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

net/publication/264441126

Management control insights from the Mahabharata

Article  in  International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management · January 2011

DOI: 10.1504/IJICBM.2011.040957

CITATIONS READS
4 6,537

1 author:

Keyur B. Thaker
Indian Institute of Management Indore
26 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

How does business performance measurement system perform View project

Decision making among management professional View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Keyur B. Thaker on 14 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2011 377

Management control insights from the Mahabharata

Keyur Thaker
Indian Institute of Management Indore,
Rau Pithampur Road, Pigdember,
Indore 453 331, Madhya Pradesh, India
E-mail: thakerkeyur@yahoo.com
E-mail: keyurt@iimidr.ac.in

Abstract: The effective management control or strategy execution requires

striking balance and managing tensions across the organisation (Simmons,
2000). Merchant (2002) classifies the cause of execution failures as imbalance
on three different fronts, namely, direction, motivation (misalignments) and
ability or personal limitations. The victory of the Pandavas over the Kauravas
in the Indian epic ‘Mahabharata’ dated some 3000 BC; despite arguably
superior ability of the latter provides interesting insights on how those causes
were managed. The practices and preaching of Sri Krishna, the mentor in the
epic Mahabharata, offer some interesting lessons on how the causes of
management control failure in Kauravas led to the victory of Pandavas.
Pandavas’ camp demonstrated the balance on direction, motivation and ability
(DMA) framework identified here, and thus created a winning organisation.
The mind–body diagnosis framework (Sathe and Smart, 1997), a powerful tool
to ‘winning organisation’, is quite close to this. The framework also compares
well with Krishna–Arjuna framework a.k.a. KAF (Parashar, 2008) that right
vision and focused action lead to the victory amongst equal, and focused action
requires competent people and compatible team. The win without fighting
strategy of Sun Tzu (Ma, 2003) is as well demonstrated and comparable with
the DMA framework and the Mahabharata.
Keywords: strategy execution; management control; DMA; direction,
motivation, ability; framework; Mahabharata.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Thaker, K. (2011)
‘Management control insights from the Mahabharata’, Int. J. Indian Culture
and Business Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.377–389.
Biographical notes: Keyur Thaker is an Assistant Professor in Finance and
Accounting Area at the Indian Institute of Management Indore. His research,
teaching and consulting interest include financial management, strategic
finance, cost and management accounting, management control systems,
corporate performance management, project finance and investments and
valuation. He has conducted corporate training and consulting in the area of
finance, investments, costing, management control and corporate performance
management. He has several publications and presentations in international
conferences and refereed international and national journals. Of late, he is
inquisitive and propagating consciousness in business for competitiveness and
making the world better place to live.
A substantially revised version of the paper earlier presented in the invited
speakers session at International Conference. Indian Management for Global
Effectiveness: Insights from the Mahabharata, 19th and 20th February 2010,
organised by Indian Business Academy at Bangalore, India.

Copyright © 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

378 K. Thaker

1 Introduction

Today business organisations are witnessing fierce competition in an increasing dynamic

and global environment. To thrive, an organisation must remain competitive and win over
the competition and environmental challenges. Strategies are formulated to build
competitiveness, guide resource allocation and actions, thus ensure success – victory and
long-term survival of an organisation. Business leaders and senior managers, generally
formulate strategy to foster a winning organisation. According to Herbiniak (2008),
formulating strategy is a difficult task, but executing and implementing across the
organisation is all the more difficult. Similarly, Kaplan and Norton (1996) argued that,
nine out of 10 strategies fail for want of proper execution. Further to that, Kaplan and
Norton (2001) stated that the ability to implement strategy was found more important
than the quality of the strategy. Therefore, it makes sense to argue that strategy
implementation today remains one of the biggest challenges for the business leaders and
managers. Since time immemorial, several studies and literature have been written on
strategy, implementation and winning. Earliest lessons on winning – successful
implementation were captured in literature, epics – treaties of the age when human race
often fought war. Strategy implementation and winning have been thus one of the most
anciently researched areas.
Strategy implementation also called as management control involves leaders or
managers taking steps to help ensure the organisations’ employee do what is best for the
organisation in accordance with the given strategy. In very simple term, it is defined to
include everything managers do to help ensure that their organisation’s strategies and
plans are carried out or if conditions warrant that they are modified (Merchant, 2002).
Strategy execution requires dealing with large number of people. As stated by Simmons
(2000), effective management control or strategy execution is consequence of striking
balance and managing tensions across the organisation. Merchant (2002) classifies the
cause of execution failures as imbalance and inability to manage tensions on three
different fronts, namely, direction, motivation and ability (DMA; personal limitations).
Management control is the link between strategies and the results or performance. The
focus of management control is strategy implementation to achieve the desired
objectives.
Satpathy and Munipan (2008) reiterate that from time to time there has been need to
intelligently reinterpret and apply ancient philosophies (such as the Ramayana,
Mahabharata and Bhagavad-Gita) in the context of modern times. Several ancient
literatures offer insights in the execution; the earliest can be traced to the Ramayana, Sun
Tzu (6th Century BC), The Mahabharata (3000 BC), etc. However, most insights (based
on such literature) available at highly abstract and conceptual level and practitioners seem
to be grappling on how to use those abstract for day-to-day work life (Panda and Gupta,
2007). Atalas (1972) states that academic scholars have captive mind to western and
quantitative perspective and lack an independent perspective. The fallacy of discounting
the cultural specificities of (e.g. Indian or Chinese) social (and organisational) realities
and their histories were largely overlooked (Mukherji, 2006). Das (1998), Khandelwal
(2001) etc. have attempted to draw management lessons from the epics like Mahabharata
but have largely ignored specific issues with reference to management control and
strategy implementation. This paper in part attempts to address the research gap and the
need to take abstract knowledge to practitioners by drawing from the great Indian epic
(such as Mahabharata1) some interesting insights and context in understanding effective
 Management control insights from the Mahabharat 379

