime minister from the early 1970s to mid-1980s. The latter died in 1984 and, therefore, may not really qualify as a contemporary political leader. Contemporary political leadership, thus, occupies a somewhat enigmatic position in Indian society—more like a necessary evil.

The remaining individuals mentioned as examples of outstanding leaders included 10 business and industry leaders, 3 social workers (including 2 environmentalists), 1 army general, and 1 spiritual-cum-religious leader. The complete list of these 19 individuals is in Appendix G. Most of these 19 are very well known although a couple of names are less familiar. These were senior managers in the organizations for which some of the participants worked.

The attributes of a normally effective manager, an above-average manager, and an outstanding leader, as listed by the participants in the two focus groups conducted in India, are given in Table 27.2.

In addition to what is mentioned in Appendix C, participants from both of the focus groups in India were asked to choose a country other than India, and compare the characteristics of managers in that country with those of managers in India. Participants in both the focus groups chose the United States for this comparison. The results of this are contained in Table 27.3.

TABLE 27.2
Findings of Focus Groups Conducted in India

Normally Effective Manager	Above-Average Manager	Outstanding Manager in (addition to “above average ” manager)
Getting things done on time	Getting things done on time, with fewer resources	Inspiring people to unusual dedication and strong commitment
Carry out given work Maintenance function, motivates people	Demanding from his or her peoples, Inspires people; hard task master, if situation demands	Visionary, Future oriented Imaginative, creative, innovative; always works with and leads the team
Uses power and fear	Will carve out little bit extra work; over & above given work	Inspires confidence, not only below but also above the line/hierarchy
Just about manages to do what is set out for him or her	Creative, above maintenance	Looks for new opportunities, untrodden paths
Goal set by the organization is the ultimate, nothing beyond that	Creates atmosphere to make work itself motivating	Charismatic
Routine worker-type Generally less often, to lesser extent the characteristics of above-average manager	Uses love and willingness Thinks beyond his or her area of immediate responsibility	Good communicator Vision more expanded, going beyond the commonly under stood boundary of organizations, society, etc.
	Attaches a lot of value to work, also to people	Getting people to do something that most others have not been able to do
	Greater delegation, selective monitoring	Rises to the occasion
	Gets involved in things outside the work environment Flexibility of behaviors Concerned about development of his or her people	Looks at things in totality, macro view, overall picture Quick grasping power Pushing boundaries beyond what is considered possible
		Practices what he or she preaches
		Courage to take larger or greater risk
		Fast response
		Also builds the team
		Translating vision into mission
		Trust of followers
		Motivator
		Empathy
		Carrying people with him or her Human element (humane)
		Deductive, decisive
		Conceptual abilities

TABLE 27.3
Comparison of Indian and American Managers in Focus Groups Conducted in India

Indian Managers	American Managers
• Somewhat lackadaisical and indifferent	• Task oriented
• More relationship oriented	• Impersonal
• Somewhat knowledgeable in several areas/fields	• Tend to be specialized but only in one area
• Long-term time horizon	• Short-term time horizon (here and now, at the most couple of years)
• Believe verbal statements	• Don't believe in verbal statements; require documentary proof
• More trusting	• Less trusting
• Emotion oriented	• Fact oriented
• Efforts oriented	• Result oriented
• Less demanding	• More demanding
• Conservative, cautious	• Generally less conservative
• Low risk taking	• Higher risk taking
• “Hurting others is not good”	• “Does not matter if others are hurt”
• Greater human touch (humane)	• Materialistic, cold
• Formal	• Informal
	• Better equipped in terms of equipment & facilities
	• Better time managers

Media Analysis

The summarized findings of the media analysis are shown in Table 27.4. The characteristic most frequently mentioned in the context of leadership and leaders is “change,” followed by a somewhat distant second, “action.” The rankings of these two are identical in both time periods, indicating consistency across time periods. Characteristics other than change and action, which appeared consistently among the top 10 in both periods, were control, direction, communication, culture, and charisma. Some statements illustrative of these characteristics that appeared in media reports are given in Appendix H.

Leaders, according to media analysis, therefore are above all expected to be harbingers of change, and action oriented. They should be able to exercise control and provide direction. The ability to communicate effectively is also an important requirement. An interest in and a concern for cultural values is also useful for effective leadership. Though charisma was among the top 10 in both time periods, its relatively low ranking is worth noting. A possible and partial explanation may be that a large majority of media reports pertained to political leadership and the low ranking of charisma may be a reflection of the low esteem of the current political leadership in society. The even lower ranking of “vision,” which overall ranked 15, is also worth noting. It was ranked 17 and 11 in the two time periods. The explanation for this also could be similar to that for charisma.

Unstructured Interviews

The results of the content analysis of unstructured interviews are shown in Table 27.5. In this case the top two characteristics of leaders are communication skills and vision, followed by direction, action, change orientation, and charisma. Some illustrative statements made by the interviewees about these characteristics are given in Appendix I.

TABLE 27.4
Results of Media Analysis

Though the rankings of the media analysis and unstructured interviews do exhibit a general and overall similarity, the differences in the ranking of specific characteristics may indicate a subtle yet important difference. Unstructured interviews were conducted with middle managers of a business organization and the importance given by them with regard to communication, vision, and direction possibly reflects a view about business leadership, whereas the media reports may reflect a general view somewhat more focused on political and social leadership.

TABLE 27.5
Content Analysis of Unstructured Interviews

Characteristics of Leaders	Rank	Frequency	Percent
Communication Skills	1	12	16.00
Vision	2	9	12.00
Direction	3	6	8.00
Action	3	6	8.00
Change Orientation	3	6	8.00
Charisma	3	6	8.00
Understanding	3	6	8.00
Responsibility	8	4	5.33
Knowledge	9	3	4.00
Aggression	10	3	4.00
Strategy	11	2	2.67
Autocratic	11	2	2.67
Energy	13	1	1.33
Optimistic	13	1	1.33
Cultured	13	1	1.33
Dynamic	13	1	1.33
Systematic	13	1	1.33
Value-Driven	13	1	1.33
Entrepreneurial	13	1	1.33
Egoistical	13	1	1.33
Delegative	13	1	1.33
Broad-minded	13	1	1.33
Total		75	100

Summary of Qualitative Results

Combining the results of all the qualitative data, six characteristics seem to be most strongly associated with effective leadership in India. Communication and direction are the most important followed by vision, action orientation, charisma, and change.

Participant and Unobtrusive Observation

A summary of participant and unobtrusive observations pertaining to the core GLOBE dimensions of societal culture is given next.

Performance Orientation. Most organizations of a medium to large size have formal performance appraisal systems in place. It is, however, not uncommon for evaluators to avoid giving poor performance ratings. Promotions are often based on a combination of performance rating, seniority, and suitability. Society as a whole does recognize and respect individual achievement. Several schools recognize scholastic performance through rewards. Universities usually award medals to top-performing graduates. The government also confers awards for achieving excellence in various fields including sports. Admissions to leading undergraduate colleges are almost always based on the academic performance at the high school level. Entrepreneurship, traditionally confined to certain community groups, has in the past few years started becoming more widespread; and entrepreneurs have started attracting increasing social recognition.

