'Western vs Indian': Differing management approaches reflect cultural roots

Western management abhors ambiguity. Indians tolerate and thrive in it

Several Indian thinkers (me included) place an emphasis on an “Indian” way as compared to a “Western” way of management. They refer to Swami Vivekananda or the Mahabharata to draw lessons. Is this relevant or valid? There is some degree of validity, but only some, particularly in the equilibrium between efficiency and effectiveness. 

Our assumptions about life and work are shaped by deep and unmanifest influences of culture, for example, deference to power, authority, and age, as seen in Indian business leaders genuflecting before ministers and bureaucrats. When I saw North Atlantic Treaty Organization chief Mark Rutte, a blunt Dutchman, genuflect before Donald Trump in a servile manner, I started to rethink. Obviously, there are individual differences in the display and practice of broader cultural tendencies. 

Indian spirituality, illustratively, teaches that what is important is not how long we live or how much money we make, or whether we are famous, rather whether we “multiply positive vibrations” (impact on people) during our lifetime.  Is that uniquely Indian?

German philosopher Karl Jaspers observed in 1948 that thinkers with no mutual contact across vast geographies had similar ideas and reached similar conclusions (The Origin and Goal of History)! All thinkers proposed that individual life should focus on community well being, and self-awareness, exactly as Swami Vivekananda had represented to Western businessmen. In short, the essence of human wisdom and philosophy does not recognise nationalities or religions. But there are differences in their manifestations. 

For example, the installation of a god (picture or statue) in offices, the performance of a puja for a new factory, and a disguised belief in astrology — manifestations and rituals positively impact audiences, which is culture. This forms the basis for accepting ideas (or not) like fate, luck, astrology, and so on. 

An Opposition political leader told state poll audiences that the under-construction flyover that had collapsed on March 31, 2016, in Kolkata was a retribution for misdeeds by the ruling party in West Bengal. Retribution by the gods perhaps washes in India. However, 10 years later, on July 11, 2025, in another state where that leader’s own party was in power, a river bridge collapsed! Retribution for retribution? Such narratives are quite Indian.  It is not the essence of wisdom or philosophy that is distinctive but the manifestations and rituals that are cultural, in short. 

Likewise, about faith in astrology, palmistry, and future-telling. I wrote a factual, light-hearted post 0n LinkedIn about how a company employee (leisure-time astrologer) had forecast the “marriage” of Brooke Bond Lipton in 1995 by casting the horoscope of Brooke Bond — born on September 25, 1912, at noon in Calcutta. The post chalked up over 110,000 impressions, got 45 reposts, and over 1,400 reactions! Many responded that astrology could indeed play a role in company decisions, and that it should not be pooh-poohed. A few commented that astrology was rubbish and modern executives should pay no attention to such gibberish. A minority of respondents lampooned me for placing a post on such an obscure subject. In fairness, I was not advocating astrology! 

I ran a straw poll among my acquaintances on their belief in astrology. Virtually all said “yes”. None would risk an inauspicious date for their children’s wedding, the inauguration date of something new, or joining muhurat share trading. In 1977, Indira Gandhi ignored her astrologer’s advice to sit on a particular side of the election officer, and she lost. In 1980, when she won, she took no risk and sat on the correct side as advised by her astrologer. The faith of our political classes in astrology is well known, but are corporate leaders far behind? In 1991, J R D Tata informed Ratan Tata about his proposed appointment as chairman of Tata Sons but requested temporary confidentiality till an auspicious date was found to make the news public!

There are observably different behavioural tendencies in the “West versus India” debate. Western management abhors ambiguity; Indians tolerate and thrive in ambiguity. Western management tends towards efficiency and centralisation; Indians tend towards effectiveness and decentralisation. (Efficiency and effectiveness are not synonymous.) As an example, recall how Hindustan Unilever implemented a WIMI (winning in many Indias) strategy while Unilever was centralising global markets.  Third, Western management tends towards perfection whereas Indians accept imperfection (jugaad is lauded). Last, the West tends towards technology-centricity whereas Indians tend towards human-centricity. These are not virtues or vices, they are what they are! Younger generations in families, after a foreign education, are seen to integrate West and Indian ideas intelligently. 

Do you think there is some merit in the “West versus Indian” way in the matter of running companies? 

The writer’s latest book JAMSETJI Tata—Powerful Learnings for Corporate Success, has been coauthored with Harish Bhat. rgopal@themindworks.me