GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS AND THE INDIAN MODEL OF ECONOMY AND BUSINESS

Introduction

The global crisis that struck the world in 2008 is the latest symptom of the failure of the western economic systems. For about twenty years after the collapse of Soviet Russia, it was argued that market-centric economic theories of the west, led by the US, remained the best and the only solution for the development of economies of all the countries in the world, irrespective of their histories and backgrounds. Hence “one size fits for all” approach was advocated, in spite of the vast differences in culture, resources and life styles of people living in various parts of the world. Countries were compelled to accept the beliefs and ideas of the west through the multilateral agencies and the establishments. But from the 1980s, the market- based approaches have been proving to be failures in different parts of world, from South America to ASEAN countries and other parts of the world.
When we look at the developments in India against this background, we get useful insights. At the time of Independence, India was a poor, underdeveloped and illiterate country. More than three fourth of the population was dependent on agriculture for livelihood. Figures show that in 1950-51, about 45% of the population was living below poverty line and the literacy rate was around 17%. The average age of life was just 32.1 years. India was a condemned nation, struggling to survive without much respect in the global arena. But after sixty two years now, the whole world is turning its attention to look at India and the functioning of her economic, business and management systems. In recent years, Indian economy has been growing at the second fastest speed in the world. It remains as one of the least affected economies due to the global crisis. India has around 85 million entrepreneurs engaged in various economic activities.
The history of the macroeconomic management of the past six decades shows that our policy makers remain looking at the west trying to learn their approaches and adopt them to the maximum extent possible. Sincere efforts have not been attempted to develop policy frame works suited to the Indian conditions and implement them. As a result the country has been facing serious difficulties in many areas, including agriculture which remains the most important constituent of our economy for it is responsible for food security, apart from providing employment and livelihood to large sections of the society. But amidst all these problems, India is growing. The growth has been continuing in spite of the confusions and contradictions at the policy making levels. It is this growth that is making the world to turn its attention towards India.
It is time we studied the Indian economic, business and management systems from realistic perspectives and understand the ‘functioning models’ in the light of changes in the global economic scene. Then only the global crisis and its impact on the Indian systems would be clearly understandable to us.
Global economic crisis
What erupted as the financial crisis beginning from September 2008 with the collapse of the mega investment firms in the US, affected in turn the insurance companies and banks resulting in the exposure of the fragility of their entire financial system. The impact spread to the other sectors as well, affecting giant automobile corporations such as General Motors. Simultaneously the crisis affected other major western economies and moved to the other regions of the world. So what started off as an American financial crisis became a global economic crisis within a few weeks. The US Government had to announce bailout packages worth over $ 700 billion and support programmes to help stop the crisis devastating their companies and lives of citizens who lost their jobs and savings. The other countries affected by the crisis also offered various types of incentives and packages to protect their economies from further troubles. But the crisis is far from over. Even after one year the woes of the crisis continue to daunt many of the western economies, particularly the US. About 120 banks have collapsed in 2009 alone. The rate of unemployment has crossed ten percent.

More than six decades of post-war growth has not solved their problems; rather it is leading to more difficulties. With all their scientific advancements, health care costs have skyrocketed. They find it difficult to provide even the basic minimum medical facilities to all sections of the society. In spite of many years of economic progress, the gap between the rich and poor has been widening. Surveys note that the satisfaction levels of the average American have been going down. Growth has slowed in the richer countries as a whole. Saving rates are either low or negative. Families are breaking down at higher rates. Child poverty ratio remains high among many OECD countries. Social security expenditures are going up. As a result the burdens to the governments have been increasing.


Failure of western theories
The impact of the market fundamentalist approach has been troubling the rest of the world as well. The poorer and developing countries remain the victims of the rich countries and powerful multinational corporations. Human Development Report 2005 mentions that the payments made by the US government to their cotton farmers had resulted in the fall of cotton prices in the poor countries, leading to the poverty rate increasing from 37 to 59% in Benin alone. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who was with the World Bank earlier, notes: “Globalization today is not working for many of the world’s poor. It is not working for much of the environment. It is not working for the stability of the global economy.” The market approach has affected India also. Unemployment is on the rise. Social sectors are not being cared adequately. The most crucial sector namely, agriculture is in serious difficulties. Hence there is an all round dissatisfaction against globalization and the market ideology across the world. Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel economics prize, observed recently that “much of the past 30 years of macroeconomics was “spectacularly useless at best and positively harmful at worst.” So the root cause of the latest financial crisis, and the resultant economic crisis, is clearly the western theories and their approaches.