Future Orientation. Historically and traditionally, Indian society has emphasized the “hereafter” in preference to the “here and now,” and therefore has been generally future oriented. The government also encourages future orientation by providing tax breaks on savings. There is no state-funded social security system, but employers are required by law to contribute to what is called a provident fund to provide postretirement benefits for employees. Interest paid on housing loans is eligible for tax benefits. The concept of providing for the “hereafter” at times extends to even providing for after death, with some people engaging in actions, ceremonies, and rituals that they hope will improve their lot in their next lives following the doctrine of karma. These sometimes take the form of contributions to charitable and religious activities and institutions.

Gender Egalitarianism. India's society continues to be male-dominated in spite of having had a very strong woman prime minister (who was sometimes described as “the only man in the cabinet”), who had one of the longest tenures in that position. The number of women in the higher echelons of all professions is still minuscule. A large majority of women continue to be homemakers and are expected to be so, in spite of making substantial contributions to the income-generating activities of the family such as agriculture in rural areas. In urban areas where more women work outside their homes, caring professions such as nursing and teaching are considered more appropriate for women. There are no professions that women are legally prevented from entering. India has women working as commercial pilots and as officers in the Army, for example. Even when they work as professionals outside the home, responsibility for housework and childrearing continues to rest almost solely with women.

A large majority of national and social heroes are men. The literacy rate for women is lower than that for men. Traditionally it was considered preferable and sometimes even necessary for a woman to bear male children for two reasons, dowry and continuing the family lineage; and having female children was often considered undesirable. This situation continues in some sections of society even today, though dowry is forbidden by law. Polygamy is illegal except for some religious groups under certain conditions. Women were excluded from entering some temples and from priesthood until very recently but legal action has abolished these restrictions. There has been a substantial amount of legislation to reduce gender differentiation, including the reservation of 33% of elected positions in the panchayats (village councils) for women.

Humane Orientation. Accidents at work are required to be investigated and reported to designated authorities. There are specific provisions in law for compensation for injuries arising in the workplace. There is a law against begging but its implementation is very slack. There are a few institutions, generally religious, that provide food for the homeless and the poor. Adult and child prisoners are kept in separate facilities. There are special schools for handicapped people, but not all those with handicaps can take advantage of them. Organizations are encouraged by the government to employ handicapped people. Cases of brutality and torture by the police do happen but they also create uproar. The preferred mode of settling personal disputes is conciliation or arbitration, as opposed to involving the police, partly due to their reputation for not helping. Whenever an individual suffers a personal or family tragedy, neighbors, friends, and acquaintances always offer and do provide help. Being altruistic and charitable is also considered to help in improving one's lot after life, and thus overlaps with future orientation.

Power Distance. Indian society is quite structured and stratified. Two major contributors to this are the centuries-old caste system and almost 200 years of British rule. The Indian Civil Service, which the British used as a major instrument of governance, and an Indianized version of which continues even today, was a very hierarchical and formal structure, and has had a widespread impact on Indian organizations. Work titles are often displayed on doors. Offices, office spaces, and privileges at work tend to reflect one's status in the organization. Eating places for workers and managers are often different. Social rights and privileges vary with one's status and are fairly clearly understood. There are “powerful” families in every village, town, and city, and their power is generally accepted by most other residents. Certain groups or classes of people are considered to be influential and they evoke respect from others. Wealthier families tend to have full-time domestic help, often referred to as servants. Families of political leaders often come to be considered to have higher status.

Collective Orientation. The family continues to be one of the basic units of Indian society. Children are trained to first depend on, and subsequently support, the family. The concept of “joint” or “extended” family where more than two generations live as part of one household, which weakened for some time, seems to have acquired a new lease on life particularly in urban areas. With an increasing number of women in cities working outside the home, grandparents are now often considered a welcome resource for the child care that they provide because it is not easily available otherwise. Unmarried adults usually live with parents, and the “joint family” arrangement often continues even after the children get married. In some major cities, it also happens as an economic necessity as affordable housing is often hard to find. In such joint households, a “common kitchen” is often a standard feature where meals for everyone are cooked and eaten together. When friends and colleagues at work go out to eat, dishes are invariably shared. It is quite common for older members of the family to arrange marriages for younger members, even when the latter are professionally and economically independent. Help of family members and friends is often sought, and provided, in dealing with personal problems and crises.

Uncertainty Avoidance. Attempts to reduce the unpredictability of future events are quite common. There are specified age limits for voting and for holding public offices, and there is a minimum age for marriage. Social customs and norms especially for major life events such as birth, marriage, and death are quite well established and are widely followed, though these vary depending on religious and social grouping. There is great stress on good performance at school particularly among children of middle-class parents, at times resulting in too much pressure on the children. Religious beliefs and practices arising out of them are a major source of attempts to reduce uncertainty of the future.

Culture-Specific Manifestations of Indian Culture

Given the diversity and complexity of society and culture in India, it is not easy to find manifestations of “Indian” culture that are (a) common to the entire country without exception and (b) unique to the country insofar as these are not found in other countries. A few characteristics, however, do stand out, though they are also found in several other countries whose societies may be termed as traditional and collectivist. Some of these are briefly described next.

Rituals and Ceremonies. Rituals, ceremonies, and other similar practices are quite common in almost all walks of life. Initiation of major activities, such as starting a new business, opening a new plant, date of marriage, and even swearing-in of cabinets, are often scheduled around what are considered to be auspicious dates and times. There is a widespread interest in astrology. Astrologers are often consulted not only to reveal what the future holds, but also to determine the appropriate date and time to undertake important activities.

Concept of Time. There is a kind of ambivalence about time and punctuality. Whereas a number of official and business activities do occur in a preset, though somewhat flexible time frame, social activities and functions are often delayed. This ambivalence was attributed by a Western observer to language when he discovered that the word for yesterday and tomorrow in some Indian languages was the same (kal), and therefore it did not make a difference if a meeting was held yesterday or tomorrow, for example. It was, however, explained to this observer that whereas one particular day might be critical in a finite and limited concept of time, it was not so in an unending continuum of time, which goes on even before and after one's present life. This was a possible reason as to why the need for two different separate words for yesterday and tomorrow was not felt. This is in some ways similar to the different concepts of time mentioned by Edward Hall (1976).

Family-Controlled and -Managed Business Organizations. Some of the largest business organizations in India are controlled by the families of their founders. The families control the management of these companies even though they own only a minority of common stock. Some of the current prominent business families are the Tatas, Birlas, Ambanis, Mahindras, and Shrirams. Such companies, or groups of companies, are usually headed by a member of the family, often a son or grandson of the founder. Key positions in management are often held by members of the “extended” family, which might include relatives by marriage, or by close friends and confidants. A dilution of management control to professional managers, who are not connected to the family, happens with generational changes and often becomes substantial by the third generation after the founder.

