Transition from Middle to Higher Leadership Roles

This is C Paul Singh, President NISSMAT, addressing you. A very good evening and welcome to our session, interactive session, today. NISSMAT has so far conducted 129 webinars. Our webinar is addressed by two speakers invariably, while our interactive session is addressed by one speaker and then is left open for discussion. Today's interactive session is on the transition from middle to higher level leadership roles, which is being addressed by a very very experienced retired lieutenant general. I extend a very warm welcome and hearty welcome to all our eminent and London delegates, as our erudite speaker here who has come to address the session.

Let me introduce in a few words NISSMAT as such. NISSMAT was established in the year 1990, about three decades back, and started training courses in the field of private security management and applied technology. NISSMAT has now become a think tank organization in the field of security, safety and applied technology, and it has the association of more than 70 scholars to provide inputs on various subjects. We have now established four wings in this: NISSMAT Forum to organize webinars, seminars, conferences, interactive sessions, debates and awards; NISSMAT Academy shall conduct virtual training programs; and NISSMAT Enterprise will undertake audits and studies in various sectors and also to establish partnership and alliances. NISSMAT Foundation, the fourth segment, is to undertake welfare and social work for the society at large, with particular reference to safety and security.

A few words about the chairman, Mr Manjita, or Captain Palmer. Took voluntary retirement from the parachute management of the Indian Army and he jumped into unknown area of business. He has a warmth in himself, he radiates forms, I would call it, with the result that he is able to sort of, you know, have empathetic sort of transaction with other people, and this has made him a very popular leader as well as the business world is concerned. A thoughtful and inspiring leader, he is adept in creating alliances and has created a business group under the name of El Walia Holding Private Limited, which has offices at multiple locations in India and abroad. He is the past president and former chairman who comes up International Investigation USA, and is in the body of Malcolm Thompson award and Kotalia award by the Council of International Investigators. I welcome him today to moderate the session.

However, before he moderates the session, let me say a few words about the subject as such. Let me open up the subject, give a few words about the opening address about the subject. Now, introduction of the subject in terms of transition from middle level to higher level leadership role can be explained: that this transition from middle level to higher level leadership role can be very challenging. You cannot just assume, since you have reached a leadership level of the middle level, automatically you are suitable for higher level leadership. A middle level leader must keep in mind certain points for navigating himself to higher leadership role. The transition from this middle level to higher leadership role involves certain skill, particularly the skill of forgetting, letting go what you are at a middle level leader — letting go in the sense that don't get stuck to the middle level, either what you have been doing — making yourself visible for the purpose of transition; need to be seen as a person who has the required leadership material.

It is a well-known fact, and it is admitted facts, that the quality of leadership is one of the most important factors in the success of any organization, and the leadership role is normally defined as a position of designated responsibility that involves managing various people at various levels. Ability to influence others becomes most important at the higher level. This would involve influence to gain cooperation so as to get the things done. In fact, I like to refer to the person who's well-known author on leadership, that is Stephen Covey. He sums up the paradigms and principle of leadership in same seven traits.

The first trait is, this can be called as being proactive; that is, he has the ability to choose, be proactive, and ability to do this involves self-awareness, imagination and an independent will. This can be called a proactive model of a leadership, and a quick response by a leader to any situation or a stimulus. The second trait which Covey describes is a leader always keeps in view the end, what is going to achieve; this shall expand his perspective. If he knows what is he going to achieve, this will expand a perspective of a leader. Next is put the first thing first, involving what — for first thing first it involves dependence also, interdependence also, and as well as independence. So you have dependence, interdependence, as well as independence in this. This is the third trait which Covey puts it.

And thinking every situation — the fourth one, thinking every situation: a good leader thinks it's a win-win situation involving the principle of interpersonal relationship. The focus is on the results, not necessarily on the method. Regarding win-win accountability, management experts emphasize that capturing the essence of the problem and not only the exterior of a problem — if you understand the essence of problem and not only the experience, then you will have a win-win. And an effective leadership seeks first to understand others and then ensure that he is also understood. So it involves an important communication method which I'll call, as I mentioned in the case of Pawan also, that is an empathetic communication. This is not the type which is sympathetic, it's empathetic — you go into the mind of the other person, understand what is he thinking of you, what is he receiving from you, and that empathetic communication makes you a good result.

And the sixth trait is that a leader must be synergetic, emphasizing a synergy involves creative cooperation. A dialect can start with respect, but when it proceeds further, you have to achieve ultimate agenda through collective and free exchange of thoughts. And the seventh and the last trait which Covey describes is that an effective leadership involves stress management, planning to achieve the desired results. Now these are the seven traits for a higher level leadership, and the middle level and the transition rule has to understand what are the traits, important tasks, which he is going to evolve himself into. Now if at times leader feels overworked, there's no doubt he may feel overwhelmed, and if it does feel over, then he says — and I also mentioned it in my last webinar — that you sharpen your saw. That is, your cutting saw, that should be sharper. You sit down, sit back, take time to sharpen your saw, so that cultivation of this habit shall make you all other dimensions, as effective leadership will be worked out under your sharpness. And with these words, I'd like to pass on the session to Captain Parmanjit to moderate the session. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr Sipal Singh. Been a wonderful opening address. I'd like to acknowledge the presence of the following country participants: one is of course from India, we are from the United Kingdom, Bangladesh, UAE, Nigeria and Bhutan. Today we are streaming live on Zoom and YouTube at this point of time. The event has been sponsored by five companies: one is Premier Consultancy and Investigations Limited, which is a pre-employment background screening company and an investigations company; secondly, Premiershield Private Limited, which is a security guards and a manpower solutions organization; India Skills Private Limited, which is an assessments company working with the Skill India programs; Tag Scores, an examination platform; and JMD Cargo, a logistics company.