An objective analysis of the western economic history shows that their models rest on weak foundations. Earlier it was feudalism in which lands were owned by a few, with most of the population toiling for their masters. Then it was mercantilism which aimed for huge stocks of gold and silver for the royal treasuries, without any benefit for the citizens of their countries. Colonialism, that resulted in the huge exploitation of men, material and resources by a few European countries, was the major and most visible scheme of the mercantilist ideology. Backlash against mercantilist approach witnessed capitalism being propounded by Adam Smith in the eighteenth century. Poor working environment, suffering at the hands of the factory owners and the overall population not getting benefited led to the birth of the communist ideology put forth by Marx and Engels in the nineteenth century. The failure of communism in Soviet Russia in the late 1980s and the subsequent disintegration of the state into smaller countries left the US driven market model as the ‘only alternative’ to the rest of the world, as claimed by the supporters of the neo-liberal framework. But now, as the recent developments make it clear, the market model is also failing them, and all of us in the rest of the world.

Western models are not universal

It is informative to note that after the latest crisis, when it was pointed out that the western models have failed, one or two major European countries specifically mentioned that it was the US model that failed. Hence it is clear that even the European countries are not ready to accept the US- driven market ideology. A study of economic history would make us understand that that no one western model dominated the world, especially after the ascendancy of the west. The noted economic historian Andre Gunder Frank asserts that the world economy was Asia based even during 1400-1800. To quote Frank: “….. all available estimates of world and regional population, production, and income, as well as the discussion ….. on world trade, confirm that Asia and various of its regional economies were far more productive and competitive and had far and away more weight and influence in the global economy than any or all of the “West” put together until at least 1800.” But as the modern history was written by the west as they saw it, Asia’s rightful place was denied. To quote Frank: “Asia’s rightful and historically documented place has been denied by the dominance of excessively Eurocentric perspectives on early modern and recent world economic history - and social science.”
The developments during the recent periods show that the countries which did not follow the policy prescriptions of the west have escaped the crisis. In this connection it would be useful to see what Stiglitz had noted on the capital control policies of India and China. To quote: “It is no accident that the two large developing countries spared the ravages of the global economic crisis—India and China—both had capital controls.” But the countries that implemented the prescriptions of the US dominated west had to face serious difficulties. Hence it is clear that the western models are not the ‘only best models.’ So they cannot be universally advocated to all the countries in the world.
In fact in any economic matter, there are many non-economic factors. Family, society, culture, lifestyles and preferences are some of the major factors that play a dominant role in economic decisions. History, backgrounds and resources also have their role. But unfortunately, modern economics does not take all these into consideration, as the western paradigms are different from that of the rest of the world. Individualism dominates their lives. States and markets are the only two major external entities to them. Hence all their theories revolve around these beliefs and their lifestyles. This is the reason why Alan Greenspan, the Governor of the US Federal Reserve Bank for more than fifteen years, has been arguing till recently that saving was a waste and people should spend as much as possible.
Now the crisis should help them – and all of us - to recognize that there are other methods of managing economies and there are many non-economic factors that play a role in taking economic decisions. So as a first step we should avoid looking at the economies of different countries of the world only through the western theories. This is all the more true for an ancient economy such as India. Kanagasabapathi notes: “It is very unfortunate that we try to understand the economic models of different countries, particularly an ancient nation such as India, through the two popular “isms”, born very much later in the west. Even the study of the world economic systems begins only from the last few centuries. It is as if no economic system had existed earlier, even in prosperous civilizations such as India and China.”
Indian economy – During the earlier centuries
India is an ancient civilization. India is known for her economic prosperity and all round achievements since the earliest times. Indus- Saraswathy civilization proves the existence of well planned urban systems about 4500 years ago. Business historian Agarwal notes that imports and exports were at their peak in India even during those times. The first economics book of the world namely Arthasashtra was written in India about 2300 years back. Even when we take the last two millennia for which comparative figures are available, India stands out as the most productive and sustainable economic power in the world. Maddison shows that India was contributing 32.9% to the global GDP, the highest in the world, during the beginning of the Common Era, with China following us with 26%. India remained as the most powerful economy in the world for more than 80% of the time during the last two thousand years. It was the British domination that destroyed the Indian systems and made India lose her superior status. Even in 1750, India’s contribution to the global GDP was almost 25%. India was made as a poor nation by the British.
Functioning Indian Models
Now within sixty two years of Independence, India has already emerged as a global power – economic power, business power and management power. She is the fourth powerful economy. Indians are setting up businesses in different parts of the world. Many Indian companies have become important players at the international level. Several clusters such as Surat, Tirupur and Karur have become household names in foreign countries. Indians dominate international businesses such as diamonds in Antwerp. An increasing number of Indian professionals are occupying senior and responsible positions in different fields abroad.