Deference to Age and Status. In keeping with the traditional nature of the society and in spite of being in transition, people of higher age and status are still often treated with respect and deference. Seniority continues to have value in almost all types of organizations. It is common for seniors to be addressed formally by their last name. Honorifics such as Mr., Mrs., Sir, and Madam, and their equivalents in Indian languages are widely used.

Quantitative Analyses

The results comparing India with other cultures are presented first, followed by somewhat detailed results of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of leadership items.

Societal Culture “As Is” and “Should Be”

Table 27.6 contains India's average scores for societal culture “As Is” and societal culture “Should Be” based on the nine core GLOBE dimensions of societal culture. The table also shows the ranking of India for each of the dimensions when compared against the other 61 countries that participated in Phase 2 of the GLOBE Research Program. Countries scoring the highest and the lowest on each dimension are also identified along with their average scores.

TABLE 27.6
Societal Culture “As Is” and “Should Be”

The highest rankings obtained by India for Society “As Is” are on In-Group Collectivism, Humane Orientation, Future Orientation, and Power Distance. This is as would be expected from the description of the evolution of Indian culture in an earlier section of this chapter. The contradiction in Indian society has been described as follows: “The conflict is between two approaches to the problem of social organization, which are diametrically opposed to each other: the old Hindu conception of the group being the basic unit of organization, and the excessive individualism of the west, emphasizing the individual above the group” (Nehru, 1985, p. 246).

The scores for India are quite high among all of the participating countries on all dimensions except Gender Egalitarianism and Assertiveness. The score for Uncertainty Avoidance is somewhat different from the expectation of a lower value as mentioned in an earlier section. The relatively low score on Gender Egalitarianism indicates a greater emphasis on the male role, as expected. High scores on In-Group Collectivism and Power Distance are also in keeping with expectations. The relatively high score on Performance Orientation is somewhat surprising because only a moderate Performance Orientation was expected. This might be due to the increasing focus on material success and may also be a reflection of the recent changes in the economic policy and environment, which have consciously encouraged competition.

The most significant finding following a comparison of the “As Is” scores of India with the “Should Be” scores is that for Power Distance. A strong preference for the reduction of Power Distance is indicated. This is in keeping with the earlier conclusion that political equality experienced since independence has increased the desire for social equality, and that a struggle for altering broad power relations in the society at large is currently in existence. Another dimension for which a preference for lowering, though marginal, has been expressed is In-Group Collectivism. The focus on materialism is possibly also causing an increase in individualism in society, particularly among the managerial class, which experiences competition every day, particularly at work. There appears to be a clear preference for a higher level of Performance Orientation, Future Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism, and Assertiveness. The preferred increases in Humane Orientation and Uncertainty Avoidance are not as high as those in the former four dimensions. The least increase preferred is in Institutional Collectivism. Though India is a traditional, conservative, and male-dominated society in a number of ways, respondents’ preference for equal emphasis for male and female roles is an indicator of the depth of the change which society is going through on the gender issue.⁷

Leadership

India's average scores and rankings based on the 21 first-order leadership scales used in the GLOBE research program are in Table 27.7, which also shows the countries scoring the highest and the lowest on these scales.

Among intercountry rankings, the highest rankings for India are for charismatic (selfsacrificial), face saver, self-centered (9 each), and malevolent (2). It is, however, important to note that these are the scales getting the highest ranking for India in the intercountry comparisons, and that these are not the scales that got the highest ranking among different scales within India.

The five highest ranking scales within India are charismatic (visionary), integrity, administratively competent, performance orientation, and charismatic (inspirational), in that order. These are followed by decisive, team integrator, and diplomatic. Malevolent, self-centered, nonparticipative, autocratic, and face saver are the five lowest ranking scales within India.

TABLE 27.7
First-Order Leadership Dimensions

TABLE 27.8
Second-Order Leadership Dimensions

Attribute	India (Rank)	Highest (Country)	Lowest (Country)
Autonomous	3.85	4.63	2.27
	(32)	(Russia)	(Brazil)
Charismatic	5.85	6.46	4.51
	(36)	(Ecuador)	(Qatar)
Humane	5.26	5.75	3.82
	(9)	(Iran)	(France)
Participative	4.99	6.09	4.5
	(48)	(Canada)	(Albania)
Self-Protective	3.77	4.62	2.55
	(15)	(Albania)	(Finland)
Team Oriented	5.72	6.21	4.74
	(41)	(Ecuador)	(Qatar)

India was among the countries that scored quite high on the latter scales. The high inter-country ranking of India on these scales can be understood in the context of Indians having “developed ‘encompassing systems’ (Dumont, 1970) through which contradictions between thoughts and actions, instead of leading to dissonance and confrontation, are balanced, accommodated, integrated, or allowed to coexist (Marriott, 1976)” (Sinha, 1997, p. 61, emphasis in original). Being self-centered also has roots in the importance assigned to understanding oneself in some of the traditional belief systems in India. Introspection is often valued as an important activity even to process external experiences. Roland's (1988) observation that Indians can keep important secrets in a much more guarded manner and for longer durations than Americans, even in therapeutic situations, may also be considered as an indicator of being self-absorbed. Face saving acquires importance due to the high sensitivity of Indians to context their thoughts and practices (Ramanujan, 1989). Triandis and Bhawuk (1997) claim even lying to be acceptable in collectivist cultures when it serves the purpose of saving face. The preference for autocratic leadership can possibly be traced to the long history of benevolent, autocratic monarchs. The rankings following the five highest, those of decisive, team integrator, diplomatic, collaborative (team oriented), charismatic (self-sacrificial), modesty, and humane, appear to fit the expectations from the description of Indian leadership given earlier. It is also worth noting that the average scores for India are placed in the top half of all the participating countries for 13 of the 21 scales. These 13 scales are administratively competent, autocratic, charismatic (self-sacrificial), collaborative (team oriented), conflict-inducer, diplomatic, face saver, humane, malevolent, modesty, nonparticipative, procedural, and self-centered. This gives a general idea of the comparative perception of the attributes for effective leadership in India.

Second-Order Leadership Dimensions

India's average scores and rankings on the six second-order leadership dimensions of the GLOBE Research Project are in Table 27.8. The countries scoring the highest and the lowest on these dimensions are also shown.

In the intercountry comparison, India's highest rankings are on the humane (9) and self-protective (15) dimensions. In a comparison of the dimensions within India, charismatic scores the highest (5.85), followed by team oriented (5.72), and humane (5.26). Participative (4.99) is the middle dimension, whereas self-protective (3.77) and autonomous (3.85) are the lowest two dimensions.