I have a request to make of all the participants. During the session, please remain muted. If you have to ask a question in the question answer session, then not only unmute yourself — see if you can have your videos switched on so that it will be nice to see you. Have your phones on silent mode so that there is no sight distraction, and prepare to ask question, and send me a message on the chat so that I know that you want to ask a question. We are also — this person is actively looking for sponsors for its programs, and we welcome organizations that would like to sponsor future programs on this month.

A word about our president, one of the most illustrious officers of the Indian Police Service. He's a masters in English literature. Then Mr Sipal Singh has served in various states of the government of the Union of India in senior police assignments. He was made responsible by the government of India to raise the Rapid Action Force, and he was also its first chief. He later also raised the Internal Security Academy, which is a central police academy at Mount Abu in the state of Rajasthan in India. During his service he has been decorated with the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service, the Indian Police Medal for Meritorious Service, the Police Special Duty Medal with bar, Asana Measure, and a number of other accommodation and rewards.

Post retirement he's worked as a consultant to the Tatas. He's also been the chairman of the technical committee of Quality Control of India, which formulated the standards of star rating for private security companies. He was involved in developing the curriculum for private security guards training under the security sector and skill development council. He was head of the committee we designed and worked out the national occupation standards for training of private security guards and qualification pack, and the national occupation standard for the firefighters in India. In 2009, post retirement, the President of India awarded him the Security Personality of the Year award in a ceremony in Vijayanagar. He is also the advisor to the Asian Professional Security Association, the Indian chapter, and the honorary director general to the centralization of private security industry and the assertion of private detectives and investigators. Mr Sipal's face is well known in India as a dynamic security professional, and is frequently called to share his views on various subjects connected to homeland security on the national news channels.

I now will introduce the speaker of the day. Was commissioned in the Indian Army in December of 1978. He superannuated in 2017 as the Director General of Supply and Transport, where he was responsible for logistic support to the entire Indian Army deployed pan-India, and partly for troops deployed in the United Nations missions. He also served as the Director General Information Technology for the Indian Army. During his service he tenanted key command, staff and instructional appointments which any professional officer aspires to hold. Besides command of his battalion and counter insurgency operations in northeastern India, he served as the DAQMG of a roster rifle sector, a staff officer at the headquarter Inspector General Assam Rifles, a brigadier administration of a pivot corps. He also served as an instructor at the National Defence Academy, the ASC Centre and College, or directing staff at the Defence Services Staff College in Nilgiris. He also attended the DSSC course, the higher command course, the National Defence College and the combat group commander's courses.

Post retirement he has been actively involved with the strategic think tanks and is a distinguished fellow at the United Services Institution of India. He is an MPhil in defence and strategic studies. He's a TEDx speaker and delivers lectures on leadership and logistics. To follow up his extensive service in northeast, he has recently completed his doctorate on peace, security and economic development of India's northeast with reference to BIMSTEC, from the Punjab University at Patiala. He's an active polo player who represented the Indian Army and the Indian Polo Association teams at national and international levels. He is currently the vice president of the Indian Polo Association and is also a committee member of the management of the Delhi Golf Club. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Doctor Lieutenant General.

Thank you. In fact, I purposely don't write doctor in bracket of Lieutenant General. Well, I feel, you know, it's better to look like a soldier than an academician. So that is why, I think the latest AG's branch permits you to write your PhD at the end of your declaration, so you can be a VSM, VSM PhD. Anyway, sir, thanks a lot for a very elaborate introduction. At times you start thinking that I hope it's not inflated like the annual confidential reports of the officers nowadays are, but thanks a lot all the same. It is all authenticated by both of us.

I enjoy speaking on NISSMAT for many reasons, besides our association, because the subjects selected are very innovative and very very different from the normal. The last time I spoke was on how to get extraordinary results from ordinary people. So besides speaking, we had a discussion on — I think no leader should call his subordinates as ordinary. So I said it's extraordinary people and maybe ordinary leaders — how to get the best results. So that was another discussion which we carried on. And today I quite like this thing of, you know, how to transit from middle to higher leadership. So with the permission of Sipal Singh sir and Pawan Aliaza, I have just — I would like to change the subject at this juncture and call it successful transition. Because a lot of us, that we transit to higher leadership, but then half the subordinates are cursing you all the time, and they don't talk to you after you retire and you're standing in a corner. So it has to be successful transition, which leaves a good taste in the mouth and which leaves a good feeling in the organization while you are there and thereafter.

So one thing I want to confess is that I have not googled anything to prepare my talk, right, because I think the information available is so much and it is available to everyone. So I shall be — I'm neither a management guru, nor am I the kind who reads a lot. I just about do my necessary job, in which if you have to do the PhD, you have to read that much — that's a different story. So what I'm going to speak — my biggest asset is having lived army way of life for about 40 years, and if you count my school service, then from the age of nine I have been in uniform. I was in a Sainik school; me and Pawan sir are from the same school. So my experiences from then until now, because post 60, even if you remove your uniform, your blood has already turned olive green. So there's nothing that you can do to undo your soldiering, and be quite proud of it. And if I have to relive this life, I think this is the way probably I would like to relive it. And second is, more than anything else, more than what you learned, that urge to learn and do a little more than what you are doing is something that what I carry forward from all this. So you'll have to excuse me that most of the examples during the talk will probably pertain to the military, and some — which is something which I wouldn't like to do but may involve me and my experiences — and probably that's the only way I can carry this whole conversation forward.