management control. It also depicts the comparability and relatedness across certain
ancient and modern literature on strategy implementation and winning. Further, the paper
points out on how good execution could lead to victory over powerful opponent without
fighting, which is well described in the ancient Chinese treatise Sun Tzu and the Indian
epic Mahabharata.
The epic ‘Mahabharata’ dated some 3000 years BC is a tale of two cousins, the
Kauravas2 and the Pandavas.3 Both armies fought over the rightful position for the throne
of Indraprastha and Hastinapur, but the strategy and its implementation was different.
It is argued that one of the important reasons for the victory of Pandavas was the sound
strategy execution or management control. This contribution endeavours to illustrate this
with reference to Mahabharata, and draws parallel and compares it with available models
and framework in the modern and ancient literature to pull out lessons for management
control.

2 Literature review

One of the earliest contributions on strategy execution – winning can be traced to Sun
Tzu (6th Century BC) which states that successful execution requires right positioning
and focused action. In other words, successful strategy execution or management control
requires competent people and compatibility. The Sun Tzu treatise further uses the notion
that ‘conflict can be balanced and harmonious in dictating the way in which wars can best
be fought’. Ma (2003) in his/her paper ‘win without fighting strategy’ states that to defeat
rivals’ forces without engaging in fighting is the supreme amongst all the strategies as
observed in Sun Tzu. As suggested in Sun Tzu, tactical strategy that leads to
contamination of the motivation; direction and ability balance of the strong rival can earn
you victory without engaging in (full-fledged) fighting.
As supposed by Hammermesh (1982), strategy implementation is all about creating
fit and alignments (balances and harmony), namely, functional and organisational.
Silverthorne (2010) argues that organisations fail to implement explicit strategy as it
diverges from the implicit strategy (emerges when the managers attempt to execute
the explicit strategy). The non-alignment thus causes the explicit strategy to fail. The
alignment of implicit strategy with explicit strategy can be brought through proper
management control system in place. The management control involves managers or
leaders taking steps to create fit and alignments that help ensure the organisations’
employee do what is the best for the organisation. Merchant (2002) defines the need for
management control due to the following concerns. Will the employees behave
appropriately? The questions can be further elaborated as; Do employees understand
what we expect from them? Will they work consistently hard and try doing what is
expected from them? Are employees capable of doing a good job and as per expectation?
Neilson et al. (2008) of Booz and company surveyed 125,000 employees of over 1,000
organisations across 50 countries and found out importance of the top 17 traits exhibited
by organisation who most effectively implement strategy. According to them employees’
clarity about information related to decisions and actions (direction) they are responsible
and the presence of motivators4 – that enhance commitments, were the two most
important traits. Comparably Parashar (2008), citing Krishna5–Arjun framework (KAF),
argued that winning over equals requires focused action, which in turn requires
competent people and compatible teams. Compatibility is the essence of successful
380 K. Thaker