TABLE 27.9
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Leadership Scales Goodness-of-Fit Indicators

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; PGFI = parsimony goodness-of-fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; PNFI = parsimony normed fit index; RMSR = root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Factor Analysis of Leadership Items

Though the leadership instrument contained 112 items, only 76 items were used for the factor analyses reported next. The remaining items were not included for the following two reasons:

Confirmatory Factor Analyses. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 76 items was attempted to determine if the data were best represented by the 16-factor solution of the GLOBE Pilot Study 2.⁸ The 76 items were aggregated into 36 parcels, which is a common practice in structural equation modeling (Bernstein & Teng, 1989; Kishton & Widaman, 1994; Takahashi & Nasser, 1996). The rules employed for aggregation were: (a) Each factor should contain at least 2 parcels and at most three parcels, and (b) only items that were highly correlated were combined so that to the extent possible only items with common variance were aggregated. The results of this and subsequent CFAs are presented in Table 27.9.

TABLE 27.10
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Second-Order Factor Structure of Leadership Scales

Note. Five second-order factors, 14 scales of Pilot Study 2, India data. Factor labels: 1 = Charismatic and Action-Oriented Leadership; 2 = Bureaucratic Leadership; 3 = Humane Leadership; 4 = Individualistic Leadership; 5 = Autocratic Leadership.
^* p < 0.05.

From column 1 of Table 27.9 it is seen that the 16-factor model indicated a poor data–model fit. None of the indices meet the generally accepted criterion levels for fit (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996). However, this result was not entirely unexpected. Attempting to capture 16 latent variables through 36 parcels is expected to be unwieldy due to the high levels of random error in the items (parcels) (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994), further exacerbated by the covariations among the 16 latent variable themselves. Subsequently, to overcome the problems associated with the partially disaggregated approach explained earlier, a second-order CFA of the 16 scales identified in the Pilot Study 2 was attempted with the Indian data, to examine the stability of the five-factor structure that emerged in Pilot Study 2. A 16 × 16 correlation matrix was analyzed using maximum likelihood estimation. The CFA did not converge due to problems of multicollinearity particularly with the self-centered and face-saving dimensions. Because these two dimensions were contaminating the entire data set, they were eliminated and the resulting 14 × 14 correlation matrix was analyzed. The results showed a remarkable improvement in fit indices (chi-square = 313.965, p < .00, CFI = 0.905, GFI = 0.844, AGFI = 0.766, RMSEA = 0.123—column 2 of Table 27.9). All factor loadings, as shown in Table 27.10, were significant except for the loading of the diplomatic dimension on Factor 5. Also, the pattern of factor loadings closely matched the factor loadings obtained in Pilot Study 2, which are shown in Table 27.11.

Although the fit indices improved substantially, they did not reach acceptable levels. However, this is to be expected. Given that the items theoretically classified under their respective content domains did not empirically load correspondingly in the Indian sample, the second-order CFA displayed problems of multicollinearity that worked to reduce the overall data–model fit. Though it would have been ideal to do a second-order CFA of the 18-scale Indian model with a second sample from India, it could not be done because a second sample was not available. However, some preliminary modifications were attempted that helped in increasing the overall data–model fit. The modifications effected were the following:

TABLE 27.11
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Second-Order Factors Structure of Leadership Scales

Note. Pilot Study 2 data. Factor labels: 1 = Charismatic and Action-Oriented Leadership; 2 = Bureaucratic Leadership; 3 = Humane Leadership; 4 = Individualistic Leadership; 5 = Autocratic Leadership.
^* p < 0.05.

The fit indices of this CFA are in column 3 of Table 27.9 and the resultant factor loadings are in Table 27.12.

With these modifications the data–model fit improved further and even the chi-square value was nonsignificant, indicating a good fit. Some possible explanations for the results are:

TABLE 27.12
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Second-Order Factors Structure of Leadership Scales

Note. Five second-order factors, 16 scales of Pilot Study 2, Indian data. Scales allowed to load on other than original factors. Factor labels: 1 = Charismatic and Action-Oriented Leadership; 2 = Bureaucratic Leadership; 3 = Humane Leadership; 4 = Individualistic Leadership; 5 = Autocratic Leadership.
^* p < 0.05.

Individual CFAs of the 16 Scales. Individual CFAs of the 16 scales were done to confirm the unidimensionality of each of them. CFA of one factor (Humane Orientation) could not be carried out due to underidentification (two-item scale). The results are presented in Table 27.13.

TABLE 27.13
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Individual Leadership Scales (Pilot Study 2)

Note. Indian data. CFI = comparative fit index. GFI = goodness-of-fit index. AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index. PGFI = parsimony goodness-of-fit index. NFI = normed fit index. NNFI = non-normed fit index. PNFI = parsimony normed fit index. RMSR = root mean square residual. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

TABLE 27.14
Leadership Scales Based on Indian Data Principal Components Analysis (Varimax Rotation)

Scales	No. of Items	% Var. Explained	Alpha
Integrity	11	26.4	0.91
Charismatic	7	7.0	0.88
Performance Oriented	7	4.8	0.88
Collective	6	4.2	0.83
Organized	4	3.7	0.80
Entrepreneurial	3	2.7	0.60
Self-starter	4	2.5	0.79
Autocratic	5	2.5	0.71
Consultative	4	2.3	0.74
Visionary	4	2.2	0.66
Problem Solver	2	2.1	0.69
Evasive	2	2.0	0.55
Individualistic	4	2.0	0.62
Bureaucratic	2	1.8	0.55
Elitist	1	1.7	-
Dictatorial	1	1.6	-
Inspirational	2	1.5	0.45
Worldly	1	1.3	-
Total		72.3

It is seen from Table 27.13 that all scales except face saving and charismatic demonstrate adequate fit indices indicating unidimensionality. The problems with the face-saving scale have already been discussed. In addition, the face-saving items indicate very low interitem correlations (from 0.08 to 0.17), which explains poor unidimensionality. The case is the same with the charismatic dimension, the items of which had inter-item correlations ranging from .19 to .26. Unidimensionality was replicated for the remaining 13 scales.

Exploratory Factor Analysis. Because the 16-factor Pilot Study 2 model did not seem to fit the Indian data very well, an exploratory factor analysis of the 76 leadership items was conducted. An initial principal components analysis yielded 19 factors. Because 4 four of these 19 factors consisted of only one item each, a 16-factor solution was extracted and rotated using the varimax criterion, to compare it with the results of Pilot Study 2. The factors that emerged were significantly different from the results of Pilot Study 2 and were not interpretable under the original 16-factor classification of Pilot Study 2. The 16-factor solution was therefore abandoned for the Indian sample.

The 19-factor solution resulted in many of the factors of Pilot Study 2 being duplicated, though the pattern of loadings and the factor structure differed significantly. One factor (worldly, number 18), which had only one item (effective bargainer), was eliminated as it also loaded highly (.7633) on Factor 2. It was decided to retain this item under Factor 2 because it was interpretable. Table 27.14 presents the resulting 18 scales, along with the number of items in each scale, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, and percentage of variance explained by each of the scales.

