The recenly concluded IPL-4 actions was another first for the IPL. It was the first time that the 2-day long auction process was televised LIVE on TV. And many, including myself, watched at least part of it.
In general, I don't like reality TV (barring a few exceptions), but this Real TV show was different. It's always good to witness change, as it happens! So while the LIVE auction would become a routine in coming years, and participants would 'prepare' themselves for future events (afterall most of them belong to show business in some ways), this was a first for them too. And hence it was more spontaneous/ impromptu (unless they had rehearsed it secretly before in a mock-auction!).
After watching the event I was waiting for the reactions/ interpretations by the media and by the readers. And I stumbled upon this Economic Times article - IPL-4 auction: Clash of billionaire egos and a bit of business - and liked it. I was about to write a blog on this auction myself, until I read the following comment on this article.
"S.Baskaran Singapore 11/01/2011 at 07:48 AM
What a difference in approach to life between two rich men from the city - Azim Premzi and Mallya both inherited wealth from their parents, of course premzi less. I want some psychology experts take this as case study for MBA course. Let them take such indian cases in stead of wall street money maniacs(who have brought the world to such a mess)."
Now this enthused me to write this blog on a completely different topic - not IPL, but how people tend to compare different individuals, genres, concepts, based on their principles and assumptions.
It's a bit difficult to compare and contrast (as the person has suggested in his comment) two individuals as diverse as Vijay Mallya and Azim Premji just because - a. they belong to same city (Bangalore), b. they come from similar background (both inherited businesses in different proportions) or c. they both belong to the same fraternity - the businessmen.
It's like comparing Shah Rukh Khan with Naseeruddin Shah, just because they both are actors...
What matters in both cases is not to judge them with one single set of rules (there cannot be a common minimum set, that would do justice to both diverse personalities) but analyze and appraise them on set of standards fitting their types, and comparing them with their 'category peers'. E.g. it is more appropriate to compare Vijay Mallya with a Richard Branson (can't think of any Indian name) and Azim Premji with a Rahul Bajaj (both inherited a small legacy and turned it into an enormous entity).
Or in the latter analogy, Shah Rukh Khan with Amitabh Bachchan (both came from non-film background and are not trained actors) and Naseer with Om Puri or Anupam Kher (trained actors and worked in main-stream commercial as well as off-beat films).
Now coming back to the original comparison, if we judge them by set of parameters relevant for their catagories, I think, both stand out in their own ways.
Vijay Mallya should be judged based on flmboyance, showmanship, ability to make bold and risky business deals (sometimes titlting more towards gambling), and using Saam-Daam-Dand-Bhed to his benefit.
Azim Premji should be judged based on integrity, fairness, media-shy tough decision-making, vision and wisdom and so on.
One can discuss and debate the basic parameters and what matters more, or what one regards very highly (and most people in India tend to regard highly the Azim Premji-like qualities, and scoff at Vijay Mayya-like qualities...something very inherent and faulty in Indian psyche/ culture). But it's in vain to compare these two people with the same yardstick...you are bound to do injustice to one and favor the other (depending on what basis you choose for comparison). But maybe it's not an India-specific trait. I remember my Strategy Professor at a British University shuddered when I used Richard Branson as an example in one of the classroom discussions. He was so irritated at the very mention of Branson's name that he refused to discuss my point further :)
I have seen such case studies during my MBA and also such discussions/ debates in general that start with wrong premise - by comparing Apples with Red Chillies (not even Oranges)...because both are red - and such debates lead nowhere, or often end up with a preconceived end result (by idolizing one and dismissing the other).
How can people compare and rank Lata Mangeshkar and Kishori Amonkar (just because they both are singers)? Or compare Sachin Tendulkar with Vishwanathan Anand (just because they are sportsmen)? You see an example of an Ambani spending millions on his house and immediately you start a discussion about A Narayana Murthy living simple life...but why?
You tend to like one over the other because you identify yourself with or you find a connect with characters/ qualities or the nature of that person.
So for me, writing or discussing a case study on Vijay Mallya and Azim Premji is an unproductive exercise...doesn't make much sense.
I like both Vijay Mallya and Azim Premji, although I value the principles and virtues embodied by Azim Premji a lot more! Vijay Mallya is not my type or nature...but he is good in his 'category'
To quote Abraham Lincoln: "For people who like that kind of book, that is the kind of book they will like."
Similarly, those who like living life Kingsize would like Mallya - and there is a lot of Facebook-smitten young crowd out there...
On a lighter note, many would like to maintain a public image like Premji and live private life like Mallya :)
No comments:
Post a Comment