So if we have to — in fact, post retirement, like I mentioned that I am on the management of Delhi Golf Club, I was also in the management of Delhi Gymkhana Club — so what I have realized is that we have experts who have served in various fields. They are top-notch bankers, they're top-notch administrative officers, and they have brilliant knowledge, brilliant experience. But when it comes to leadership of an organization, there are this specialization and converting it into the outcome for the organization — that's something at times found missing. When it comes to having tolerance for ambiguity, or we'll call it whatever, uncertain situations or unmarked territories, when you go into, when the decisions have to be taken in situations where there are conflict between two issues, then you can't just keep quoting authorities and letters and the policies. And everyone says we must have a policy. I said it's not the having a policy — policies have been made in the past, policies are there now also — but it's about delivering results by applying those policies. It's the application which the country probably lacks today, and that's why despite all our planning we've not been able to reach that.

So now talking about the subject proper, I have a certain thought on how a person, a professional, when he's young — be it in the military, be it the civil, be it in the corporate — there are certain things that you need in a young person and a young professional. And let me again once say that whatever I'm going to say is my thought. It cannot be all encompassing. It may differ with certain other thoughts, but it doesn't mean that — there must be somebody else who perceives something else as higher priority. It is just, as I sat down when I was tasked for this talk, as I thought, and I modified, and I thought again and I thought again. So we've got to have that — it can always come out in the discussion — is the other important thing.

What I found: when you're a young officer or when you're a young professional, all that you need is passion for your job and capabilities, skills. You know, if I'm say in the army, when you're young you should be doing your, you know, outdoors outstandingly, your BPET; you should be as a young officer doing better than majority of the levels; you should be doing your courses, another academic thing; and if you are told to give a lecture, you should be doing it in outstanding manner. You may like to learn more about computers, you may like to learn more about other subjects. So when you are young, you have to be passionate about your job. If you are not in a permanent kind of military kind of job, maybe you change your job, because that's the way to operate. Life becomes much simpler if you are passionate about your job, if you are in love with your job. And if you are more skilled, you start attracting your comrades and the respect of your juniors. The best way to earn respect of your juniors is to be better than them in their field, or to be better than your colleagues in their field, or in your collective field. So as a young person, I would say all that you need is skill, capabilities and passion.

And I can give you an example or two. When I was a second lieutenant — all ASC also do one year's infantry attachment — so I was in Arunachal, and our battalion was inducted there from peace station. So we were seven, eight youngsters. So the first long-range patrol had to go. So the CO asked me, so I volunteered, I said yes sir, and I went for that patrol, came out after three weeks, because one week of patrol acclimatization and all that. And then they say the next patrol, I said I am volunteer. So after, when I volunteered the third time, the CO called me. He says, why do you volunteer? And there are seven of them — why do you volunteer? And he didn't send me the third time, he sent somebody else. I said, sir — I realized I was the second lieutenant with three months of it — I said, sir, when I go for a patrol, I am boss of these 20 men, and when I'm here in the battalion, at the same time I'm the junior most, and I'll only keep jotting down points given by every officer. So I said I quite enjoy going out.

Now this — most people avoid going on patrolling. It's not a comfortable thing. Besides walking, you don't get the best of hygiene, sanitation. So you are responsible for weapons and others, and you lose one magazine and then you're searching for it. So it was my passion for this job. Probably, thankfully, I didn't have too many capabilities to go for other careers. We went for NDA — NDA was our last ambition, not becoming a general; it was about joining NDA and passing out. So likewise, at a time when I see later on my kids paying for their trekking, so called, or river rafting — here you are being paid for, in your salary, to do patrolling. So that's the way I looked at it.

And likewise, another incident was a very interesting one. I was in an AT company regarding, and there were no TVs. Kept it next to my bed, and one day one of my course mates on a Sunday came, because there are no other means of communication. This is why you kept the GS pamphlet? I said yeah, you know, you read it at night, you go to sleep within five minutes. Second is, you keep it next to your head — if there is induction, something might go, and we'll learn something. The point that I'm trying to say is, maybe it was god sent that despite being from the service, I was passionate about these things, and that's something that I carried with me, and that's something that I enjoyed. And that's something which — I was, frankly speaking, never ambitious to go up. It was at that stage — the only ambition has to be, I want to do better than my people around me, I want to do better than most of the men that I am around with. I think that gives you automatic a platform, probably, for one day becoming a higher leader.

That's why it also now comes to — are leaders born or made? This is a recipe of born and made. Or as a young chap, you know, you can make out — like when I would see it as a brigadier or a general or as a CO or whatever, you would see in such a person — and those, when we see now, youngster is the guy, if he doesn't go astray, probably he can go on the track. So to that extent, even when that person is young and passionate. I remember I was posted in India, Kharagpur. So as a captain — when I was a cadet, we used to do a jumping in the lane without the stirrup, without the rein, and sitting like this. So when I went there as an instructor, I was the first time a captain; otherwise there has to be a lieutenant colonel who never believed in all this. Now you are closer to the cadets, and I was very tempted to tell them. Then I told myself, first prepare yourselves. So one day, all alone, I went there. I checked up, can I do it? Then I rehearsed, then I got my horse set, then I did it again and again and again, and then one day I said, why did you guys do it? I say — so half of them are, you know, floating around, you can't do it. So I gave a demonstration and I did it. I'm guessing is a very simple sasta sundar tikau way of doing things: build capabilities in yourself, and you don't have to talk too much about leadership, you don't have to learn too much about leadership, and you don't have to try and exemplify leadership. So to that extent, these kind of things prepare you for this thing.