What is the reason for India emerging as a global power, in spite of difficulties and disturbances at various levels? What was the reason for India contributing one third of global GDP 2009 years back and maintaining the number one position for more than eighteen centuries? The answer is the unique Indian models. They are functioning even today, against all confusions and predicaments among the elite and ruling sections of the country.
For all economic activities, funds are important. It is better when the funds are mobilized through savings. But people need to save. They cannot be mandated to save. The main problem with the western economies is the lack of savings and the consequent lack of own funds. So there is shortage. But in India saving is part and parcel of one’s life. It takes place naturally without getting noticed. In 1950-51, when about half of the population was starving, the saving rate was 8.6%. One has to remember here that the current saving rates in the richer countries such as the US and the UK are in negative figures. It means they are spending more than what they earn. But in India even when people do not earn adequate amounts, they save. Saving rates have continued to increase over all these years and as a result the official saving rate for 2008-09 was 38.1%. It is one of the high rates in the world. We have to remember here that there are other popular avenues of investments such as gold and a variety of indigenous methods that are not taken into account for the calculation of official saving rates. India buys about 20 to 25% of global gold output annually. If we take all the different methods of saving into account, our saving rates would be more.
Why do people save money, even when they are in difficulties? Why don’t they spend whatever they have and enjoy their lives? In Indian culture it is the duty of the householders to look after their children, elders and dependents. So everyone thinks it is his/her duty to save as much money as possible so that they would be able to contribute to the wellbeing of the family. Parents sacrifice their needs to provide comforts to their children. As a result huge funds are saved in different avenues.
Due to high levels of saving, capital formation becomes easy. Since India is a family and community oriented society, there is a pool of huge social capital. As a result promotion of business is facilitated. Net works of relationships are used for establishing and running businesses. World Development Report 2001 notes that Tirupur is able to successfully compete in the international textile market due to the prevalence of high social capital. The report mentions that Tirupur businessmen are able to borrow loans without much transaction costs, as people ‘rotate credit’ due to their close relationships. This practice has been helping them to sell the products at lower prices, as their cost of capital is low when compared to their competitors from western countries. In a study conducted among the diamond exporters from Surat and Ahmedabad, it was reported that about 80% of them were financially supported by their relatives when they set up their ventures.
Family bondages and community orientation encourage and help Indians to enter into businesses. As a result people venture into different economic activities in huge numbers. Economic Census 2005 notes that there were around 42 million businesses in the unorganized sector, comprising of small businesses. Reserve Bank of India mentions that there were about 13 million units in the SSI sector. An all India survey published by the Government of India noted that there were 2042 clusters across the country during 2001-02, with each cluster housing hundreds of business and industrial establishments. As for the corporate sector, there were 7, 43,678 companies at work at the end of March 2007. (Govt. of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs)
It is important to note that most of the businesses, especially among the small and medium category, were established by the promoters themselves through their savings and support from families and close circles comprising of relatives and friends. The contribution of the state and state mechanisms remain very low. In the unorganized segment for example, more than 95% of contributions have come from the promoters, their families and close circles. A study of major clusters in the states of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu showed that in most of the cases initial funds for businesses had been mobilized by the promoters through own funds, family support and informal sources. ( Kanagasabapthi) The share of banks funds even in working capital remained very low in centres such as Sankagiri, the transport cluster with the second largest lorry traffic in the country. It is necessary to know that the contribution of the women folk to the functioning of the economy and the success of businesses is enormous. Many businessmen attribute their success to the dedication and support of their mothers, wives, grandmothers and sisters.
The presence of all these factors combined with the native entrepreneurship systems makes India one of the unique economic models. Sivakasi in Tamil Nadu was a little known place with only salt water about 90 years ago. Two youngsters decide to enter into business, go to Calcutta, work in the match factory run by foreigners, learn the business and return to their native. With great difficulties, they set up their first match unit in 1923. Today Sivakasi is a household name in the country for it manufactures 90% of the national cracker requirements and supplies 80% of the match boxes, besides having a share of more than 45% in offset printing. Cheque books of European banks, air tickets of foreign companies and the highest prized diaries of the world are printed there. The ordinary people of Sivakasi, many of them with little or less education but enormous business sense and vision, have made the town a ‘ little Japan’ as the first prime minister of India called it. Whether it is Namakkal with the largest lorry traffic in the country or Surat with a turnover of more than 50000 crore rupees, almost all the business and industrial centres in the country have similar histories behind them. No business is difficult for these people, for they have the enterprise and native intelligence in abundance. They compete with the western multinationals run by the highly qualified technical/business school graduates and emerge successful even in the foreign soils, making the country proud and richer.
