From the archives of India Today (2014) | Narendra Modi and the art of getting things done

(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue of June 30, 2014)

If there's one lesson we've learned in recent years when it comes to leadership, it's that we overestimate intelligence and underestimate determination. When we choose our leaders, we betray an instinctive bias toward reflection rather than action, even though history teaches us that great leaders were great doers, not great thinkers. Exceptional leaders have always had the qualities of determination, determination and determination in abundance, which has helped them change the world.

With a doctorate from Oxford University, our last Prime Minister was probably the most generously endowed leader in intelligence and academic qualifications. But he failed. He had neither the will to prevail over events, nor the ability to translate thought into action. Disgusted by the drift and paralysis of the last government, the Indian voter has now chosen an opposite type of leader.

Narendra Modi's defining qualities are a sense of purpose, accompanied by attention to detail, and backed by great courage and fierce determination. These are the quintessential abilities of a doer, someone who knows how to get things done. These qualities were generously demonstrated during his election campaign and if he runs the country as well as his campaign, we have good reason to hope. The answers to India's problems have less to do with new ideas and new laws than with implementing old ideas and old laws.

Modi has reminded us of this truth time and again over the past year, and those who know him well have said the same thing: His strength lies in execution. It is time we had an executive in charge of our country, someone who can deliver results. That is why a liberal, secular Indian who does not find Hindutva or the BJP particularly appealing voted for him.

Indians are good at strategy, but lag behind in execution
McKinsey & Co, a respected management consulting firm, found in a famous global study in the 1990s that high-performing companies distinguished themselves by their execution. Its data on India reinforced the trend for action. In its sample of 35 large Indian companies, based on interviews with more than 600 executives, the study concludes: “Even though many Indian companies perform well on strategy, they lag behind in execution.

Foreigners sometimes remind us that Indians are intelligent. But they are too polite to add that they can also be “too smart”. Indians think and argue too much, see too many angles and don't act enough. This makes hiring and recruiting talent especially difficult, because we do well at interviews, and how do you separate the doers from the talkers? The gap between thought and action is so pervasive in Indian life that I sometimes despair if poor execution is, in fact, a character deficit.

My experience as a practicing manager, and later as a board member or consultant, confirms that while most managers generally implement a reasonably sound strategy, they implement it poorly. I am also associated with a private equity fund that has invested in many Indian companies over the last 10 years, which reinforced this conclusion: the best companies are not those with the best business model but the best capacity of execution.

The story of Narendra Modi's rise from serving chai to passengers on the railway platform of a sleepy Gujarat town to 7, Race Course Road illustrates many things, including his leadership style. As he grew to hold positions of increasing responsibility in the RSS and later in the Gujarat government, Modi did not just craft broad policies. Unlike our previous Prime Minister, he has not relinquished responsibility for implementation to those below him.

He surrounded himself with people with similar execution skills, set clear, measurable goals, and created small “implementation” teams. Instead of deciding on strategy, he would go into the complicated details of a project, monitor day-to-day performance, remove obstacles for those implementing the project, stay close to them and motivate them. It recognized those who took initiative and risks, and punished those who played it safe and behaved like bureaucrats. And he did all this without seeming like he was interfering or micromanaging. So he got some pretty ordinary Gujaratis to do some pretty extraordinary things.

I first heard Narendra Modi speak at the Shri Ram College of Commerce in Delhi in February 2013, and it opened a window into his leadership abilities. It was his first speech in a long campaign to become prime minister, and he immediately declared his ambition. Unlike the timid Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party, which danced coquettishly on the subject, Modi sent an unambiguous message that he was hungry for the job. He was a step ahead and the clarity of his objectives was refreshing to the Indian voter.

Modi has also been unambiguous about his specific goal: securing a clear majority for the BJP. The chattering classes laughed every time he said that and thought he was crazy. Little did they know that impossible ambitions drove leaders to succeed. Managers call these “stretch” goals, and their goal is to rally the troops around difficult tasks. Impossible targets have the power to motivate soldiers who forget their differences. They feel like they “own” the objective and the battle. Thus, charismatic leaders are known to achieve an astonishing commonality of purpose among their subordinates – what business leaders prosaically call “alignment.”

Great leaders are not nice people
Related to this, I observed another aspect of Modi's campaign: the importance of a unified team. Great leaders are not “nice” people who seek popularity, much less those you would invite to a polite dinner. Narendra Modi had to ensure unified leadership and get rid of his rivals and skeptics, which is why he had to marginalize LK Advani, Jaswant Singh and others. And why, at the same time, he had to displace his most trusted lieutenant, the ambiguous Amit Shah, to accomplish the miracle of Uttar Pradesh's recovery. And why, despite opposition within the party, he associated with disreputable and tainted politicians BS Yeddyurappa and Ram Vilas Paswan.

The word executive comes from “the one who executes”. The mark of an effective executive is good planning and attention to detail, which is an important lesson I learned at the company I worked at for many years, Procter & Gamble. (The other lesson was how to write a neat one page memo because you weren't allowed a second page). Modi, as I said, is a doer, and so planning and details come naturally to him. What we saw on TV was a big speech, but behind the scenes there were months of planning with dozens of karyakartas, who worked with discipline to orchestrate each minute-by-minute event.

Finally, Modi is an imperfect individual, much like most of us. In his place, I would have expressed remorse a dozen times for the events of 2002, without of course incriminating myself. I would have had a powerful think tank to feed me with data, particularly on economic and foreign policy issues. I could go on and on about its deficits. But in the end, its qualities far outweigh its flaws. If there is one truth I would like to point out, it is that, without realizing it, Narendra Modi seems to be following the advice of British scientist Jacob Bronowski. He believes that the world is not understood through contemplation but through action: “the hand is the tip of the mind, as Bronowski says.

Gurcharan Das is an author, commentator and former CEO of Procter & Gamble India

Subscribe to India Today magazine

To agree