Two scales that emerged from the Indian data and that do not correspondingly appear in the results of Pilot Study 2 are worldly and elitist. This is probably because respondents in the Indian sample did not see any of the other characteristics in the leadership scales to covary with worldly and elitist resulting in these emerging as two distinct scales. Calm, which appears as a scale in Pilot Study 2, does not show up in the Indian data. This is probably because the calm factor contains items such as self-effacing, which may not have been fully and completely understood by some of the respondents. Self-effacing is not a very commonly used expression in India.

Respondents in the Indian sample do not seem to have been able to clearly distinguish between the items indicating autocratic and dictatorial natures. Items indicating individualism and self-centeredness have merged, which is not unexpected. Similarly, items from the original procedural dimension have merged with the organized and bureaucratic scales respectively, which again is not surprising.

The first scale in Pilot Study 2 seemed to clearly indicate performance orientation, whereas in the Indian data the first factor with 11 items loading on it points to items indicating a collective orientation, integrity, and diplomacy. It is a tentative pointer that there was reasonable consensus in the Indian sample over the characteristics that contribute to a person being an effective leader. This is consistent with the overall impression that whereas Western managers emphasize greater task orientation, Indian managers are more relationship oriented. Findings of the two focus groups conducted in India, given in Table 27.3, also confirm this.

In conclusion, the leadership scales that emerged from the Indian data seem to generally agree with the scales that emerged in Pilot Study 2. The relative importance of the factors as seen from the order of emergence and the pattern of loadings are somewhat different, possibly due to differing perceptions of the characteristics of effective leaders.

Second-Order Exploratory Factor Analysis of Indian Data. The 18 scales that emerged from the exploratory factor analysis of Indian data were subjected to a principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation. A total of three factors accounting for 58.7% of the variance emerged. The factor loadings for the rotated factor solution, along with the variance explained by each factor, are presented in Table 27.15.

The three factors were labeled as “charismatic and action-oriented leadership,” “autocratic leadership,” and “bureaucratic leadership,” generally in keeping with the labels used in the second-order exploratory factor analysis in Pilot Study 2. The Indian data did not yield the remaining two second-order factors of Pilot Study 2, namely, humane leadership and individualist leadership.

A word of caution is necessary here about the within-society factor analysis of the data reported earlier. As discussed in Hanges and Dickson (2004), the GLOBE scales were designed to measure organizational or societal-level variability. The scales were never intended to meaningfully differentiate among individuals within a particular society. However, even though the scales were not constructed to provide such information, it may be interesting to assess whether similar factors differentiate individuals within a society. It should be noted, however, that we expect that the loadings of the GLOBE scale's items on within society factors should be lower than reported in Hanges and Dickson (i.e., because of the within-society restriction of the GLOBE scales true-score variability, which was based on between-society differences). Furthermore, one should not interpret these within society factor analyses as replications of the GLOBE factor structure. This analysis is intended as an exploration of the themes captured by GLOBE in a new domain (i.e., individual differences within a society). Finally, the absence of a GLOBE factor within a society should not be automatically interpreted as the factor being irrelevant to the people in that country. Rather, a factor may fail to emerge within a society even when that theme is extremely critical because there was no variability in how the individuals from a single society rated the items (e.g., they all rated the items a 7). Factor analysis requires variability and so a factor could fail to emerge because it is extremely critical or completely irrelevant to the people within a society.

TABLE 27.15
Second-Order Factor Structure of 18 Leadership Scales—Exploratory Factor Analysis

	Second-Order Factors
Leadership Characteristics	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Integrity	0.89
Organized	0.84
Action Orientation	0.83
Self-Starter	0.81
Charismatic	0.75
Collective	0.73
Problem Solver	0.72
Visionary	0.67
Entrepreneurial	0.67
Inspirational	0.56
Worldly	0.54
Autocratic		0.82
Dictatorial		0.87
Individualistic		0.58
Evasive		0.53
Consultative		-0.59
Bureaucratic			0.79
Elitist			0.52
Eigen Value	7.02	2.52	1.02
% Var. Exp.	39.0	14.0	5.7

Note. Factor labels: Factor 1: Charismatic and Action-Oriented Leadership; Factor 2: Autocratic Leadership; Factor 3: Bureaucratic Leadership.

Summary of Analyses of Leadership Data

Various analyses of the leadership data indicate that:

The most effective leadership style in India would thus combine integrity, being organized, an action orientation, being a self-starter, charisma, and a collective orientation; with being a problem solver, a visionary, entrepreneurial, and inspirational, in that order. This would be a tall order for any one person to fulfill but is not really surprising given that “two sets of values—vertical collectivism and individualism—coexist in Indian organizations” (Sinha, 1997, p. 60). It is possibly the existence of such seemingly mutually contradictory sets of values that makes such a comprehensive set of demands for being an effective leader in Indian organizations.

5.  DISCUSSION

The findings of both qualitative and quantitative analyses are in general agreement on the importance of action orientation and charisma, and these can therefore be considered to be the most important characteristics for effective leadership in India. Four characteristics, communication, direction, vision, and change orientation, which the qualitative analyses found to be important, did not attain the same level of importance as in the quantitative analyses. Similarly, being bureaucratic, autocratic, and collectivistic, which emerged as important in the quantitative analysis, were not as prominent in the qualitative analysis. In part this could be a function of the two methodologies, qualitative and quantitative. It may also be a reflection of the complexity of India, which has been described as “a land famous for extremes” (Walsh, 1996, p. 30).

Collectivism and humane orientation continue to be the most important characteristics of Indian culture. This is in keeping with earlier findings (Triandis et al., 1986). Society appears to be in a period of major transition toward power equalization. At the same time there is an increasing preference for individualism.

Taking an overall view, two distinct though interrelated characteristics of Indian society seem to stand out. One is that Indian culture is ancient yet continuously living and evolving. The second is the great complexity and diversity of Indian society and culture. These two characteristics, in combination with other features of Indian society, do demand unique attributes, abilities, and behaviors of leaders in India. This may require a high tolerance for ambiguity, and the ability to balance a diverse set of factors not at the lowest but at a rather high common denominator. A phrase often used in India, “unity in diversity,” does seem to capture some of this special requirement but not all of it.

