Skip to main content

Ratan Tata sets an example at Jaguar (JLR)



Tata Motors the 314th largest company in the world, acquired  UK based Jaguar Land Rover PLC from Ford Motor Company in June 2008 for $ 2.3 Billion (Rs 14,000 Crores).

Soon after the acquisition was completed, Mr. Ratan Tata the head of Tata group called for a meeting in London to be attended by all the key persons of JLR.




JLR is a premium luxury  car manufacturer and 45 of the top executives of all the plants, and markets came to London, either in the company's own private jets or chartered aircraft to attend. A rather extravagant expenditure.

Mr. Ratan Tata, on the other hand, took a commercial flight from Mumbai to London. He then took a taxi from Heathrow airport to the office of JLR. People at JLR were astonished. How could such a big man, be so simple and unassuming?

The meetings took place without Mr. Tata mentioning the lavish style of management, and unnecessary wastage of money.

Many people earn money only to squander it, they may be rich only for a short spell. The wealthy individuals and organisations are those that earn and spend wisely, while saving money and they grow richer.


About a month later another similar meeting was held. This time every single CEO and senior executive flew commercial. A huge cultural shift, thus saving the company a significant amount of money. JLR soon began to develop a different culture, a more accountable one and both performance and profits have since soared.


People take their cue and their approach follows that of the leader. It is not enough to simply occupy a chair or position, and demonstrate that we are powerful. The power lies in the chair /position On the other hand people like Mr. Ratan Tata in their quiet dignified manner wield tremendous influence. A statement or even a gesture from such kind of people is sufficient to move mountains and great organisations and even nations.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Last thoughts and words of Emperor Aurangzeb

The 6th Mughal emperor of India, Aurangzeb was a brave but cruel man. While he was an excellent military leader, he was a weak administrator with poor understanding of economics. As a result he landed up being dependent on corrupt, fanatical people who only hungered for power and wealth.

Aurangzeb's lust for power was insatiable. In this quest he spared no one, imprisoning his own father, and slaughtering his brothers and nephews. He inherited an expanding empire which permitted him to rule the largest area of the Mughal empire's history, before he led it into decline. 

He felt that his actions had probably made him repugnant to the people and his legitimacy to rule would always be questioned. So he adopted a frugal life style and tried to be a good Muslim to appease the powerful clerics, soldiers, noblemen and the muslim public, which would allow him to rule effectively.

Like many other misguided men he came to believed that Islam meant only violent, subjugation and persecution.…

The Lopez Effect

Every now & then things get tough for a lot of organisations. This may be caused by technology, competition, recession or whatever. When the nasty stuff hits the fan, this is what typically happens at large organisations;

The CMD (Chairman & Managing Director) will call a meeting and scream and rant on how useless and lazy his entire management team is and how they have let the organisation's profitability slide. blah, blah, blah!!!!

The boss desperately searches for a scapegoat. Sometimes sacrificial lambs are found and a few heads roll and the situation only deteriorates because attacking people rather problems never helps. Sometimes the boss realises the truth, that there is no one individual or department or function that can be specifically blamed except the boss himself.

After venting his ire, the boss will issue a diktat to the management team. "I want my organisation to return to high profitability so this is what the team is going to do. I want you to reduce…

Ideology is not Philosophy

We often use words carelessly when communicating and that can lead to much confusion and even misunderstandings.  Take the case of the terms ideology and philosophy which are often used interchangeably. 

The ideologist believes that he or she is right and all those who disagree are wrong.
The philosopher believes that there may be differing perspectives and he or she might have missed something, or the other person has an alternate perspective, and they are  perfectly within their rights to have a differing view.

The ideologist is extremely confident, the philosopher always harbours doubts.
The ideologist is intolerant and if he has no choice will at best tolerate you. The philosopher respects you. 

The hallmark of a true civilisation is that there is scope for dissent, and yet be respected. 
As my friend Bala Adiga says, "One can always disagree without being disagreeable"
This is clearly the philosophy of the East evident in India and many parts of Asia.

The ideologist is masculin…