And another thing — I'm still on this younger lot. When you're a young officer, all that you need, as I said, is capabilities. Or when you're a young executive, all that you need is your capability. It is your team leader and your CEO who has to put it and package it in a manner that the client or the market, or whatever are the targeted people that the company is told — I mean, rated as a successful company, or that unit is rated as a successful unit which has done well in war, well in peace, well in whatever the task assigned. So at this stage, all that you have to be is doing that part well, and which will take you to the middle level leadership.

Now at this stage of middle level leadership, you have to have a deliberate mental pause. I'm not saying that you become static, and you have to now think and reorient your thinking, because that's a necessity. Once you become a middle to higher level leader — say in the army, a senior colonel got it monitored and now he's in staff controlling something, or you are head of a branch as a part of a business conglomerate — so now is the time that your actions on how you deploy resources is going to decide the reputation and outcome of that organization. It is now the time how well you identify your subordinates and gainfully utilize their strengths to produce a nice finished profitable product. So that is the first change that comes about. A lot of us, when you are young, you start thinking, oh, when I become that, then I'll have a ball. I'm sure higher leadership positions are not for having a ball. They are meant for a little more than what you did earlier.

And, you know, there are n number of stories. When I was doing staff college, I wore a para jacket for my friend, a friend who was from para days. So one British officer, he said, yeah, can you give me this jacket and I will give you a combat dress? He gave me a fancy combat dress. Now I was a major, and after that you started getting into appointments where you are under watch, you are important, you are decree fabricated, you are commanding a unit. So I told myself, I said, yeah, I can't wear this combat dress, because people will be looking at me. If I am breaking the rules, then what's the point? So likewise, I could never wear it till I retired, and I had to hand it over to somebody else. The fact is that as you go up, it is your image, it is your conduct which can adversely affect the whole work culture, thereby the outcome of the organization. So that's something is the first thing you have to realize when you go from middle to higher level leadership.

Next thing is, if you take examples of, say, Abdul Kalam, Narayana Murthy — these are two people who come to me — you have to be humble. The higher you go, more humble you got to be. You are not there to prove to someone that, you know, I am such a big guy. You are not there to tell someone, you know, I can fix you. You can fix — what's the problem? If you need to fix someone, fix the guy, but you mentally should be doing that with a heavy heart, and you do not have to brag and show, you do not have to probably put too much effort on exhibiting your style, because after retirement you all come back to the normal thing. So in the corporate I don't know, but for sure in the army, I feel something which is very very important at that stage is to be humble.

And now this portion of what should you do, I think I'll cover in three parts. One is what is expected of you from the organization, and two would be what should you do as a leader, and three will be your relationship with the subordinates. So as an organization, it's no magical thing — in fact, whatever I'm going to say, we all know — that you need to lead a happy team. Now the question is how to lead a happy team, and how happy is the team is something which you need to know. So I thought I would say what is the role of a leader, higher leader, when he's transit to higher level: first towards the organization, secondly what should he watch out for, and what is the kind of relationship he should have with us.

And I think, first thing — and he has to be conscious of these things; he cannot just move into that role like he did from junior to middle level, from middle to higher level — remember, your conduct, your bad language can reach right up to the bedrooms of your subordinates. Your bad habit of a bad language can affect many many more subordinates and their families. If the guy goes back home not in a great mood, I think the children and the wife also have the impact of all that. So for sure that responsibility comes on your shoulder, and that's why I was talking about that combat dress business. And then your men, they go back and talk about you. And I've seen the corporate world is very cruel. Now that you see the children working there, a bad boss can really spoil it. Maybe a person, you know, somebody will just resign though he likes the job. So for sure, that impact tells you that you have to have a tension free, positive environment.

You know, those of us who've been in the army, we learn from this appreciation: any fact, any fact must give a positive deduction. So any situation where you are stuck terribly, you must as a leader come out with something very very positive. And next is, you must accept dissent, because in any case, as a boss, you have the ability to overrule it, but you must bring in the comfort level in your organization that they are able to speak up to you and advise you. And they normally would know, but otherwise, if need be, clarify to them that final direction will be the way I say. And which will be — of course, it is again your duty as a higher leader that people accept your order willingly and carefully and with the enthusiasm. There is no point in giving an order which has to be ordered as an order, right? So that, like we said, leading a happy team.

And if you are competent — which is a given for a higher leader; if somebody is not, that's a mistake of someone else — and like I said, a higher leader has to understand that he's been placed there by his seniors and superiors, and he has to earn the respect of his subordinates to be worthy of that. And he must prove repeatedly that his seniors haven't done a mistake, because his juniors should never say, I wish Balbi wasn't my boss, yeah, and somebody else, look at that, you know — I don't know — the great guy, why didn't I have him as my boss? So that needs a lot of effort on your conduct.