execution and can be derived by striking balance and managing tensions (Simmons
2000), compatibility of motivation, ability and direction amongst people and parts of the
organisation. This compares well with Merchant (2002) classification of the cause of
execution failures as imbalance on three different fronts, namely, direction, motivation
(misalignments) and ability or personal limitations. Muniapan (2007) citing the epic
Ramayana,6 argues that leadership of Sri Rama7 involved exemplary motivation to
followers, clearly defining and articulating a shared vision (direction) and transformation
of them for higher performance (ability). Such a transformational leader/manager or say
good management control practice led to success – victory of Sri Rama’s army over the
mighty Ravana who was arguably stronger and had superiorly equipped army. Zubin and
Venkatand (2009) suggest that transformational leadership makes better leader and
explores relationship with the Karma Yoga (articulated in Bhagavad-Gita by Shri
Krishna, which is a part of the epic Mahabharata). The mind–body diagnostic framework
of Sathe and Smart (1997) suggests that winning organisation requires strong mind and
strong body. Strong mind is characterised as a high level of collective ambition, clear
sense of purpose (direction) and high level of motivation in the organisation. Strong body
refers to the anatomy and physiology (ability) needed to enable the organisation to
achieve what the mind wills. The successful execution hence requires harmony, focus,
compatibility, commitment and capability.
The ensuing part of this paper deals with illustration and citation from the epic
Mahabharata to demonstrate how the three causes, the DMA framework identified here,
of management control or successful execution were managed in the camps of the
Pandavas and their cousins, Kauravas. Section 6 assimilates the management control
lessons from the Mahabharata and relates the DMA framework to Krishna–Arjuna,
mind–body diagnostic framework, Sun Tzu, etc. I have effectively used the said
metaphor to introduce and illustrate the management control and the key to successful
implementation during several management development programmes for senior
executives of corporate in India. As per my experience, such metaphor is being well
received and accepted by the participant managers of management development
programmes.

3 Direction

Lack of direction leads to execution failure and thus defeat in war or failure in business.
People perform poorly, simply because they do not know what the organisation wants
from them. At several instances there is non-agreement or ambiguity over the direction –
vision of the organisation. In other words, unity and clarity of direction is absent and
people and parts of the organisations remain non-compatible. Problems with direction in
an organisation may also occur in situation when people know what organisation expects,
but for some reason they do not behave in the interest of the organisation, and in worse
situations even work against the objectives of their organisation/team they work for. As
per DeLisi (2008), lack of knowledge of strategy and the process, ineffective
communication of the plan, unclear, inconsistent and unfocused strategies are some of the
reasons of execution failure. Those ones can be safely attributed as direction-related
causes.
 Management control insights from the Mahabharat 381

Principal of unity of command or direction (Ch 51, The Gita) was absent amongst
the Kauravas. The conflict amongst the generals from Kaurava’s side, namely,
Bheeshma,8 Dronacharya,9 Duryodhana,10 Karna11 and Shakuni12 was quiet evident.
Karna refused to fight under the leadership of Bheeshma. Similarly, Bheeshma did
not accept Karna to be the generalissimo. Incidence of conflict and lack of unity of
command were observed if one refers the dialogues amongst Duryodhana, Bheeshma
and Drona when latter two were chief of the Kaurava’s army. Consultation often
occurred amongst the Duryodhana, Karna and Shakuni and agreement was sought
from the Bheeshma and Drona. During the convocation, Dronacharya favoured his
beloved disciple, Arjuna while he insulted Karna and refused to allow latter
showcase archery skills and contest with Arjuna. Naturally, Karna was not
comfortable in fighting from the same camp when Dronacharya was generalissimo
and his army mate and vice versa.
Generals in Pandavas’ camp had individual targets (see Exhibit 1), but in harmony
with the common goals and manifested unity of command and direction. Except
Duryodhana and Karna none of the Kauravas’ generals seem to have definite
individual targets. The five Pandavas and the generals worked under the direction
and strategy of Sri Krishna. On the other hand, the generals of Kauravas’ army,
namely, Bheeshma, Karna, Dronacharya, Duryodhana, etc., fell prey for Sri
Krishna’s strategy trap. This illustrates well, what is referred as to ‘win without
fighting strategy’, eloquently presented in Sun Tzu. Kauravas struggled and
eventually failed to come to an agreement – direction–vision on several occasions.
At instance of Sri Krishna, Mata Kunti13 met Karna to reveal that he is her son from
father Lord Surya (Sun God). She told Karna that in such situations one should do
what gives satisfaction to loving parents. Karna argued that his Dharma (purpose of
life) was to be faithful to Duryodhana for the affection, trust and responsibility and
pay for the salt eaten by him. Hence, Karna fought with great stress and dilemma –
directional conflicts, after knowing that the Pandavas were his real brothers.
At several instances when Dronacharya was the generalissimo, Duryodhana
intervened, directed and advised other generals in the war, and thus the unity of
direction was tempered. On the 13th day, Duryodhana accused his Guru
Dronacharya with bitterness and anger for failing to capture Yudhistir on 12th day of
the war despite his ability to do so.
By his politeness, on the 14th day of war, Arjuna (at the advice of Sri Krishna)
escaped confrontation with his master, Dronacharya. On the contrary, Arjuna
successfully sought permission to confront with Jaydharana and even got blessed for
the victory from his guru, Dronacharya. At every occasion, Sri Krishna ensured that
Arjuna and the Pandavas never missed the strategic direction, seeing the state of
agitation in the mind of Arjuna at the junction of war – the day one, Sri Krishna
spoke to him at length to quell his agitation and remove his doubts. This is known as
the Bhagavad-Gita or ‘Word of God’14.
Henceforth all the Pandavas fought the war with great clarity, motivation, collective
purpose with common understanding and great compatibility under the able direction and
complete dedication to Sri Krishna. Arjuna expressed his commitment by saying
‘Karishya Vacnanam Tava’ (I shall act as your advice), while the Kauravas’ camp
382 K. Thaker

