Power, perks and privileges

All three aspects cited in the caption have inherent propensities for being misused or abused. Everyone desires and likes privileges. It is an inherent fallibility of the human species. The quest to seek distinctiveness, whether bestowed or acquired, is a human weakness. Privilege, prerogative implies an advantage or right , that is of a special and unique nature, possessed or available by an individual or a group. A privilege, therefore, is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concessions. It can have legal or personal sanction. In many countries, senior citizens are not charged for commuting on the buses , underground and other means of public transport; this is a privilege by concession, canopied by legality.

The heir apparent is entitled to privileges that come their way due to family lineage. The monarch bestows titles, like Earl, Lord, Count, Duke, etc., and these come with some attending perks. The holding of de jure public office or the nomination to such office, entitles the recipient to certain perks and privileges. These privileges are protected by statutes, like a proclamation or an Act of the Parliament.

Rights are different from perks and privileges. The rights once given cannot be taken back, like freedom of speech, freedom of press/media, freedom to follow and practice a given religion, etc. Perks are given to serve a limited time of say, office held, hence perks and privileges can be withdrawn.

The worst thing that can happen to any type of leader is to become a victim to the trappings of the office held. If the leader is from the world of politics, it is even more difficult for them to seek freedom from the imprisonment of protocol, they are made to suffer, by the officials who surround the holder of a public office. Even the most powerful country’s president or similar position holder has to take a bow to the demands made upon him, by say, the security staff. Following an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981, he was pushed down by the security and bundled into a car that sped away ... later Reagan complained and said his collar bone was broken by his own security. Albeit, he was grateful to them for saving his life.

All days in the life of a leader, political or otherwise are governed by others. There is no public office holder who can claim that he/she can exercise free will. The binding of the constitution, a pledge the elected leader makes in the glare and presence of billions (live telecast) to uphold is always constricting. The constitution of a country or the company’s charter (memorandum & articles of association) circumferences the free will of the Leader, whatever he chooses to do has to remain within the ambit and admissibility of legal demands. The leader can possess the best of ideas and the most efficacious ways of achieving results, but he/she cannot short circuit the process enshrined either by law or practice. A political leader holding the highest office is immediately educated on the requirements of the blue book, which contains clauses that infringe on rights, perks and privileges. The code book has to be strictly adhered to.

If we examine and dissect the element of power (in other words perks and privileges) associated with an office, it would reveal that the entire edifice upon which power is considered to reside, is accepted by those who report to the leader. The moment a reporter turns around to ask, why, an order should be executed; not only the entire edifice but the strong foundations to it, crumble into pieces ... and with that goes to the ground the associated perks and privileges. They are so fragile. To illustrate by example this thought, imagine and visualise how a coup d’etat takes place -- a Major or Colonel goes to the elected or may be an unelected leader, and says, Sir, the party is over, please accompany without resistance. Most politicians very sensibly surrender. In situations , where due to perks, privileges and accompanying hallucinations of popularity and intoxication of misplaced power, retorts, like the Bangla Bandhu, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman did; he emerged from his bedroom berating, admonishing, with anger and high decibel voice, he said, addressing the coup makers, “do you know, I am the Father of The Nation” -- the next thing -- he, the undisputed leader, with power and privileges, was lying lifeless in a pool of blood. The structure of power was reduced into rubble, by a mere overstepping of the defined power lines. It follows that it is not power but respect for framework that gives credence and semblance to being powerful. Power bestows no sustainable privileges but personal power does that, because the later is not held on crutches.

Leaders, when they become accustomed to the perks and privileges of the office, feel miserable, once they get dispensed from that status. An ordinary person by virtue of position held, if he/she were to travel, every single day to office or other locations, with a platoon in a cavalcade, will land into dungeons of self pity, if they become victim or acquire the habit of this ridiculous protocol.

Drawing parallels from political leadership, there is need to confess that corporate leadership is no less gullible to the paraphernalia of perks and privileges. It is a human failing to seek spotlight -- and most humans, regardless of the position on the hierarchical ladder, behave as ordinary humans. They succumb easily to the pleasure of perks. Those who attempt to dislodge the apparatus of protocol, are made aware of the many difficult and strenuous consequences that are likely to follow. This scribe requested to reduce the number of guards accompanying in the squad car that used to follow, but was promptly blackmailed emotionally by the administration, who said that because our security staffing is full strength already, hence those released would be fired. I backed off. A prey to the seductive privilege.