Next, that I think was — when you're young, performance parameters are very very important. You need to perform, you need to deliver. But when you go into higher leadership position, it is your personal qualities which become pivotal. I can assure you, the armed forces, the corporates, and the whole lot of guys who are working below you — if they love you, if they really respect you, they can give you all the inputs and work that you need to do. But if you create an atmosphere where they don't love you, or where they don't kind of respect you, they might not be able to give their best, because after all, it's all about morale and, you know, people's state of mind. So this is the next thing that you've got to be conscious of: that your personal qualities affect your leadership outcomes as you go up.

And next thing that you have to watch out for is, don't make changes for the sake of making changes, and always give credit to your predecessors of having done quite a bit — may not be to your level of expectation; you can add on it, and you know, Rome wasn't built in a day. So I remember when I was at DGST, so I had said from day one that, guys, I'm accountable to you, because what I drink or how I behave after drinks, even in a five star, it's your business as well, and anybody who has any question, he can just walk into the office. And I said we will not make changes unless 80 percent of us agree — and otherwise there's so many things on which hundred percent agree. So when you reach the top, you have some ambitions of feeling the new, right, as you are, whatever level. So I had one idea. So one day in that whole meeting of 50, 60 guys, I said, you know, I was thinking, why don't we do this? So there was silence. So then I said, let's put it to vote. And, I mean, it's a very surprising way of doing the military, but I was voted out. They said no. So I literally told them, I said, thank you very much. You are actually telling me that your idea — we will not take it forward — is the best compliment you've given me, because I told you to speak up and you've spoken up. And I genuinely carry that as one of the very big compliments. So can you create an atmosphere where your subordinates speak up, knowing fully well that it doesn't get carried against them even if they're overruled? So that's something I think very very important.

And next is, I feel we often say, you know, in our time we did so much, we were required to do this, and what the hell is the problem? Don't make your subordinates do anything that you didn't like doing when you were in their position. I think that's something very very important. And another basic thing for the organization is fair play. Nobody minds being punished, nobody minds working 24 hours in a day if there is fair play, and if the person knows that — I know this is — we learn in the horses: if a horse misbehaves with him and within 30 seconds he does a good thing, pat him. So that's known as reward and punishment. That I think is probably the reason why we have horse riding both at NDA, Missouri, police academy, everywhere, because it teaches you certain compassion, it teaches you tact, it teaches you reward and punishment. Nobody should struggle to say that this boss likes so and so, so he'll excuse him 100 faults, and he hates so and so — for everything that person will be blamed. I think it is a duty of the higher leadership to create an atmosphere where people feel that you will always be fair. And in that fairness — because I know, I have experience, there's some people who really meet a lot of punishments, but if they are fair and justified, or in the interest of the organization, nobody minds. But if you are using different yardsticks, then those things are probably not liked.

And next is, I think there is a tendency to work one down and try and tell them — if you tell people what to do and not how to do, that will give them a sense of satisfaction. And a lot of subordinates nowadays exploit this smart act of giving credit to the senior and the higher leader about their achievement. I think that's something which must be snubbed straight away, and the credit for all this should go to the subordinate and not the leader himself.

So besides what I said, now another thing is that you often say, you people never did this properly and I did it, or in my times. I feel it should be we, and not you and me — especially if it is a failure: we failed, and we will do it better now in this manner. Because there was officer in Sikh regiment long back, and there was some mishap in the unit. So somebody told me that this officer abused the jawans, because the tradition that in Sikh unit and secular units you can get away with abusing people. But I asked another officer, how do you — I mean, how does it happen in your regiment? He says, you know, you have to first say that we are ABCD, whatever abuses — if you count it as we, he doesn't mind, because he understands that, you know, you also are suffering as much as him. But if you say you and me, he doesn't like it. So the fact is, this is something which I carried all my life: that if you tell everyone that we have failed and how useless we are, they accept that, than to be told that you did it this way and you didn't.

And then, very often, the higher leadership, to achieve their goal, will use the middle ranking and subordinates for their purpose, at times compromising their professional development. I've seen it very often. So that's something — I think it's better for a senior leader, a higher leader, to jeopardize his task, because he has much more resources to still achieve it, than to compromise the subordinate. Because that's something which doesn't go well with the subordinates, and that's something which will take away your reputation for lifetime — because after all, whoever you work with, it's a relationship for lifetime.

And then, standing up for subordinates. As you go in higher leadership, there's a larger chunk of people who are below you. It is crucial for you to go up the ladder at that stage, because the stakes are much higher. But if you've been exhibiting competence to your seniors, they will expect — or accept, not expect — they will accept you standing up for your subordinates; that goes in your favor. And if you haven't been able to win over that confidence of the ultimate boss, then there is something wrong with you probably. I've seen a number of officers are very happy with their — I mean, they feel their boss is very happy, but the boss's boss is not happy, because this boss of yours hasn't been able to give the organizational output to a level for your whole subpart to be liked. Hence it is important to have that confidence and competence in you, that you have supported its benefit.

And last but not the least, I would say people get their PVSMs, AVSMs, VSMs — especially these awards; I'm not talking about the gallantry awards. Gallantry awards is a more active role by the officer who is actually in combat, whereas all these awards which are given for your administrative achievements and prolonged service and distinguished service, they are primarily an outcome of your subordinates' work. It is the duty of anybody in administrative and other organizational role, or in the corporate world, to value their subordinates, and you will get much more out of them as a higher leader than what they would ordinarily give. And I have seen those higher leaders who stand up for their subordinates, who encourage their professional development, are able to do much more themselves — instead of pitching one against the other, if you create a win-win situation. Because I have seen that every organization has a lot of room for everyone to grow.

