Resisting Pressure - IIMA Style

IIMA turned fifty yesterday, December 11, 2010. About fifty professors who had taught here during the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s came to attend the launch of the golden jubilee year. It was wonderful to hear several of them reminisce about their experience during the formative years of the Institute. Quite a few of them had worked with the truly inspiring and visionary founding fathers: Vikram Sarabhai, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, and Ravi Matthai. 

The retired professors spoke about several things that moulded the Institute’s culture that helped it become the leader and stay at the top year after year. But what struck me most was an incident narrated by Professor VS Vyas, who was the director from 1977 to 1982. He received a telephone call from a senior official in the Prime Minister’s office. He was told that he should admit to the PGP a Prince from the Royal family in a neighbouring country. [Professor Vyas didn’t name the country during his speech, but I guess it was Nepal. Which other neighbouring country had a king?]

The Prince had not taken the Institute’s admission test. Professor Vyas said it was not possible to admit any student who had not taken the Institute’s admission test and qualified himself. The official said that denying admission to the Prince would have diplomatic complications and hurt the country’s interests.  He insisted that IIMA admit the Prince.

When reasoning did not succeed, Professor Vyas said that for a decision on an issue like this he would have to consult the faculty and the board. So he asked the official to send him a formal letter asking him to admit the Prince to the PGP and explaining why. The official promised to send it, but never did. So the problem went away.

What enabled Professor Vyas to withstand the pressure from the Prime Minister’s office? What were its consequences? Is there a lesson in it for us?

Standing up to the political masters is far from easy for the Director of any institution that depends almost completely on the government for funding. But two things helped Professor Vyas do it. First, the founding fathers had secured for the Institute an unusually high degree of autonomy right from the beginning. There had not been any instance of the Institute caving in under pressure from anyone in the government. Second, Professor Vyas was willing to face the consequences (possibly, loss of his director’s position) of doing what he believed was right. Each such act of resistance contributes to a reputation which acts as a shield against coercion.

When Professor Vyas couldn’t stop the pressure on his own, he decided to involve his colleagues and board. This is an excellent strategy because it gives an individual tremendous power. Many bullies would not dare confront a group.

It is interesting that the official from the Prime Minister’s office never sent a formal letter requesting admission for the Prince. Obviously, he was trying to use his positional power informally while subtly implying that he was doing it on behalf of the Prime Minister. He didn’t want to leave any trace of his request because he knew it was unjustifiable. The Prime Minister was probably unaware of this although the call came from his office.

Many managers allow themselves to be persuaded far too easily to bend and break rules when all that is required is a little bit of courage to say what they really believe in. They emasculate themselves and their departments making it harder for everyone else to resist unwanted or unreasonable requests.