See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338392767

Models of Human Beings: Indian Perspectives and Implications for Indian

Management

Conference Paper · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 1,738

1 author:

Subhash Sharma
Indus Business Academy
191 PUBLICATIONS   500 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Management and Social Science Research View project

Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Subhash Sharma on 05 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Models of Human Beings: Indian Perspectives and Implications for Indian
Management*

Subhash Sharma
Indus Business Academy, Bangalore

Abstract

This paper presents various models of human beings rooted in Indian thought. In Indian
thought focus is on Self and its expressions. Purushartha theory, Trignuna framework and
Panchkosh models provide us a basis for an understanding of various models of human
beings. Rooted in these ideas this paper presents four models of human beings viz. Basket of
needs, Modes of thinking, Hierarchy of deeds and Envelops of consciousness. Basket of
needs model views needs in terms of a basket model in contrast to Maslow’s hierarchy
model. Modes of thinking identifies five forces of mind manifesting itself through
calculative, power, knowledge seeking, concern for others and liberation modes in market,
society and corporations. Hierarchy of deeds focus on typology of deeds/ human actions in
terms of Greed driven, Goodness driven and Graceful driven. Envelopes of consciousness are
rooted in Panchkoshas. Paper explores the implications of these models for motivation
theories and Indian Management.

Idea of models of human beings has been explored both in the West and in East. In the West,
Biology, Economics and Psychology provided intellectual foundations for models of human
beings in terms of Selfish gene, Self interest and Self actualization reflecting biological man,
economic man and self actualizing man. In addition human beings are also conceptualized as
social animal and political animal. These model have several implications for human society,
management and leadership thought. Are there any model of human beings with roots in Indian
ethos, Indian culture and Indian thought? Several Indian Management scholars such as S. K.
Chakraborty (1995, 20030), M. B. Athreya (2002), J.B.P. Sinha (2000), Subhash Sharma
(1996, 2007, 2013), Rajen Gupta (1991, 2002), Radha Sharma (2018) and others have dealt
with this idea in one form or other. These scholars have explored the idea of Self and its
implications for management and leadership.

In order to understand the expressions of Self in Market, Society and Spirituality (Spiritual
self), we need an understanding of various ‘models of human beings’. I have many times
undertaken a simple exercise with my students, workshop participants and corporate executives
by asking them to indicate their model of human being. The results are always interesting
ranging from the model of human being as a ‘social animal’ to ‘political animal’ to creative
and innovative individual to a rebel and revolutionary individual etc. These models derive
from both Western and Indian models of human beings. In this paper we synthesize these
various models in the form of holistic models based on the idea of ‘Western Windows Eastern
Doors’ (WWED) approach to new knowledge creation.
------------------------
*Paper presented at the Indian Academy of Management (INDAM) 2020 Sixth Biennial
Conference, held at Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Tiruchirappalli, January 2-4, 2020.
Models of Human Beings

In the discussion below we provide various models of human beings rooted in Indian ethos,
Indian culture and Indian thought. These models with roots in Purushartha theory, Trigunas
framework and Panchkosha model from Indian thought, are as follows:

1. Basket of Needs
2. Modes of Thinking
3. Hierarchy of Deeds
4. Envelopes of Consciousness

In the discussion below we elaborate on these four holistic models:

I Basket of Needs

The concept of ‘Basket of Needs’ is based on six dimensional view of human beings (Western
Windows Eastern Doors, Ch. 14, pp. 102-106) in terms of Biological, Economic, Political,
Social, Psychological and Spiritual dimensions. These six dimensions can also be represented
in terms of following three models :

