An analysis of the structure and orientation of B-school curriculum when compared with the practical ways in real organisations shows an excessive knowing orientation, i.e., emphasis on knowledge and analytics followed in B-schools are opposed to the emphasis on doing, i.e., creation skills, which is the criterion for success in every day workplace. The ability to transform an idea into reality through sheer execution vigour creating sustained value for the organisation and its customers is perhaps the only yardstick for measuring a persons worth in organisational terms.

Current academic orientation emphasising knowing over doing ends up postulating that leadership equates thought leadership. B-school graduates thus end up believing that intellectual ability is equal to superiority which is an assured qualification for life on the fast corporate track. But for the majority entering real world organizations that focus on the consumer, the first stage of acceptance of a leader lies in his ability to be hands on and not by making undue demands on his subordinates.

What are the qualities that go into the leadership persona which enables him to get the best from his people? The principle question whether power and position are for the sake of garnering privileges or is it about fulfilling responsibilities requires answering? Are the two aspects mutually exclusive or is there a scope to strike a balance? This is followed by other related questions: Is it the ability to motivate or ability to inspire? Is it about the ability to be obeyed or be followed? Wishing to be viewed as being credible or successful?

Should aspiring business leaders be taught Leadership while preparing for corporate life or be left to find the answer along their corporate journey?

Finally, can a subject like this be taught as a distinctive part of B-school curriculum?

In todays world competencies and resources required to run firms are commodities. Almost everything related to these aspects are available aplenty with vendors offering their merchandise on credit in most cases. It is leadership that imparts meaning to these resources. An illustration will help clarify:

Two firms with identical investment and operating setup operating in identical industries and geographies seldom ever show identical revenues, growth trajectories and profitability ratios. What explains the difference? The answer lies in the leadership and their ability to engage their people that enable to leverage the same set of assets in vastly different ways. This phenomenon is widely visible in organisations showing widely different performance trajectories depending on the people at the management.

Whether Leadership should feature as a part of the B-school curriculum rests in the core purpose behind the decision to enrol in a B-school programme. Often the driving factor is the belief that a B-school degree serves as acceleration towards a corporate career consisting of financial reward, prestige and power. While financial rewards are a monthly or annual high, prestige reflects in the occasional social settings. Power is an everyday high that manifests itself at the workplace as it is a direct function of the team one manages. Not understanding the nuanced differences between leading and managing can prove disastrous not only to the team being managed but also to the manager and the organisation.

Finally, I think LEADERSHIP is an applied science as opposed to pure science Hence the methodology to dispense it as a subject in B-schools has to be different. Curriculum designing and teaching ought to be in equal collaboration between academicians and business leaders. Also practise orientation with live projects being enacted using men money and material becomes a prerequisite.

Unless B-schools address this requirement they would only churn out managers who believe in the command, control and preservation of hierarchical status quo; which at best is an efficiency driver as opposed to leaders who inspire people to realise their individual potential by empowering and serving them.

The difference in the outcome of these approaches is that managers operate on contractual obligations, while leaders operate on the basis of trust. Managers are viewed as exploitative while leaders are seen as facilitative. Managers believe they can win at the cost of the world, leaders believe they can only win with the world.

Well, I think it is not very difficult for us to envisage what kind of boss out of the two we would like to work for and feel inspired to do our best at all times!

The author Subir Ghosh is President, Aegis Global Academy and an industry veteran with 28 years of experience in customer-experience management across telecom, retail and consumer products. He has held Sr VP, COO and CEO positions of major service companies like BPL Mobile, The Mobile Store, and Planet M.

(Note: This is a sponsored article and has NOT been written by the PaGaLGuY Editorial Team. It is intended from an informational perspective only and it is upto the readers to research and verify the claims and judgments in the article before reaching a conclusion.)