Understanding Indian values

Answers to "Hierarchy and castes in India" case study questions

The Indian concept of leadership

This Indian case study is a reminder that processes driven from abroad need to take account of the cultural and socio-economic logics at work. It illustrates the frequent discrepancies between centralized management, guided by the imperatives of optimization and efficiency, and local perspectives rooted in a network of solidarity and social relationships that are often underground.

1. What mechanisms worked against this government initiative?

What role did the institution of caste play?

In the rural context of this study, the local hierarchy linked to the caste system, based on ritual superiority coupled with economic domination, is a real obstacle to change. Indeed, it's easy to see why the village elites have a vested interest in curbing the emancipation of the lower castes, unless they want to risk the loss of a cheap, choreable workforce. Their means of pressure are manifold: exclusion from the traditional Jajmani1 system, denial of access to water when the locality has no public or communal well, and even physical violence.

From this, we can deduce that it is always necessary to involve them in change processes that might have an impact on their prerogatives. In this respect, Indian leadership is much more vertical and corseted than participative, and Indian employees could be slowed down or hindered in their adoption of new methods if these innovations undermine their managers' control.

2. What can we make of this "failure" when it comes to rural populations?

But these kinds of power relations do not only come from "above".

For the beneficiaries of the plan, the prospect of cultivating their fields independently may be a desirable prospect, but it is nonetheless synonymous with real risk-taking. It would necessarily lead to a new balance of power.

However, the acceptance by low-caste households of a relationship of dependence and patronage by the local elites is primarily aimed at ensuring their own security and protection. Insofar as the Indian state's weakness in these matters is structural, everyone relies first and foremost on his or her network.

Hoping for public assistance or support from banks (unexpected health expenses, building up a dowry for a daughter's wedding, etc.) is highly hypothetical. In this context, debt is THE social knot. By borrowing from the household of a dominant caste, the modest peasant pledges his future work to it, creating a bond of respect and subjection. In return, the peasant expects his creditor to support him in times of need, or to employ him as a worker on his land. This is why, outside of any crisis situation, some indigent families will be able to take on debt in this way, even if only for a nominal amount. We are approaching a form of "Indian-style revolving" from which the debtor is not supposed to escape, since its logic is entirely social.

A peasant seeking to emancipate himself would immediately undermine the traditional tutelage of local elites and potentially deprive himself of external support.

A double inertia is created by the combined effect of the pressure of this hierarchy, and the reluctance of the players concerned in the face of uncertainties about the future and possible setbacks. In the end, the result is a failure of public policy, with many subsidized villages almost back to square one and the original solidarities.

3. What can intercultural management learn from this rural experience?

What can we learn from such an experience to better take into account the social dynamics and contextual logics at work in change processes?

• First of all, we need to avoid and overcome any judgment in the face of initially irrational behavior. The actions or resistance of Indian partners will more often than not reflect deliberate strategies aimed at securing their position or control in a given context.
   
• The intercultural effort consists in trying to understand the logic underlying the actions of one's interlocutors in the light of their own value system. This approach enables us to better adjust our action plans to local dynamics, by limiting the sources of misunderstanding and blockages linked to the experience of otherness.
   
• The example of these farmers underlines the difficulties our Indian partners have in taking the risk of autonomy and initiative when faced with foreign collaborators or sponsors. The traditional respect for hierarchy stemming from the caste system, combined with a lower propensity to think of oneself as an actor in one's own existence and to act accordingly, often curbs the freedom of action and creativity of Indian workers.

Outside the professional sphere, two highly conservative social institutions - the school system and the custom of arranged marriage - also contribute to this state of affairs.

Throughout the classical Indian education system, the preferred technique for acquiring skills is kanthasth karna ("by heart", through memorization and recitation). As a result, the quality of a pupil, and later of an employee, is often measured by their ability to reproduce a body of knowledge or to apply an instruction accurately, without any consideration for their personal originality or their ability to create added value within the group.

In the family context, despite a rise in love marriages among the urban population, unions arranged by parents, grandfathers, uncles and aunts remain the norm. The raison d'être of this practice is still primarily the alliance of two kinship groups, the reproduction of the lineage and with it the extension of ancestor worship. It is therefore easy to understand that a person who has to submit to the decisions of his or her elders in such an intimate matter as choosing a spouse may also find it more difficult to carve out a margin of autonomy in his or her professional life than an individual from an individualistic society. Inhabited by a strong, deeply internalized sense of hierarchy, they are more likely to adopt a servant/master attitude towards their superiors, especially if they are of Western origin.

How do you move from servant mode to expert mode?

In the face of the difficulties frequently experienced by individuals in disregarding etiquette, protocol and group pressure, it is important to affirm that there is no such thing as fatality in the field, a reality reminded by the success of many foreign groups in their Indian companies.

In addition to the fact that group cohesion, which is a central value in India, is also one of the major assets of Indian teams, and a key factor in their efficiency, the success of an international collaboration with India will depend first and foremost on the ability to develop relationships with local counterparts. This means investing time and energy in building a relationship of mutual trust - showing interest in your Indian colleagues both inside and outside the strictly professional sphere. To do this, you need to be a good listener, i.e. able to open up to the problems encountered by them in their day-to-day work within the company, while at the same time "giving of yourself" in the sense of accepting questions about your personal and family situation, while also ensuring that you resonate with your contacts.

In other words, it's all about sharing on a human and intimate level, the better to bounce back on a purely professional level. Only then will our Indian interlocutors overcome their fear of losing face with their foreign partner and allow themselves to switch from servant mode to expert mode.

From there, it will be possible to add to the gains in production costs and access to the immense South Asian market made possible by this intercultural exchange with India, the additional advantage of the real competence of Indian personnel in multiple fields such as technology, pharmaceuticals, IT and services.

¹Jajmani: system of ritual, social and economic benefits and counter-benefits that bind all the communities living in this area to the village.