Hence it is the functioning models with unique features that are responsible for taking India to greater heights. But unfortunately they are not recognized, as we still continue to look at the country from western perspectives. In the earlier centuries before the arrival of the British, native systems thrived and prospered with the support of the society and the state. Hence they produced better results. In the changed circumstances, after two hundred years of destruction and more than sixty years of confusion, the native systems had to undergo many changes. But with the strong foundations provided by the age-old culture, the overall spirit remains. It is this spirit, rooted in the dust and soil of this country, which is making India functional and productive, irrespective of the strong negative influences from within and outside.
Conclusion
The global economic crisis is a symptom of the failure of the US driven market approach. The crisis seems to indicate the beginning of the end of the contemporary western models. India escaped the crisis and continues to move forward with all the problems, as the functioning Indian models help the country from the onslaught of the narrow market ideology. Studies by the author indicate that the Indian economic and business models are unique and stand on stronger foundations. It is unfortunate that they are not understood and recognized properly and our policy makers continue to ape the west. Hence the critical issues remain unsolved. There is a long way to go to provide facilities to all the sections of the society by making one and all participate in the development process. It is time we studied the Indian systems and devise policies based on the ground realties, so that our strengths are fully utilized for getting maximum possible benefits.

References

1. Stiglitz, Joseph E., Globalization and its Discontents, Penguin Books, New Delhi, 2002
2. Human Development Report 2005 , Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005
3. Krugman Paul quoted in The Economist, July 16, 2009
4. Frank, Andre Gunder, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi, 1998
5. Kanagasabapathi, P., Indian Models of Economy, Business and Management, Second Edition, Prentice Hall of India , New Delhi, 2009
6. Agarwala, P.N., A Comprehensive History of Business in India – from 3000 BC to 2000 AD, Tata McGraw- Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, 2001
7. Maddison, Angus., The World Economy- A Millennial Perspective, First Indian Edition, Overseas Press (India) Private Limited., New Delhi by arrangement with Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2003
8. World Development Report 2001, World Bank, Washington, 2001
9. Patel, Sharad and Kanagasabapathi, P., ‘A Study on Gujarat Diamond Export Industry’, Unpublished report, P.S.G. Institute of Management, Coimbatore, April 2005
10. Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy, Reserve Bank of India, 2008
11. Statistical Review of the Corporate Sector, Annual Report 2007-08, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi
12. Final results: Third All India Census of Small Scale Industries 2001-
2002, Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004

(Published in Perspectives in Social Science, Vol.2 No.1, C.Achutha Menon Foundation, Thiruvananthapuram, pp.18-29, Jan-Mar.2010)

NEED FOR INDIAN MANAGEMENT MODELS


India is an ancient civilization with a proud history of continuous prosperity. Even during the previous two millennia, she was the most powerful economy in the world, till the Britishers started destroying her. India was a poor nation at the time of Independence, and within a period of just decades she is emerging as major economy at the global level. The reason for the prominence and rise of India is her backgrounds and native management models. With the ascent of the West during the recent centuries, their concepts and practices came to be used throughout the world due to historical reasons. Now they are facing serious difficulties as their foundations are weak. Hence it is no use copying them. Instead we have to recognize the functioning Indian models, develop newer ones and create theories that are suited to our conditions, to go forward in the right direction.

Introduction

We are witnessing two major developments at the international level during the recent years. One is the large scale failure of the western economic, business and management models. Second is the rise of India and China in the economic and business fields. Among these two countries, India is democratic with a very long history of economic prosperity since the earliest times. In recent times, she has emerged as a major economic force at the global level in a period of just six decades after independence. Indian business sector has been growing and is spreading its wings successfully across the globe.
The economic crisis that erupted in the US in 2008, and devastated the west, has shown that their models have failed in their own country. As a result serious questions are now being raised against their models, particularly with regard to their applicability in other countries. In fact reputed economists such as Paul Krugman, who is the 2008 Nobel laureate, are questioning the very fundamentals of the western theories. At the same time many experts have started to admit that that the Indian models would be better than the western systems. During the past few decades, there have been attempts by a few concerned experts to create awareness for developing an Indian system of management, primarily based on the ethos and spirit of the nation. Voices have also been raised, on different occasions, regarding the suitability of the western models to the Indian conditions. The time is ripe now to examine the position in the changed circumstances and create a suitable climate for evolving native models for better performance and sustainable development.