And I recollect I started doing this as a major. I was commanding a transport company. I had about 350 men, and even in those days — because normally you get command as a colonel — so I felt in those days, it used to come from my heart, that I am so lucky that at this stage I've got this size of people to command. And, you know, when you're a young officer, like as a rank of a major or someone, and getting this kind of resources, it excites you, and of course you stay humble and you, you know, do everything with them. But that kind of a satisfaction that you got — and I always believe seniors cannot get you up; it's your subordinates who pray for you, who work for you. If you get a VSM or an AVSM, it is for sure the handiwork or the effort of your subordinates, and not your seniors — and because they did for you what you worked for them. So there's no favor that anyone has done. And that's why you would remember, even from my last talk, I always say I always stay obliged to my subordinates, who are still in touch with us, and we always do whatever bits.

And that's why I say, like yesterday I went to the gurdwara, and same shabad was being played by Guru Gobind Singh ji, which said — it's about his soldiers who work for him. And I have always believed that if there is one person whom we want to emulate as military leaders, it is Guru Gobind Singh ji, in his performance as well as in his personal qualities, where he has exhibited sacrifice. And I think some military, somewhere, books have been prescribed on this subject. But you have to be, as a higher leader, extremely extremely obliged and thankful to your subordinates, because you owe it to them. You rise higher or you don't — that'll be your stupidity — but whatever you have got and risen to that place, if it is somebody's mistake that you rose there, these guys still did it for you. So you have to be thankful to your subordinates. That is one point, if I have to ever speak. And rest, I gave my perception. There are hundreds more facets to this aspect of higher leadership, how should it be or should not be, but this is the way I looked at in my 40 years, and I would be pleased to answer any question, disagreements or anything. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Before others ask a question, I'd just like to make a bit of a comment. The three words that I always use that we must avoid is I, me and myself, and if you avoid these three words, I think the organization is always better. And another difference between the armed forces that you were talking of and the corporate world — one of the things is that in the armed forces, the job had to get done and resources were always in abundance, whereas in the corporate world there's always a scarcity of resources, except in the multinationals and larger organizations. Most of the companies have scarcity of resources, and you need to be very innovative in the way you need to get a job done. So you still need to get the job done, but with lesser resources, and without an army act or an army instruction to sort of propel you into getting a job done. So when I moved into the corporate world, I found that these were the major differences that were there. When you said get this job done, you really had to move yourself to get the job done, and you have to lead by example to the others, which you were so rightly saying.

I have a question to start with. What's the difference between leading and managing, according to you? How would you differentiate between leading and managing in the corporate world?

So actually, the way I would look at it is, managing is more administrative, procedure based, resource based — and it could even be human resources. Leading is that non-tangible part of getting the job done. Both lead to getting the job done, but if you just manage and don't lead, you will end up having a little bit of deficiency in terms of getting the output. And if you only lead but you don't use the application of common management techniques to economize or to get better output, again you are going to be found lacking. So I would say, to get the best job done, there has to be synergy of management techniques with leadership qualities. So you lead and manage if you want the best output.

Absolutely, because once you are moving from a middle to higher leadership role, you have to have management and the ability to lead at the same time. Absolutely, absolutely.

I'll be sure to say a few words, please. Yeah, you know, we belong to the same organization, and you have very aptly changed this subject to say successful transition in the leadership factor. As far as our organization is concerned — we both have served — it is very progressive in a sense: we follow the three dictates, execution, direction and conceptual. Execution at any level — be it a longer commander, be it a sectional commander — everywhere these three aspects do come into play. Secondly, I have a feeling that since our organization is long-term service, people gain experience from the lower to the higher level by various courses they do, the various things. Every rank has an examination — part C, part D, past staff college — every rank you go, you have to pass an examination, which is not so in the civil street. In the civil street, a person may be MBA or whatever, and very damn well he's picked up based on the capability or the course that he's done, whereas in our case it is progressive in terms of the ranks that you have, in terms of rise. You brought out, you went for the LRP with 20 chaps in command — why not? Secondly, the appointments — as you keep going up with experience, your appointments that you hold at the regimental level, at the staff or instructional level, they also build up your capability for higher leadership.

I got two more points. With regards to, firstly, a leader has to exhibit that he is just, which you brought out. It is made very clear to the men, or any organization in that matter: if there is a default, mala fide intent, you hang him; but if something goes wrong in the field of working, you say my hand is over your head. You've got to be just in that. Third aspect is compassion. Every leader needs to show compassion. We have served — we all have served — even, you know, we have served very difficult people in the past, but when it came to — they were very difficult on ground, very difficult to serve, but they never harmed anyone on paper. So that is again one of the tenets of the higher leadership. So these are my few points that I have towards your thing. Thank you. Agreed, sir. Thanks, thanks.

General Luba is on the screen now. I'd like to welcome him also. How would you, since you've been in the corporate world as well as in the armed forces, how would you sort of put transitioning from a middle to a higher level position in the corporate world? What would your opinion be? No, you need to unmute yourself.