Practical Implications for Foreign Managers Working in India or Dealing With Indian Managers

It is therefore important for managers and leaders from other cultures who have to, or plan to, work with organizations in India, to be prepared to deal with a wide range of organizational and leadership practices. Given the size, diversity, and complexity of the country and society, and variations within them, it is not possible to provide a list of “do's and don'ts.” The interaction, and more often mere coexistence, of collectivist and individualist values; and the adoption, by many Indian organizations, of the formal systems of management in a vertical collectivist culture (Sinha, 1997), often creates an unpredictable situation. The experience of a foreign national visiting India on work is likely to go through three phases of surprise. First is the surprise, and often shock in the first instance, being at how things work, or more often don't work, and how different they appear to be from what the visitor is used to in his or her culture. As the visitor becomes somewhat knowledgeable about the situation, the cause of surprise is likely to be the similarity to a number of practices in their own culture. This is because the range of phenomena in Indian culture is so broad that almost every visitor finds something that is familiar. The surprise in the third stage comes when one discovers that although the practices seem similar, their basic causes or driving forces are quite different. The quest thus continues, leading to a deeper and richer understanding of and appreciation for the country and its culture. Reaching this stage obviously requires time and therefore a strong recommendation for any foreign manager working in India is to have a lot of patience. The resultant prescription for dealing with India, and also for any other foreign culture, is to expect differences, to accept differences, and also to respect differences, without overlooking similarities.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Any attempt at capturing the totality of societal and organizational culture, and leadership practices in a country such as India with a sample of 214 respondents from 10 organizations in two industries, has obvious limitations even if it is complemented by a number of qualitative research methods. A much larger sample would be required for any attempt at randomization and representativeness. It would also be very useful to match subsamples based on factors such as regions, industries, languages, religions, ownership especially private and public sectors, and size.

Other limitations arise out of embeddedness and pervasiveness of culture. A person researching his or her own culture has the potential for experimenter bias, which is perhaps best captured by the saying “fish will be the last to discover water.” The influence that Western perceptions and characterizations of India have had on the self-perceptions of Indians themselves compounds these complications (Sen, 1997). Formal management education in India, introduced in the early 1960s, has certainly had an impact on organizational and management practices in the country, some of which must obviously have been reflected in the responses of participants in various aspects of GLOBE research in India.

Complexity of society also creates limitations of its own. For example, the media analysis in this study was restricted to the English-language press. It would obviously have been revealing to also analyze press reports of some of the Indian languages. The multiplicity of languages (12 different language families, 15 “official” languages recognized by the Constitution of the country, and 24 different mutually unintelligible scripts) makes it a major endeavor in itself. It is these features of India that make it an almost ideal setting for a full-blown GLOBE project of its own.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Leena Bhandari was involved in several aspects of the GLOBE Project in India. Her contributions to the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data for Phase 2 of the project and the literature review are especially acknowledged. E. Sendil Kumar contributed significantly to the analysis of leadership data, particularly the confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. His contribution is gratefully acknowledged. This chapter, and indeed this book, would not have been possible without the unstinted cooperation of my secretary, Sugatha Nair. Her assistance has been invaluable, and I am grateful to her.

REFERENCES

Agar, M. (n.d.). Qualitative research manual, I and II. GLOBE Research Project.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, J. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35–67.

Basham, A. L. (1967). The wonder that was India. Delhi, India: Rupa/Fontana Books. (Original work published 1954)

Bernstein, H., & Teng, G. (1989). Factoring items and factoring scales are different: Spurious evidence for multidimensionality due to item categorization. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 467–477.

Beteille, A. (1996, April 29). Waning of charisma: Implications for democratic politics. The Times of India (Ahmedabad edition), p. 8.

Bose, N. K. (1967). Culture and society in India. Bombay, India: Asia.

de Boer, K., & Pandey, A. (1997). India's sleeping giant: Food. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 82–96.

Dumont, L. (1970). Homo hierarchicus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Food and Agriculture, Integrated Development Action. (1997). New Delhi: Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

Fyzee, M. (1991). Aircraft and engine perfect: The story of JRD Tata who opened up the skies for his country. New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill.

Gadgil, M., & Guha, R. (1992). This fissured land: An ecological history of India. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Gandhi, R. (1990). Patel: A life. Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan.

Gelli, R. (1996). Banking services after 90’s: Some sweeping changes. Saket Industrial Digest (First Anniversary Issue), pp. 145–147.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of scales to measure societal and organizational culture. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. J. Dorfman, V. Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harris, F. R. (1958). Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata: A chronicle of his life (2nd ed.). Bombay, India: Blackie & Son.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & GLOBE Associates. (2004). Cultures, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jayakar, R. (1996, March 22–April 6). How do you use the new leadership to run your company? Business Today, pp. 80–89.

Jayakar, R., & Parthasarathy, R. (1996, January 7–21). How to train for leadership. Business Today, pp. 198–203.

Kabra, K. N. (1994). Leadership and development: Some reflections in the Indian context. Indian Journal of Public Administration, VXL(3), 279–286.

Karkaria, B. J. (1992). Dare to dream: The life of Rai Bahadur Mohan Singh Oberoi. New Delhi, India: Viking Penguin.

Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parcelling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757–765.

Kothari, R. (1997, July 28). India: The growing confidence of the poor. The Times of India (Ahmedabad edition), p. 7.

Lomax, D. (1986). The money makers. London: BBC Publications.

Marriott, K. (1976). Hindu transactions: Diversity without dualism. In B. Kapferer (Ed.), Transactions and meaning: Directions in anthropology of exchange and symbolic behaviour. Philadelphia: ISHI

Nehru, J. (1985). The discovery of India (Centenary ed.). Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1946)

Parekh, H. T. (1975). Indian capital market: Past, present, and future. The Journal of the Indian Institute of Bankers, 46(1), 36–44.

Piramal, G. (1996). A view of the Maharajas. New Delhi, India: Viking.

Ramanujan, A. K. (1989). Is there an Indian way of thinking? An informal essay. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 25, 41–58.

Risely, H. T. (1981). Tribes and castes of Bengal. Calcutta, India: Firma KLM. (Original work published 1891)

Roland, A. (1988). In search of self in India and Japan: Towards a cross-cultural psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sen, A. (1997). Indian traditions and the Western imagination. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Spring, 1–25.

Shankar, V. (1974). My reminiscences of Sardar Patel. Delhi, India: Macmillan.

Singh, K. S. (1992). People of India: An introduction (National Series Vol. 1). Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1994). Major trends in research on leadership and power. Indian Psychological Abstracts, 1(2) 385–414.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1997). A cultural perspective on organizational behaviour in India. In C. P. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 53–74). San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

Spaeth, A. (1996, March 25). Society. Time, pp. 43–44.

Srinivas, M. N. (1966). Social change in modern India. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Takahashi, T., & Nasser, F. (1996, April). The impact of using item parcels on ad hoc goodness of fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: An empirical example. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

The gravy train (1997, July 7). Business World, pp. 18–25.

Thomas, J. (n.d.). The effective leader as portrayed in the US popular media. GLOBE Research Project.

Time. (1996, March 25).

Triandis, H. C., & Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1997). In C. P. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 13–52). San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., et al. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures [Special issue]. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 57–267.

Walsh, J. (1996, March 25). India. Time, pp. 29–34.