Management concepts and theories – Developments in India and the West
India is an ancient civilization. India remained a powerful economy, with successful business and trade practices since the ancient times. Even when we take the last two millennia, we could find India as the most vibrant and prosperous nation for most of the period. Economic historian Maddison (2003) notes that India was contributing 32.9 percent, almost one third of global GDP, during the beginning of the Common Era, i.e. 2009 years back. We understand that India’s position as a premier economy continued uninterrupted, till the Britishers started interfering and destroying the native systems.
An economy that remained as the most prosperous one for many centuries with successful businesses must have had very good management systems. We have to remember here that India was not just the major economic power, but also the premier centre for educational, scientific, intellectual and spiritual activities with pioneering contributions in diverse fields. We understand that the management concepts were predominant in the ancient literatures and scriptures. In fact we could see various management concepts discussed in different books, apart from the well recognized works such as the Bhagawat Gita, Arthashastra and Thirukkural. More than two thousand years ago, Thiruvalluvar had written on what are now considered as the modern management concepts such as human relations development, norms of good governance and communication skills. Hence Nanda (2006) asserts: “The scholars in Europe and America have to be informed that management thought in ancient India are not limited to one book i.e. Kautilya’s Arthashastra. This is one of the many books of knowledge in relation to management.” One could see the usage of management concepts and principles in the form of sayings and proverbs in the day to day lives of the ordinary citizens across the country, even today. These proverbs explain different management ideas in just a few words beautifully. They are available in many Indian languages. Nanda notes: “In ancient India, we find a lot of definition of subjects relating to management in some way or other.” So the management concepts are not new to India; they seem to have been used even among the common people since the earlier periods.
Later when the Britishers began to adopt their methods and introduce their systems after their arrival, Indian economy and businesses declined. As a result the time tested concepts and systems that were developed over many hundreds of years of experiments were neglected and destroyed. Finally when India got independence after more than two hundred years of alien domination, she was a poor nation with a host of problems.
Most of the modern west is comparatively new. Maddison notes that Britan did not even have clearly defined borders till about five centuries years ago. The most predominant of them today, namely the US, was ‘discovered’ in 1492 and it was only later that the Europeans settled there. Economic historians such as Andre Gunder Frank emphasized that the rise of the west in the later centuries was not due to any of their superiority such as technology. He notes that even their claim to the philosophy of ‘capitalism’ is far-fetched. To quote Frank (1998), “ Until about 1800 the world economy was by no stretch of imagination European-centered nor in any significant way defined or marked by any European-born ( and European-borne) “capitalism”, let alone development. Still less was there any real “capitalist development” initiated, generated, diffused, or otherwise propagated or perpetrated by Europeans or the West. That occurred only by the stretch of the Eurocentric imagination, and even that only belatedly after the nineteenth century…………”
Experts note that the Europeans could emerge at the global level only due to their colonial policies. As a result Europe, and mainly the British, could improve its economic position at a rapid speed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Subsequently the US emerged as the major economic force in the twentieth century. Management theories of the west started emerging in Europe and America from the final decades of the nineteenth century. Cole (2004) notes: “The Classical school of management thought and thinkers emerged from 1880s to 1930s. It was the result of unprecedented growth during the industrial revolution. Large and complex organizations created the organizational complexities, and problems of operational efficiency.” Practising managers such as Taylor and Henry Fayol, and social scientists such as Mayo and McGregor had contributed to the earlier management theories. It was the academicians and the management consultants who have been predominantly contributing in the later periods. To quote Cole: “Most of the contributors to the theory and practice of management nowadays are academics with strong research backgrounds, and most are from USA. Of the practitioners, almost all are practicing management consultants, indeed most also hold positions in American universities.” Here it is relevant to understand that the western management theories are of recent origin, and the later ones have mostly been contributed by the US academicians.
As India and the rest of the world were under the dominance and influence of the European thinking, their management practices came to be adopted in the colonies across the world. Later when America began to dominate the global economic scene, they began popularizing their management systems. They supported the establishment of management and business schools in different countries such as India. As a result, the US model of management appeared to be the appropriate model for all the other countries. The increasing spread and influence of the multi national corporations during the last few decades have also helped the U.S. and the western management systems to spread out to different parts of the world.