I. Human being as Bio-Spiritual entity

II. Human being as Socio-Political entity
III. Human being as Psycho-Economic entity

As Bio-Spiritual entities, human beings not only seek to fulfill their biological needs but also
seek to explore their inner dimension/ inner self and its relationship with the world outside. As
spiritual entities they tend to seek happiness, ‘self realization’ and enlightenment. As social
beings they tend to seek fulfillment in social relationships and as political beings they tend to
display power need. As psychological entities, they tend to seek self esteem and self-
actualization and as economic entities they tend to maximize ‘utility’ and seek wealth. The idea
of ‘Basket of Needs’, wherein the basket combines above presented three models, leads us to
at a holistic model of human beings. It may be indicated that the idea of ‘Basket of Needs’ not
only takes us beyond Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs but also provides us an analytical
framework for ‘social-analytics’ as we can use it to analyze the social dynamics in terms of
dynamic interactions of the six dimensions of human personality and their manifestations in
human societies. In the model of the ‘Basket of Needs’, self is defined in terms of needs.
Expressions of the self can be observed in terms of satisfaction of the six needs. Gandhi said,
‘There is enough for everybody’s need and not for everybody’s greed’. Holistic development
implies a balanced approach to the satisfaction of needs based on ‘needs optimization’ strategy.
Figure 1 presents the ‘Basket of Needs’ model of human beings.
 Spiritual/
Happiness/
Self realization

Psychological/ Social/
Selfactualization
Self actualization Relationship

Political/ Economic/
Power Wealth

Biological
/Physical

Figure 1: Basket of Needs Model

(Source: Management in New Age: Western Windows Eastern Doors, Subhash

Sharma, 1996, p. 96)

This Basket model can be contrasted with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Basket model
provides agency and autonomy and also choice to individuals in contrast to Hierarchy
model. Further it also explicitly recognized the idea of spiritual needs of human beings.

II. Modes of Thinking: Five Forces of Mind

Human mind operates on five modes of thinking (Western Windows Eastern Doors, Ch. 2, pp.
11-16). These five modes are as follows:

i. Power acquisition
ii. Calculative and acquisitive: Wealth seeking
iii. Knowledge seeking
iv. Concern For Others (CFO)
v. Liberation From Oppression (LiFO)

Different human beings display different mix of these five modes of thinking. Cultures,
societies and nations also differ in their emphasis and mix of these modes of thinking. In fact,
different cultures and nations can be studied from the viewpoint of their ‘modes of thinking’.
This will take us beyond Hofstede’s (2001) framework of study of national cultures, wherein
he studies cultures along five dimensions viz. power distance, individualism, masculinity,
uncertainty avoidance and long term orientation.

The above indicated five modes of thinking also represent ‘Five Arrows of Mind’ and the
framework of Modes of Thinking can be referred as Five Forces Model of Mind. We can also
refer to it as Panchvarga/ Pentagon model of modes of thinking. This framework is presented
in Figure 2 indicating five arrows originating from human mind.

Knowledge
seeking
Calculative &
Power acquisitive:
seeking Wealth seeking

Mind

Concern for Liberation

Others

Figure 2: Five Modes of Thinking: Panchvarga Model

In future neuro-sciences may identify the brain areas related to five modes of thinking. In this
diagram we have presented calculative & acquisitive as well as power mode on top side and
Concern for Others (CFO) and Liberation modes on the base side. Knowledge seeking is
indicated by the central connecting line. Further, in this Spiritual needs Biological needs Social
needs Economic needs Psychological needs Political/Power need Metaphor of basket in the
context of needs implies that human beings have a choice in terms of ‘selection of needs’. Thus,
this model gives a sense of autonomy to individuals. Societies and nations can also prioritize
their development strategies based on the idea of ‘basket of needs’. Needs maximization, needs
minimization and needs optimization are three different approaches to human development.
Needs maximization approach followed by some nations leads to consumerism and devastating
impact on ecology.

Author has used this diagram with students and practicing managers to identify one’s
configuration of various modes of thinking based on self rating and found that self rating
exercise provides interesting insights. This self rating based on a scale of 1 to 5 wherein 1
represents low intensity and represents high intensity of a particular mode of thinking, can lead
to an individual’s personality configuration in terms of five modes of thinking. Such a diagram
can be referred to as spider diagram of one’s personality. This diagram vector arrived through
self rating is very useful for self reflection. Objective tests can also be designed to measure
personality on these five modes of thinking and will be useful to the organizations in relating
the personality configuration with responsibility areas within an organization. It may be
indicated that modes of thinking framework also leads us to a new view of motivation theories
as it recognizes knowledge seeking and liberation as important motivational impulses of human
beings.
Figure 3 presents an illustrative ‘spider diagram’ of a person with following self ratings on five
point scale:

Power acquisition: 3
Calculative and acquisitive: Wealth seeking: 4
Knowledge seeking: 4
Concern For Others (CFO): 3
Liberation From Oppression (LiFO): 3

4
3
5 4 4 5
3 2 3
1 1 2
1
2 1
3 2 3
4 4

5 5

Figure 3: An Illustrative Spider Diagram of Five Modes of Thinking

III. Hierarchy of Deeds

Triguna framework provides a basis for the concept of hierarchy of deeds (Western Windows
Eastern Doors, Ch. 24, pp. 174-175). Triguna theory in Gita identifies tamasik, rajasik and
sattavik as classification for a variety of concepts such as food, sukh, tapas and deeds etc. Here
we draw upon the classification of Deeds in terms of tamasik, rajasik and sattavik. Their
characteristics are outlined in Gita Ch. XVIII (25, 24 & 23). Actions undertaken from delusion
without consideration to consequence, loss or injury are tamasik in nature. Actions done by
craving for desires or with egoism are rajasik in nature. Actions free from attachment to fruits
of action are sattavik in nature. These form a hierarchy, wherein tamasik deeds are viewed as
lower form of deeds and sattavik deeds constitute the higher form. This hierarchy of deeds is
presented in Figure 4.

Sattavik

Rajasik

Tamasik
 Figure 4: Hierarchy of Deeds

While Maslow focused on hierarchy of needs, we need to ask a question about the means
employed to satisfy the needs. The question is answered by the concept of hierarchy of deeds
as there are three means of satisfying needs viz., tamasik, rajasik and sattavik. Thus self-
actualization can be achieved through tamasik, rajasik and sattavik means. Negative self-
actualization results from use of tamasik means. When rajasik and sattavik means are
employed, it results in positive self-actualization.

Hierarchy of deeds can also be represented in terms of 3G model of Greed (G1), Goodness
(G2) and Graceful actions (G3) that correspond to tamas, rajas and sattava qualities in human
beings and in nature leading to violent, vibrant and silent energies.

IV. Envelopes of Consciousness: Panchkosha Model of Human Beings

Panchkosha model provides an intellectual foundation for envelopes of consciousness. This

theory from Indian thought defines human beings in terms of five koshas (sheaths) viz.
annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vigyanmaya and anandmaya. Sri Aurobindo views these
koshas in terms of five sheaths / envelopes of consciousness represented by Physical, Vital,
Emotional, Intellectual and Spiritual levels. These represent the five energies viz. Physical
energy, Vital (Prana/ Life force energy), Emotional energy, Intellectual energy and Spiritual
energy. From this theory we derive the following model of human being:

HB (Human Being) = (PE) Q * EQ * IQ * SQ * DQ

In this equation, * is a mathematical operator, which can have either multiplicative or additive
form, though multiplicative model is preferable as no value is likely to be at zero level. It may
be noted that in this equation, PQ refers to Physical Energy (PE) quotient represented by
annamaya and pranmaya kosha, EQ is Emotional Quotient, IQ is Intelligence Quotient, SQ is
Spiritual Quotient and DQ represents Divinity Quotient representing anandmaya kosha and
representing the extent to which an individual is able to tap divine/cosmic energy to his/her
advantage. The term SQ was coined by Danah Zohar (2001) to give ‘meaning and value’ to
life and human actions. As meaning to life brings pleasure in its ‘ananda’ form, SQ corresponds
to the ‘anandamaya’ kosha.

The model presented above helps us in a proper understanding of linkages between various
levels and envelopes of consciousness and thereby corresponding ‘energy quotients’. In
popular terms we can also refer this model as BHMS (Body- Heart- Mind- Soul) model. There
is an interactive relationship between Body, Heart, Mind and Soul. They influence each other
in varying ways. Even organizations can be conceptualized as BHMS systems. With the arrival
of the services and knowledge economy, the need for BHMS approach to management is
getting attention. This implies a shift from a fragmented view to holistic view of human beings,
society and organizations.