Appendix A

Basic Information on India

India is located in the continent of South Asia, between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. It shares borders with Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, and Pakistan. Its total area is 3.3 million square kilometers, and it has a coast line of almost 7,000 kms. It has a variety of climate zones from tropical monsoon in the south, to temperate in the north, to cold in the Himalayas. The terrain also varies from upland plain (the Deccan Plateau) in the south, to flat and rolling plains along the Ganges, to desert in the west, and mountains in the north. It has the fourth-largest coal reserves in the world, and a number of other mineral deposits.

It is the second most populous country in the world with the latest estimates of population exceeding 1 billion. The economy is a mixture of traditional village farming and handicrafts on one end, to modern agriculture, a wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of services on the other. It has emerged as one of the world's leading exporters of computer software in the last decade. Other industries include textiles, chemicals, food processing, steel, transportation equipment, cement, mining, petroleum, machinery, and machine tools. The World Bank estimated the gross domestic product (GDP) in 1995 to be U.S.$329.9 billion. Local estimates however placed the GDP for 1995–1996 at Rupees 9.85,787 crores (equivalent of U.S.$281.65 billion, @U.S.$1 = Rs.35¹) showing an increase of 14.5% over the similar estimates for the previous year. Per capita income for 1995–1996 was estimated at Rupees 9,321, with an increase of 12.54% over the previous year.

SOURCES

India: A reference. (1996). New Delhi: Government of India, Publications Division.

National Accounts Statistics. (1997). New Delhi: Government of India, Central Statistical Organization, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation.

Trends in developing economies. (1996). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

_______________

¹This was the exchange rate in 1998. In 2003, it was U.S.$1 = Rs.46.82. This also applies to figures in Appendixes F and G.

Appendix B

Quotations From Prominent
Business Leaders of India

Sanjay Lalbhai, Managing Director, Arvind Mills, describes today's leader as follows:

And according to Maitreya Doshi, Managing Director, Premier Automobiles “The self-confidence to share power with others in the organization is crucial for the leader” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 82).

Leading by Vision

On leading by vision, S. D. Kulkarni, Managing Director, Larsen, & Tubro, said: “The CEO has to influence and direct, through a vision, how the organization wants to position itself, and what it wants to do” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 83).

And according to Adi Godrej, CEO, Godrej Group, “A leader needs to formulate and understand his company's strategy, take a major part in building it, ensure that it secures the commitment of everyone in the organization, and then devote a lot of energy and time in ensuring that it is carried through” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 83).

Leading by Inspiration

On leading by inspiration, N. Sankar, Managing Director, Champlast Sanmar, said: “The new leader has to be first among equals” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 84).

And according to Suresh Krishna, CEO, Sundaram Fasteners, “A leader needs not just farsighted vision, but also commitment to his beliefs, and, above all, commitment to his people” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 84).

Leading by Influence

On leading by influence, Arun Maira, Vice President, Arthur D. Little, said: “The CEO-asleader will have to influence the performance of the network that his company is becoming, without exercising line authority over every part of the network” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 80).

Leading by Empowerment

On leading by empowerment, Anand Mahindra, Deputy Managing Director, Mahindra and Mahindra, said: “The leader has to spend a lot of time on selecting appropriate people, and on designing processes to get the best performance and behavior” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 86).

Leading by Expertise

On leading by expertise, Ajay Piramal, CEO, Piramal Group, said: “The main challenge for the new leader is to convert managers into entrepreneurs” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 88). And later, “Dhirubhai Ambani, Chairman of the Reliance Group is a hero in the eyes of his company's employees … precisely because of his demonstrated—and disseminated—competence of financing and finishing mega projects on global scales” (Jayakar, 1996, p. 88).

Appendix C

Focus Group Exercise
Participant Assignment

This assignment should take about 45 minutes.

To begin with think of a person whom you know, or have observed several times, and whom you judge to be an outstanding leader. If you do not know such an individual personally, select a prominent leader about whom you have read or one whom you have observed in the media, and whom you judge to be an outstanding leader.

Now visualize an important incident in which the leader has interacted with one or more of her or his subordinates or followers. Spend about 3 minutes recalling the incident in detail, and visualizing the behavior of both the leader and the subordinates/followers.

Now think of a person whom you know, or have observed several times, and whom you judge to be a competent manager but not an outstanding leader. Visualize an important incident in which the manager has interacted with one or more of her or his subordinates or followers. Spend about 3 minutes recalling the incident in detail, and visualizing the behavior of both the manager and the subordinates/followers.

Please send both the short stories and the list of attributes to:
Professor J. S. Chhokar
Indian Institute of Management
Vastrapur
Ahmedabad—380 015
Thank you.

Appendix D

Guiding Questions for
Semistructured Interviews

Appendix E

Financial Services Industry

Money lending was a recognized activity in India even in ancient times. Somewhat formal financial activity also had an early beginning. Exchange and trading of shares (stock) began in Bombay in 1870 and the Native Share and Stock Brokers’ Association was established in 1875. This association subsequently evolved into the Bombay Stock Exchange (Parekh, 1975). By the early 1940s, stock exchanges had been set up in most large cities. After independence in 1947, there was greater institutionalization of the finance function and the financial services industry came under increasing government control. The Reserve Bank was nationalized in 1949. Several financial institutions were set up by the government, the prominent ones being the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) in 1948, State Financial Corporations in various states during 1952 and 1953, the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (ICICI) in 1955, and the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) in 1964. There was also a gradual growth of the capital market in India. The setting up of the Unit Trust of India (UTI), a mutual fund, in 1964 brought the savings of small investors into the capital market. Nationalization of banks and life insurance in 1969 strengthened government control within the industry. The Indian banking sector in 1995 consisted of 280 scheduled commercial banks (including 27 public-sector banks and 24 foreign banks) and 2 nonscheduled commercial banks spread over 62,000 branches. The deposits of public-sector, private-sector, and foreign banks in 1995 were Rs.3,10,456 crore, Rs.26,106 crore, and Rs.28,350 crore (U.S.$88,700 million, U.S.$7,459 million, and U.S.$8,100 million)¹ respectively. The respective advances were Rs.1,84,361 crore, Rs.15,159 crore and Rs.16,761 crore (U.S.$52,675 million, U.S.$4,331 million, and U.S.$4,789 million) (Gelli, 1996).

The financial services sector has undergone major changes with economic restructuring and liberation, which has acquired a lot of momentum since 1991. Although the pace of change has certainly accelerated since 1991, gradual changes had been taking place even before that. The 1980s, for example, saw the introduction of new services such as leasing, venture capital, factoring, and specialized merchant banking. Several new institutions such as the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Credit Rating and Information Service of India Limited (CRISIL), and Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (SHCIL) also came into being. New financial instruments, such as cumulative convertible preference shares (CCPSs), zero coupon bonds (ZCBs), commercial paper (CP), and warrants, added variety to the financial services industry.