Different models of management
Basically there are two types of thoughts with regard to the approach towards life. They could be broadly classified as the western and the eastern types of thought. They are based on the outlook, views, ideas and lifestyles of people in these parts of the world. The economic, business and management models of different countries are based on these thoughts and approaches. Hence we have to keep this point in mind, when we discuss the management models of India and the west. Otherwise any analysis or comparison of management models would not be meaningful. The most prolific contributor to the value based Indian management thoughts, Professor Chakraborty (1991), notes: “It is prejudicial to the real interest of Indian management not to know or to choose to ignore the two fundamentally different streams of human temperament in the world: the western (especially since the renaissance) masculine, logical, rational aggressiveness and the Eastern feminine, intuitive, receptive realization.”
As the eastern and western management systems rest on different foundations, it might be difficult to find universal management models applicable to all the countries in these parts of the world. Sharma (2001) writes: “There is no single model that is applied everywhere in different countries. “Pascale and Athos in their book, The Art of Japanese Management, have contrasted the approach adopted by the professional managers of the Western and the Eastern world, in solving their problems. The principal difference between the Eastern institutions and those in the West is that ours is tuned to organizational structure and formal systems to cope with those challenges. In contrast, Eastern institutions, while until recently advancing more slowly in thinking about organizational forms and formal systems paid more attention to social and spiritual means.” Experts note that culture plays a vital role in shaping the management approaches. Parthasarathy (2006) asserts that “Management is predominantly culture specific.”
How relevant are the western models for India?
When the attitudes and approaches of people in India are vastly different from that of the Western countries, it might not be advisable to adopt their methods. Sharma asks: “Can a society, which has spirituality as its dominating characteristic, adopt the ‘management philosophy’ developed in the West per se.” The contemporary functioning economic, business and management systems of India are different from that of the West (Kanagasabapathi, 2009). Against this background, if India tries to emulate the western models she might not be able to attain full success. To quote Chakraborty (1991): “Authentic success in Indian organizations will remain an elusive purple patch if superficial emulation of techniques springing from the western temper remains the mainstay.”
Flaws in western models
Cut-throat competition and too much of individualism have created irreparable distortions in the western system. Even the organizational loyalty, which is important for any system to succeed, is considered as incorrect by the west. Chakraborty (1991) notes: “Western thinking, by and large, prompts us to treat organizational loyalty as an anti-professional value. The truth is that today professionalism is almost a byword for loyalty towards personal mercenary aims. Yet no great achievement is ever possible without a focus of loyalty which transcends the individual self. Besides, in the long run, life itself loses meaning if every thought and action remains centered on the little self only.” The top management is only bothered about garnering the maximum benefits for themselves, even at the cost of the larger interests of the employees, shareholders and the society.
Many of the western experts themselves voice opinions with regard to the problems associated with their management practices. For example, Salamon (2002) from U.K., “…… candidly admits that there are several flaws in the western model of managing a business.” Self-centric approaches, maximization of profits at all costs, little concern for the larger environment and a narrower view of life are some of the major flaws in the system. What could be the main reason for the flaws in the western models? Chakraborty (1991) asserts that it is the absence of ethical principles. To quote: “A survey of the managerial and administrative processes also reveals the same dominating paradigm as in economics. …. It is the invasion of this credo into management which causes it to leave out the ethico-moral man in managerial processes.”
Functioning management models
Studies reveal that Indian and Indianised management models exist and are successfully functioning in India. The non-corporate sector plays the dominant role in the Indian economy and businesses, with a contribution of about 57% to the national income. Different studies on the management styles and practices in the non-corporate sector show that the management models are native. Studies of different economic centers, including highly successful industrial and business clusters covering different types of organizations including companies, and society based business initiatives provide important clues to the functioning of native management systems.
Let us take for example, the field of personnel management which is a very important area in modern management. In almost all the successful centres, the overall management approach towards employees is friendly and not antagonistic. On the whole there is a personal orientation beyond the employer-employee relationship. The entrepreneurs try to keep their employees satisfied by helping them, whenever such help is required. In many instances there is a ‘fraternal approach’ to the employees. In the course of time, most of these factory/business relationships get extended into personal and family relationships. One could notice the established entrepreneurs in different parts of the country taking it as their duty to promote and develop new entrepreneurs by helping them in all possible ways. This is the highest forms of assistance to anybody who wants to start a business.
There is an industrialist in western Tamil Nadu, who has promoted more than 10 textile spinning units, all by himself during the last two decades. He has more than 10000 employees working for him. There has been no strike, and not a single protest by the employees during these years. But he is not a HR professional, and not even a qualified textile expert. How could he maintain such a high level of human relations and extraordinary success in business? It is all due to his personality as a concerned and a humane employer, moving closely with everyone irrespective of their status. He knows the names and background of all his employees and remains as a source of support in times of difficulties.
