| Jagmohan Dalmiya must have been a very popular and effective leader as the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
|
| |
| As many as 27 out of the 30 state-level cricket associations, whose representatives met in Chennai on Sunday, endorsed the proposal that Mr Dalmiya should be appointed as the patron-in-chief for three years after he completed his tenure as BCCI president at the end of this month.
|
| |
| According to one newspaper report, Mr Dalmiya left the meeting room when the proposal to make him the patron-in-chief came up for discussion, so that the representatives could take an independent and impartial view on the matter.
|
| |
| Yet, there are many questions about why Mr Dalmiya should have been given a fresh tenure in a position that is superior to that of the president of the BCCI.
|
| |
| The argument in favour of appointing Mr Dalmiya as the patron-in-chief was that India’s cricket establishment needed his services to continue to get the best deal from the International Cricket Council (ICC). Mr Dalmiya is known for his “networking” skills, which made him “indispensable”.
|
| |
| A former BCCI president, however, suggested that the new BCCI president, to be elected later this month, should always represent the country’s apex cricketing body at all international fora and at the ICC. His obvious fear was that Mr Dalmiya as the patron-in-chief would continue to liaise with the ICC and thereby belittle the role of the new president.
|
| |
| Such fears may be genuine. But in spite of them, a large majority of state-level cricket associations decided to appoint Mr Dalmiya as the patron-in-chief, knowing it full well that they were tinkering with the organisation’s structure and substantially curtailing the role and powers of the next president.
|
| |
| No one was deterred by such thoughts and Mr Dalmiya also looked quite happy with the outcome of that meeting that cleared his appointment to the new position.
|
| |
| Why point fingers only at Mr Dalmiya? That is how many successful managers and leaders of India Inc have also behaved, although the cases may not be strictly comparable. And examples of such behaviour are galore in the world of Indian politics.
|
| |
| It is not difficult to detect the early signs of such leadership problems in organisations. A powerful and effective leader with a long stint is the first sign. Take Jyoti Basu as an example.
|
| |
| Immediately after he assumed charge as the chief minister of West Bengal in 1977, it became clear that the state had got an efficient administrator who would have a long and durable tenure. No wonder, he ruled the state for nearly 24 years.
|
| |
| Soon, Jyoti Basu like Mr Dalmiya became “indispensable”. Every other leader in the state began talking about the void that would be created after the departure of Jyoti Basu.
|
| |
| But the CPI (M) leader had other ideas. Springing a surprise on many of his colleagues, he decided to nominate his successor and quit the government.
|
| |
| There was no looking back for him since that day. Buddhadev Bhattacharya, the new chief minister, did not have to contend with the presence of his predecessor in a powerful position within the government. Such examples are rare.
|
| |
| Even in the case of Infosys, N R Narayana Murthy gave up the chief executive’s job in favour of Nandan Nilekani, but continued to be around as chief mentor. This is also what Tarun Das of the Confederation of Indian Industry did. Bhattacharya was more lucky than those who succeeded Narayana Murthy and Das.
|
| |
| There are different theories about how a chief executive should groom the next rung of leadership so that there is a smooth succession once he quits the organisation.
|
| |
| One theory suggests that a leader should over a given time-frame make himself redundant in the organisation. He should put in place such a strong system that the routine functions get taken care of without his intervention.
|
| |
| In other words, he should make himself dispensable. Once that transformation is achieved, finding a successor does not pose a difficult problem.
|
| |
| It is clear that the BCCI’s problems arose because Mr Dalmiya failed to make himself redundant. With every passing day, he became more indispensable for the organisation. Instead of putting in place a strong system to take care of the routine operations, Mr Dalmiya used his personal style and “networking” to get things done.
|
| |
| This is exactly how most Indian political leaders behave and many chief executives in Indian companies function. Underlying this approach is a desire to prolong one’s tenure. This is not a healthy trend.
|
| |
| By agreeing to be appointed as patron-in-chief, Mr Dalmiya will of course benefit, but the organisation he now heads will suffer. Just as Indian political parties and many companies have suffered in the past.
|
| |
| An outstanding leader is one who does not leave a void behind him. Mr Dalmiya and leaders like him not only enjoy leaving a void behind them, but use that to perpetuate their tenure.
|
| |
|
akb@business-standard.com |
| |
Content Guide