Subsequent to the advent of liberalization, the industry has changed and continues to change rapidly. Currently, there is no control on the pricing of securities; a regulatory agency, the Controller of Capital Issues, has actually been closed down with some, but only some, of its functions being transferred to SEBI; the rupee has been made partially convertible; private and foreign mutual funds have been allowed to operate. This period of rapid change and deregulation has also seen some instances where almost the entire financial system has been abused by individuals for personal, unlawful gain. These aberrations seem to appear from time to time but so far have not caused serious, nonrepairable damage to the system.

The financial services industry in India is currently, and has been for the last few years, very dynamic and competitive. The competition is quite fierce with a number of new and aggressive firms being set up and heavy investments in the Indian market by foreign institutional investors (FIIs). The involvement of foreign financial services companies has also had a strong impact on the industry, further increasing intensity of the competition.

_______________

¹This was the exchange rate in 1998. In 2003, it was U.S.$1 = Rs.46.82. This also applies to figures in Appendixes F and G.

Appendix F

Food Processing Industry

Whereas food-processing activity has been in India since times immemorial as an essential part of human existence, the development of the food-processing industry has been described as “diminutive.” “India is an agricultural giant, but a foods pygmy” (“The Gravy Train,” 1997). The combined turnover of the country's 10 largest food companies is U.S.$2 billion (Rs.7,200 crore),¹ about one 10th of what Nestlé’s European operations achieve (de Boer & Pandey, 1997). Even then food production and processing accounted for 26% of India's GDP, and for over 60% of employment (“The Gravy Train,” 1997).

The primary reason for the industry not having developed to anywhere near its potential seems to be the preponderance of the small-scale and unorganized sectors within the industry. Several value-added food items, ice creams, for example, were until recently “reserved” for the small-scale industries (SSI) sector with the result that economies of scale and the required levels of investment could not be achieved. According to a recent estimate “two thirds of the industry is accounted for by small-scale units and unorganized sectors, which together account for half the total value of foods produced” (“The Gravy Train,” 1997, p. 21). The very close interlinkages between agriculture and food processing also make the latter quite a sensitive political issue because any changes in the food-processing industry have a significant impact on, and consequences for, agriculture. “Low yields, combined with excessive number of intermediaries in the procurement chain, the waste, and the loss of value, lock India's food chain in a vicious cycle of low investment, low skill, low yield, low efficiency, and low added value” (de Boer & Pandey, 1997, p. 92).

The government seems to have recognized the need and potential to develop this industry in the mid-1980s when a separate Ministry of Food Processing was set up at the central (federal) government. With progressive restructuring of the Indian economy, which began slowly in the mid-1980s and has become the cornerstone of all economic policy since 1991:

The industry is thus undergoing a major transition with a certain amount of consolidation taking place and larger companies getting more actively involved, the government trying to play a facilitative and enabling rather than a controlling role, and a number of multinational companies entering the industry. As a consequence of increasing population and prosperity, the overall market for value-added foods is expected to treble from the current level of U.S.$21.4 billion (Rs.74,900 crore) to U.S.$62.5 billion (Rs.2,18,750 crore) by the year 2005 (Food and Agriculture, Integrated Development Action, 1997).

_______________

¹This was the exchange rate in 1998. In 2003, it was U.S.$1 = Rs.46.82.

Appendix G

Outstanding Leaders Mentioned
During Focus Groups and
Semistructured Interviews

Political:

Mahatma Gandhi
Jawaharlal Nehru
Subhaschandra Bose
Indira Gandhi

Social Workers:

Ela Bhat
Medha Patkar
Sunderlal Bahuguna

Military:

Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw

Spiritual-Religious:

Swami Vivekananda

Business:

JRD Tata
Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata
Rusi Mody
RK Talwar
DN Ghose
GD Birla
Aditya Birla
Ashwin Nagarwadia
Dhirubhai Ambani
Rahul Bajaj

Appendix H

Illustrative Statements from Media Analysis

Change

Action

Charisma

Control

Culture

Direction

Communication

Appendix I

Illustrative Statements From Unstructured
Interviews

“Communications … the ability to communicate … is also very important in leaders … of course.”

“He should be able to communicate effectively. And in communication, I think one of the major skills in communications is listening.… So if you are not a good listener, you cannot be a good communicator because one way communication is no communication, you're just talking. So, that is the third thing that comes out of this … [not clear] … decision making, being able to communicate that, decisions and all … those things … those are important.”

“Communication skills … here I mean not the … the way he talks … that kind of … thing … his ability to … make … people understand … what exactly he wants to communicate basically … actually … there should not be any kind of gaps like.… It is not necessary to have language skills and all …”

“He should be good at communication, whatever is that vision … that he is going to see, he should be able to communicate it … and he has to be articulate because … that vision that he is seeing, he should be able to put it in the way that … would inspire people to follow and make them also see the same thing.”

“Either he makes the vision evolve or he communicates it in such a way that … [pause] … they are sold on it you know, that they can identify themselves … with the same … a'h … vision or the mission he has.”

“I would say a very important quality of leadership would be that you should be able to see much beyond … (pause) … because that is how you are going to lead. And the perspective should be not only that much beyond but a holistic … larger perspective of everything.”

“He has got a clear vision, direction … he is very knowledgeable … very influential in the industry and as a person he has got some kind of clear-cut vision.”

_______________

¹Taxsila flourished as a large center of learning around 550–500 BC in the northwestern part of India and attracted scholars and students from far and wide. Nalanda was set up in third century AD as a Buddhist monastery in Bihar. It “did not confine itself to training Buddhist novices, but also taught the Vedas, Hindu philosophy, logic, grammar and medicine. … The student population was not confined to the Buddhist order, but … candidates of other faiths who succeeded in passing a strict oral examination were [also] admitted.… It provided free training for no less than 10,000 students” (Basham, 1954/1967, p. 166).

²Unlike the earlier invasions, the British Empire had its roots in traditional Indian hospitality. A local ruler in one of the eastern provinces allowed a British trading post to be set up in his kingdom. This trading post grew into the East India Company. Over time, the protection of commercial interests evolved into the British taking complete control of governance over the area.

³“Nationwide, literacy is 52 percent, compared with 24 percent three decades ago. More than a third of the country's lower-caste people were literate in 1991, up from 10 percent in 1961” (Spaeth, 1996, p. 44).

⁴Popularly almost universally called Mahatma Gandhi, Mahatma meaning the great soul.

⁵A tremendous amount of writing is available on and by Gandhi, and also about Nehru albeit to a somewhat lesser extent. Two representative references about Patel are Shankar (1974) and Gandhi (1990).

⁶The focus group in the United States was conducted by Rabi Bhagat.

⁷This assumes even greater significance as only 14% of the sample were women.

⁸The CFA was done with reference to the analysis and findings of GLOBE Pilot Study 2 because that was the final step in developing the GLOBE instruments. Please see House et al. (2004) for a description of the process of developing the GLOBE instruments.