‘Indianised’ styles in corporate sector
One could notice more of a traditional orientation in a majority of the corporate sector. In many places one can still notice the traditional office systems devoid of a luxurious outlook, elderly promoters attending work and helping the subsequent generations in all possible ways, and in a few cases loyal employees contributing sincerely well after retirements. All of them have adapted to the modern times, without losing the inherent value systems. It is a common feature to see the managements updating themselves with the operations and performance of the companies using latest technologies. Subsequent generations have acquired minimum qualifications or more, and have learned to use as much technology as they require for operations and management. In many cases the heirs to the business try to get technical and management qualifications in the relevant fields from good institutions.
As far as the big corporations are concerned, though there has been an outward tendency to emulate the West, the attitudes and approaches of those who control are primarily Indian. During the previous decades, the earlier generations tried to steer the businesses without losing track of their value systems. Though the modern generations remain a bit confused, they would certainly prefer to follow the Indian ways in the changed circumstances after the crisis. There is also a mix of the Indian and the Western methods in different instances. Even the multinational enterprises that operate here know that India is a ‘culturally tough’ nation. Hence they Indianise their practices, as much as possible, to establish their business and succeed. These Indianised approaches seemed to have worked well in different cases as they combine the other approaches with the India approach approaches and make suitable combinations of practices.
Cultural foundations of Indian management
The contemporary achievements of India are mainly due to the cultural backgrounds. In such a situation, Chakraborty (2003) presents that India would be able to achieve greatness only by following the management systems based on the cultural traditions and native spirit. “The need for authentic management, management that is true to cultural roots, is becoming clearer daily in both the East and the West. The United States, for instance, cannot meet Japan’s great industrial challenge by copying Japanese methods. Japanese methods do not fit the American ethos. The graft will not take. America must regain its industrial excellence through methods that are compatible with its own unique character and values. Similarly, India will not realize its material potential through copying the US, Britan or Japan. India will be great only by being India. Neither a country nor a person can achieve greatness through imitation. Greatness cannot be achieved through imitation. It can only be achieved through authenticity. The Bhagavad Gita says, “Better in one’s own dharma, though imperfect, then the dharma of another well performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature incurs no sin.”
Higher ideals in management practices
It could be seen that the Indian society always governed its actions by reference to higher ideals, even while engaging itself in routine activities. Maharishi Aurobindo notes: “Indian society developed with an unsurpassed organizing ability, stable effectiveness, practical insight into its communal coordination of the mundane life of interest and desire, kama and artha; it governed always its action by a reference at every point to the moral and religious law, the dharma; but it never lost sight of spiritual liberation as our highest point and the ultimate aim of the effort of Life.” What could be the reason for this? The answer might be found in the words of Tagore: “We still know that only in ……. spiritual wealth and welfare does civilization attain its end, and not in a profile production of materials, not in the competition of intemperate power with power?” It is India’s obligation not just to herself but to the world for a transformation in the management approach. Chakraborty (1999) notes: “The irrefutable commandment is that the secular and the material must be informed and invested with the sacred and spiritual. ….. India’s obligation to herself and to the world is to relive this sacro-secular symbiosis for effective transformation in every epoch.”
Management education based on western notions
Modern management education in India has a background of about seventy years. The management schools rely almost only on the western concepts and practices for teaching. Ojah (2005) notes: “Post graduate management education as we know it today has been strongly influenced by similar education in the U.S. ever since Harvard Business School and Sloan Business School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, helped with the establishment of the Indian Institutes of Management at Ahmedabad and Kolkata respectively in the early 1960s. Continued recruitment of faculty in the IIMs, and other similar institutions, from universities in the west, particularly the U.S., has ensured that most of the prominent post graduate programs in management in India have followed the norms that emerged in the US environment, although with a lag.” As the emphasis remains more on the western theories and approaches, the candidates are not exposed to the realities of the functioning Indian systems. .