Hi. Probably first thing that I feel is, if you look at, you know, the major difference between a leader and a manager: the aspect of personal example, and the aspect of putting your own safety at stake comes in. Now those are all the, you know, traits that you require for a leader in the armed forces. Well, coming down to the higher leadership — quite some time ago I had spoken and listened only on high leadership, and the major traits that I feel are required in higher leadership, and that is applicable both for the corporate world as also for the armed forces — those, you know, aspects, if I can recapitulate, were basically: the first and foremost was delegating. You must delegate. The higher you go, whether in the corporate world or in any walk of life, you must delegate. To delegate, you must have trust. To build trust, you must train. And above all, the higher leader must ensure that he gives or he creates time for himself so that he is able to think, he is able to formulate a vision and is able to apply a vision. Now these are some tenets which, you know, as you transit from the medium or middle level to higher level leadership, will always remain — always. I mean, delegate, trust, train, and create time, or as I call it, rock your chair. Because when you rock your chair, you will be creating time to formulate a vision, to refine a vision and to execute that vision. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you so much. We have Admiral on the screen also. Maybe I can have some comments from you on the subject.

Thank you so much for giving me this chance. I've been listening with great, you know, pleasure to General Sandhu, and in a lighter vein, I have suddenly discovered that two of them are also Sainik school products like me, though we are from different Sainik schools. But you know, we all started as pioneers when the schooling started, when I think the then defence minister said catch them young to join the armed forces. But I think most of the aspects of leadership have been covered, but I think one thing that I would like to add is, when you are the senior, especially, the real thing is give the person time. I'll give you an example. Most of the time you say, no, okay, deal through this, deal through this, and then come through. But there will be some youngster, somebody junior down the line, who's got an issue. If, okay, he wants to meet me, let him come and meet me, and listen to him. Let him let his heart out, and you may or may not be able to give him what he wants, but the moment you have listened to him and given him what your viewpoint is, I think more than 50 percent of the issue is solved. Because I found this — while sitting as a three-star, I had a young lieutenant commander, or a major, having a major issue. So I listened to him, and then I had the — the next who was actually dealing with him also sitting with me. We both listened, and when I told him, there's this reason, okay, we'll look at it, I think he went back satisfied. And this person in the middle level actually told me, sir, you've given so much time to, you know, a major, lieutenant commander, listening to him. I said yes — no, he has let his heart out. So I think that is something that sometimes, you know, senior leadership forgets to do — giving a chance to the youngster. That makes all the difference. And, you know, quite a few here I can see are from the NDA like us. You know, if you got a chance to speak as a cadet to your battalion commander or to the deputy commandant, you know, give your viewpoint — he may not do what you want, but half your problem you think is solved. So I think that is very important for a leader at the senior level. Otherwise, I think most issues have been covered. Thank you.

We have Colonel John. You know, the unique thing about Colonel John is that he served 20 years in the armed forces and 20 years almost in civil life. John, can we have some comments from you? Unmute yourself, please. No, you're still muted, John. Unmute yourself.

I would like to bring my viewpoints between a leader and a manager. I believe that who brings energy, passion, team alignment, communications and visioning into an organization is the leader. And what is managing? Managing is optimizing the resources to get the work. This is my personal view. But my question is different. While transitioning into the senior level, especially corporate world, what are the skills that you need? Are there things you need to unlearn? How should your monitoring and visioning change when you are transitioning to the higher level?

So you want me to answer, sir? Yeah, yeah, go ahead, please. No, no, it would be wonderful. Okay. Now, John, you know, one of the things that I personally feel: that when you graduate on to being a senior leader, you need to be able to set goals for your team. You need to be able to do conflict management resolution for your teams and for your subordinates. You need to be able to conduct performance appraisals. You need to be a very good communicator. You need to have empathy, and like the admiral said, you need to be a good listener. You also need to have good negotiating skills. You need to be a problem solver. You need to have good time management ability, and you must, above all, be able to delegate jobs and responsibilities. And you know, you must be able to sort of put to paper an organogram which sort of supports the vision that your organization wants to achieve. These are, in sum, things, you know, in answer to your question. Now I'll hand it over to General Sandhu — take it on from there.

Okay, so in the presence of John sir and Palmerston, it would be unfair for me to hazard a guess as to what should a person's perception change when he goes for higher leadership in the corporate world. But let me give you the army twist, or my perception in the last five years and little bit while in service, when you're dealing with the corporate and the private industry. I think what is lacking is probably the leadership angle and too much of a reliance on management. Not that you can take away the management part, but if you really want to bring life into a performance and that human angle, you probably need to get more personalized in terms of what we do — the very basics the military world called man management. Of course, nowadays it can't be man management, it is human resource management. But I think you need to have a little more personal touch. Of course, there is nothing that you can take away from all the processes which are outlined regarding, you know, the appraisal, feedback, monitoring, everything, but I think the corporate world needs to pick up a bit of engagement — more engagement, communication and personal touch — to get that extra wee bit extra from the teams.

Our president is also a very experienced person, both in the government services and the police service as well as in the corporate world. I think he spent equal time in the police service and an equal time outside the police service. So, Mr Sipal, if you could sort of throw some light.

Obviously I was itching, I was reaching for it, that you asked me. I didn't want to get over the time of others, because I have to speak subsequently also, but anyway, I was reaching to give a reply. Number one, when I started my post graduation and professorship at some college, that time we were asked to read a book by Dr Hardyal, Hints for Self Culture, and that book contains almost everything — about, I mean, you can learn everything about all of these. So I said, with the hate circumstance, I have everything contained. So in this particular first part is about Dr Sandhu's speech — I think you should write Hints for Leadership. This book will become very popular, because you have touched almost everything. The next book should be your companion, Hints for Self Culture.