Leadership, political, corporate or otherwise is not about seeking privileges for oneself, instead it is about striving to get the best conditions for the followers. Sacrificing the present for the future is an attitude all leaders must demonstrate by action. Rick Warren put this thought very aptly, “The greatest detriment to tomorrow’s success is today’s success”. In other words the doing away of unwanted perks can usher in better quality of life for the multitude. Be it the CEO or the president of the country, and all those who report to these offices, the perks and privileges they take are at the expense of the company or the country. The continuation of loss making state owned enterprises (losses are estimated at Rs2.5 trillion) is at tax payers cost. These losses include the cost of perks. Keeping the facilities to the minimum allows for saving precious rupees, that can go towards facilitating a larger number of people.

For everything that the manager/ leader gives up, there is something or the other he gains. Besides the emoluments, the facilities given create a sense of comfort; and since human nature desires life in comfort zones, once it is hard, the tendency is not to give up. Recently our Election Commission demanded of the outgoing cabinet members to surrender the official vehicles given to them; it follows that P&P become diehard afflictions, and no official is found to willingly and voluntarily jettison this disease. Compare this with PM John Majors, after resigning, he comes out the 10, Downing Street and reportedly takes a Black cab home. What’s wrong with us, we must ask?

The comfort plateau is tempting. Leaders ought to regularly empty themselves, for only then, there would be room to accept and do something new. P M Nair, an IAS officer who was secretary to Indian President Dr. Abdul Kalam, has written a book titled, “Kalam Effect’’. Amongst the many incidents of his simplicity and honesty, I shall quote a few: He received gifts on his overseas visits, upon return he would ask for the gifts to be photographed, catalogued and handed over to archives. He never looked at them ever again; The traditional Ramazan iftar, which was always paid for by the state, he refused and footed the bill personally; he invited 50 relatives to stay at The Presidential palace, he organised a bus tour to go around New Delhi, no official car was used, the cost of stay was calculated, including that of food served, it amounted to 200,000 Indian rupees, which he paid; but the classic is, he made his elder brother stay in his room for a week with him (shared), once the brother left, he insisted on paying rent for his bedroom, he left no property, no TV, no cars, no lands, no jewellery, shares; he had the following only: 6 trousers, 4 shirts, 3 suits, Awards of Padmabushan, Bharat Ratna, 16 Doctorates and 2,500 books. That’s a leader. That’s a public office holder.

Leaders must have the capacity to give up everything, except responsibility. With every rise in the hierarchical position, there must be a corresponding decline in perks. However in real life it works otherwise. Leaders must be willing to trade P& P with sacrifice, for a better future of the organisation and followers.

In response to a remark asking, what a leader can trade for betterment of their workforce, Max DePree said, “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you . In between, the leader is a servant”. Is the leader willing to give credit, where it is due; and willing to take responsibility/blame, for error and mistakes. When Chrysler was going to shut down completely, the then new chairperson, Lee Iaocaca, called the final meeting of the management and just said, “we have a choice, to take a fifty percent cut in our emoluments and perks, if we want to come back tomorrow for work, or else, the company will be closed this evening”. They took the cut. Chrysler turned around significantly and exists today.

There is a distinct difference between being a leader and being a self serving leader. The demand for diplomatic protocol for an offspring is a matter stretched beyond basic comprehension. To go ahead, you need to have people behind. As the Chinese saying goes, “Behind an able man are other able men and women”. A dominant degree of modesty and humility is imperative for any leader to have sway over followers. Mr. Agha Hasan Abedi, in early 1980’s, when no management scientist or management books carried any value to these non quantifiable aspects of leadership, used to spend hours in management meetings, trying to impress the significance of these traits to his colleagues. He was a man who lived far ahead of his times. Abraham Lincoln, was modest and humble; shy and quiet by nature, but he was the most ablest of leaders the USA has ever produced. He was fearless. The abandonment of ego alone can lead to renunciation of the intoxicating abuse of power, perks and privileges.

The writer is a senior banker and a freelance columnist