Need for India oriented approach
It is time the management institutions did some serious thinking. The western business and management models are facing serious problems, prompting them to go for deeper understanding of the issues. Saraswat (2005) noted earlier: “Widely publicized financial and accounting scandals at large multinational corporations such as Enron and WorldCom in recent years have brought issues of corporate governance, ethical conduct, and social responsibility to the forefront of the academic debate in the United States. Market-rigging scandals at other global corporations such as Italy’s Parmalat demonstrate that the problem is not confined to any one country or culture; its dimensions are global. The growing public awareness of these transgressions has exposed the inadequacy of management education in universities and management practices in corporations. The existing parameters of academic discourse and time-honoured principles of organizational behavior seem to ignore the underlying spiritual and human values on which important management decisions are based. Consequently, individuals in positions of great responsibility in corporations are often unable to either recognize the norms and boundaries of accepted ethical behavior or deliberately trespass them. Academic and corporate establishments in the US are, therefore, recognizing the need for a deeper discussion and understanding of the underlying causes of unethical behavior”
Against this background, there is no use copying the western models. It becomes imperative to reformulate our attitudes towards the western approaches, depending on their applicability and usefulness to India. If necessary we might even have to challenge their models that are not relevant. In this connection, Chakraborty (1991) asks : “… have we Indians ever thought of challenging its wholesale transmission to our students and managers. Could it be that post-independence Indian culture has been so character-less, and our intellectual spinelessness so shameful, that the well intentioned Americans have never really faced a solid and genuine challenge to review the intellectual wares they have brought over to do us good?”
For any country the native models are the most suitable ones. They have their roots in the native soils and are sustainable. It is all the more true in our case. India being a unique country with a proud record, it is necessary to recognize and nurture the functioning models, and develop better ones to suit our conditions. It is to be remembered that the basis for all attempts towards newer models should revolve around the core principles of the nation. To use the words of Chakrabotry (1991): “India has never been a mercenary or colonial culture like many western nations. Materialistic cultures may be glamorous, but not happy. So we are told today that ‘Americans are not getting enough happiness for their money’. The ‘Protestant ethic’ has been associated with the promotion of several exploitative, mercenary colonial cultures. It is therefore likely to be unsuitable to the hidden grain of the Indian temper. The limited sociological perspective tends to miss the woods for the trees. The ‘deep structure’ remains untouched. Courage is required to go to the root of the matter and construct or re-construct our own models. If the endeavour is uncompromisingly honest and sincere, we need not worry about immediate results.”
So we have to create new theories and evolve newer models wherever required, as the foreign models, by nature, are bound to create discord in an ancient country such as India. Moreover we would be able to get the necessary results, only when we follow models that are suitable for our lands. History shows us that as long as India followed her models she was prosperous. The movement they were neglected or thrown out, the system suffered. The solutions for many of the contemporary difficulties could also possibly lie in our inability to understand and develop the native models. Hence it is time that we resolved to create a suitable climate to appreciate and develop native Indian models. In this connection, it is worth noting the words of Samir K Baura (2009), the Director of IIM-A, in a recent interview: “It is high time that we started creating Indian knowledge. We must ask how many management theories have Indian B- schools produced.”
References
1. Barua, Samir K (2009). ‘Create Indian management theories’. Interview. Business India. November 1
2. Chakraborty, S.K. (1991). Management by Values – Towards Cultural Congruence. Oxford University Press: New Delhi
3. Chakraborty, S.K. (1999). Ethics in Management: Vedantic perspectives. Oxford University Press: New Delhi
4. Chakraborty, S.K. (2003). Foundations of Managerial work- Contributions from
Indian thought. Himalaya Publishing House: Mumbai
5. Cole, Gerald. (2004). Management Theory and Practice. Thomson Asia Pte Ltd.: Singapore
6. Frank, Andre Gunder. (1998). Re Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Vistaar Publications: New Delhi.
7. Kanagasabapathi, P. (2009). Indian Models of Economy Business and Management. PHI Learning: New Delhi
8. Maddison, A. (2003). The World Economy- A Millennial Perspective. Overseas Press (India) Private Limited.: New Delhi
9. Nanda, Jayanta K. (2006). Management Thought. Sarup & Sons: New Delhi
10. Ojah, Abhoy K. (2005). ‘Management education in India: Protecting it from the ranking onslaught’. Decision.Vol.32, No.2
11. Parthasarathy, Swami. (2006). Human Values Management- 20 Key Principles for Modern Management. Ane Books India: New Delhi.
12. Ray, Sougata and Sinha, Anup. (2005). ‘Management education- Let a thousand flowers bloom amidst a hundred questions’, Decision. Vol.32, No.2
13. Salaman, Greame. (2002). India need not follow western biz model, interview. The Hindu-Business Line. October 1
14. Saraswat, Satya Prakash.(2005). ‘Reflections on Spiritual foundations of human values for global business management’. Vision- The Journal of Business Perspective. Vol.9, No.3
15. Sharma, G.D. (2001). Management and the Indian Ethos. Rupa and Co: New Delhi.



(Published in Global Management Review, Sona Institute of Management, Vol.3, Issue 5, Nov.2009)