But the question which everyone has said — that I have been in the leadership roles both in the police forces for some time, in the police also, and then for the last 20 years or so in the corporate world — there's one line which will probably explain everything. According to me, it is said: leadership role continues to be a very big human resource challenge. Leadership role continues to be a big challenge, a big HR, human resource, challenge, and it says it should be managed intelligently. Try to understand: leadership role should be managed. No, there's no difference — the points which Parmanjit has said is managing the leadership role. Not that we are denying the leadership role. Leadership role is there, the emphasis on the leadership role is there, but in the corporate world, the leadership role has to be managed, and for the management there are certain parts, ABCD, automation — not that leadership is outstanding. So this is my observation on the parts leadership and management.

Now, second point which I like to emphasize is that excellent examples like LRP, long-range patrolling. A stage was there when people went for long-range patrolling in Arunachal Pradesh, and they came back with lot of leeches on their legs. So everyone out of the LRP would say, forget it — what is this? Every time you go, you get leeches and leeches and leeches, and then you come back and all. So one of the good leaders — he was from the police service, he was senior to me — he will every time try to go for LRP, because he'll say, okay, I learned from the tribals certain thing, I learned from the subordinate certain thing, and also I learned my body gets used to it. So this LRP thing very beautifully pointed out by General Sandhu. Then humanity — yes, this is the most important aspect of any leadership role. If you want to be only aggressive, or you want to only bulldoze people, then the humanity is not there. Humanity is touched beautifully. And also, I think the most important thing is that, being himself an international polo player and also representing India in polo, he has touched on the horse sense, and yes, all the horse bearers — I only try to pay all my compliments to General Sandhu, to you, the way you touched this humanity, conduct, subordinates, and all these are important leadership roles.

But the leadership roles have to be managed — that is the more important point — and from the middle level to the higher level, where the stress is involved, that is how to manage the leadership role. The only point is that this point was not emphasized much, so I thought I'd like to say: yes, leadership role is explained — I told you, the Hints for Self Culture and leadership — so my only point is that important is there, and your point you gave are managing the leadership role. This is leadership program management. I think there's no other question. I think, back to you, Mr Sipal, to wind up the session, please.

Back to me? Okay. Now it's a concluding remarks. I have already given most of my remarks about Dr Sandhu, what he has said, but I like to touch one very important point. We have always been very very thankful to you — NISSMAT in particular. I requested you three times — this is the third time — and every time you have been very kind in accepting our invitation. Now, delegation of responsibility by a leader is the most important factor, and that point must be kept in mind by every leadership. And sometimes creating low risk opportunity for your subordinate — as a leader you have to manage. Not that you go into battalion, you want to do that — is it — but you have to create some time for yourself, one day, a low key sort of thing, risk. And I tell you, I learned a lot while I was on my operational role in Punjab as a DIG operations from — he knew he himself will put to risk, but he'll try as well as possible that for his subordinate there's a low risk opportunity — how to create — but at the same time he'll himself explosiveness. With these words, and particularly a compliment to your words for selecting subjects — I think, Parmanjit, compliments all to you. Said no, no.

So now our next thing is also coming in a big way, and we have leaders sitting here, and not to impinge on the time — and I found one mention, remarks by Bajaj. He was trying to say something. Probably you didn't see — can you give him one minute or so? He is the director of our education business. He has all the — extra between management and leadership.

So that's essentially — when you manage, resources including the human beings, whereas leadership is to use those resources, use human beings, to achieve those objectives. That's what I was just trying to say, the difference, and thank you for the great day.

Okay, now just one more point. A few years — that is when Deep and I were instructors, was just horsey. And next thing is that we have all three been instructors in NDA, yes. And before I ask for the banner to come, one point which was very important point which General Sandhu mentioned was credit to subordinates. I mean, in the discussion we forgot to mention about that. Of course, of course, is that you give the respect, you have to be humble, you don't bulldoze them, but credit to the subordinates — and that is a very very important factor, even for management and even for leadership. In managing things also, if you give credit to subordinates, in no time maybe subordinate, or maybe his clique, and you feel that you want to give credit — due credit is given — that is a very important leadership role, I would say.

And with these words — interactive session is on 29th April, same time: Reasons for Lack of Trust in the Police. We were privileged to have Mr Arun Guru as one of the listeners today. He was present there. Mr Guru is from Indian Police Service of 62 batch and was the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh — intelligent police officer — and I just gave this subject to him. He couldn't say no, because he was very very polite when he replied to the NISSMAT team that since I've allocated this subject, he'll be speaking. I request all of you to join us, because he's a police officer, he'll be able to explain then what are the reasons for lack of trust in the police — same time on 29th April. An indirect speaker who has been vice chancellor and a police officer, with years of experience before he became practitioner of peace, so he'll be talking on the reasons for lack of trust in the police. With these words, I like to thank everyone, particularly our learned speaker of the interactive session today, and all of the delegates who have graced us by your presence. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Are you well now? Yeah, I'm much better, much better, much better, thanks. Because I am seeing you better — because I was quite concerned when someone told me you have not been keeping well for quite some time. But I'm now back to, you know, back to the stables, as they say. Perfect. We are grateful to you, always coming whenever opportunities. Thank you, sir. Thank you, everyone. Sir, thank you.