Implications for Indian Management

Expressions of Self in the form of basket of need, modes of thinking, hierarchy of deeds and
envelops of consciousness find its expression in variety of ways in Market, Society and
Organizations. These ideas have implications for management and leadership in society,
corporations and institutions. These ideas constitute the core of Indian Management thought,
theory and practice.

These ideas provide us new insights to Motivation theories. While Western theory of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs views needs in terms of hierarchy, Indian model of basket of needs views
needs in terms of a basket model. McClelland’ theory of motivation identifies three aspects of
motivation in terms of power, achievement/ wealth seeking and affiliation, Indian model views
it in terms of Pentagon of five modes of thinking that include knowledge seeking and liberation
as additional aspects compared to McClelland’s model. ERG model is extended to ERGDP:
Existence, Relatedness, Growth, Development and Progress. Hertzberg’s Two Factor theory is
extended to Three factor theory represented by Inspiration, Motivators and Hygiene factors.
Thus Indian models provide a holistic perspective on Motivation. Table 1 provides a contrast
between Western theories and models of Motivation and Indian holistic models of Motivation

Table 1: Comparison between Western and Indian Theories & Models of Motivation
Western Theories & Models Indian Theories & Models
of Motivation of Motivation

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Basket of Needs: Six needs Theory

McClelland Theory Panchavarga/ Pentagon

While the idea of Indian Management has been ancient yet the idea of Modern Indian
(Need for Power, Theoryorofso. We can identify three phases
Management has been developing over last three decades
Need for Achievement, Modes ofcentury
Thinking &
of Indian Management viz. ancient, modern and twenty first centered around
Need forNation
Affiliation) corresponding
Kingdoms, and Corporation/ Organization contexts. Duringmotivations
ancient times Indian
Management was based on the idea of Kingdom e.g. Kautilaya’s Arthsastra deals with
ERG Model ERGDP Model
managing Kingdom and its wealth. Panchtantra deals with the moral and ethical side of
(Existence, Relatedness, Growth,
management and leadership. During modern times Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj provided a
Development, Progress)
foundation for Indian Management in the context of a Nation. Gandhi visualized Ramrajya as
a vision for good governance in the context of a nation. During last 30 years or so, as a result
Hertzberg’s Two Factor Theory Three Factors Theory: IMH
of scholarly work by several Indian Management thinkers and scholars in the context of
IMH: Inspirational,
Corporations and Organizations, idea of twenty first century Motivators,
Indian Management has Hygiene
found
greater acceptance. This idea is essentially based on the idea of Self and its expression in

Market, Society and Corporations. It is in this context that the ideas presented in this paper
viz. Basket of needs, Five modes of thinking, Hierarchy of Deeds and Envelopes of
Consciousness provide as new intellectual foundations for twenty first century Indian
Management.

References

Athreya M. B. 2002. Indian Dimension in Management in Shastri Siddharth (ed.). Indian

Management for Nation Building: New Ideas for New Millennium, 61-69. Banasthali:
WISDOM.
Chakraborty S. K. 1995. Ethics in Management: Vedantic Perspectives, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.

Chakraborty S. K. 2003. Against the Tide: The Philosophical Foundations of Modern

Management, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Gupta Rajen K. 1991. Employees and Organization in India; Need to Move Beyond
American and Japanese Models. Economic and Political Weekly, 26: M68-M76.

Gupta Rajen K. 2002. Towards Optimal Organization: Indian Culture and Management,
New Delhi: Excel Books.

Sinha J. B. P. 2000. Integrative Indigenous Management in India: Practices and Prospects.

Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. 97 (4): 439-460.

Sharma Radha and Ruplai Pardasani 2018. Convergence of Western and Eastern Perspectives
into Spirituo-Humanistic Leadership. 3D…IBA Journal of Management & Leadership. 10
(1): 15-25.

Sharma Subhash 1996. Management in New Age: Western Windows Eastern Doors, New
Delhi: New Age International Publishers.

Sharma Subhash 2007. New Mantras in Corporate Corridors: From Ancient Roots to
Global Routes, New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.

Sharma Subhash 2013. Three Paradigms in Management: American, Japanese and Indian.
International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior. 16 (1): 30-41.
View publication stats