suffered with the problems related to direction and dedication to one single leader and
had compatibility concerns amongst generals.

4 The motivation
Motivational problems occur when individual objectives do not naturally coincide with
individuals and individuals’ self-interest is not aligned or at times even against
organisational objectives. Managers often play games to make their performance look
good at the cost of organisations performance. Employee fraud and theft could be the
most extreme examples.
Karma Yoga (Sloka 32–53, Ch 2, Gita) refers that action requires strong
determination and motivation, which was not strong enough amongst the generals of
Kauravas, namely, Bheeshma, Karna and Dronacharya. As given in the Gita, those
who are in unstable mind and attached to fruits of action are indeterminate and
cannot be good in performances (Mathur, 1974). This very unstable mental situation
of Karna and Bheeshma led to their downfall.
In Udyoga Parva;15 King Dhrupad reveals to the Pandavas that you can change heart
by your ethical talks (Khandelwal, 2001). On his suggestions, Pandavas created rift
amongst Bheeshma, Dronacharya and Kripacharya. When those ministers created
rift, Kauravas took time to consensus.
Duryodhana wanted war but other generals, namely, Bheeshma, Dronacharya,
Kripacharya, etc., did not. Those generals were with Duryodhana due to compulsion
such as personal motives and pledge. Their motivation was incongruent with that of
Duryodhana, ‘of winning the war against Pandavas’. Generals in Kauravas’ camp
were unwilling to forego their personal pledges and vow for the larger interest of the
team, which ultimately affected their performance and caused downfall. Pandavas
fought with great commitment to the team objectives and happily sacrificed their
personal vow, pledge, etc. For instance, on 14th day of the war, Yudhisthira16 forged
by saying that Ashwathama (the son of Drona and not the Elephant) was killed
despite his pledge to be always truthful. Sri Krishna lifted his Sudrashan Chakra
(Divine Weapon Disc) and was about to attack Bheeshma despite his pledge to not to
lift a weapon and fight. Thus the motivation of generals of Kauravas’ camp was
mottled and conflicting to the very overall team objective.
The generals in Kauravas’ camp had strong ties and sympathy with Pandavas. They
advocated for justice with Pandavas. On the first day of war, Dharmaraja Yudhisthira
sought permission to indulge in the war and as well got blessed for the victory from
his elders such as Bheeshma, Guru Dronacharya, Kripacharya, etc., of Kauravas’
camp.
Pandavas were grandchildren of Bheeshma; though Bheeshma fought for Kauravas
due to his vow to protect the throne of Hastinapur, he never fought with motivation
to kill the Pandavas as he pledged not to kill his grandchildren – the Pandavas. He
simply wasted time and energy in causing the trivial harm to the opponent’s army.
Dronacharya owned allegiance to the throne of Hastinapur. Pandavas were students
of Master Dronacharya. Arjuna was the most beloved. Hence, Dronacharya lacked
motivation to kill Pandavas, but at the same time he blessed them for the victory.
 Management control insights from the Mahabharat 383

Karna, the brother of Pandavas was aligned to Kauravas under the obligation to
discharge the respect and favours offered. He had also vowed to support his friend,
Duryodhana. His prime motivation was to prove his superiority over Arjuna and take
revenge for the insult during the convocation performance. Karna fought war to the
best of ability but with great psychological pressure created by Krishna, Kunti and
Bheeshma. His own charioteer King Shayla was loyal to Pandavas and demotivated
and insulted him in the war. On the contrary, Arjuna fought with great clarity and
focus as his charioteer and mentor, Sri Krishna aptly motivated, directed and assisted
in gaining superior ability.
Kauravas had centralised leadership; one head of army at a time who has supreme
authority of eleven Akshouhini17. Pandavas had distributed leadership with seven
commanders for seven Akshouhini with Dhrishtadyumna as commander-in-chief and
Arjuna as Supreme Commander. Centralised leadership in the Kauravas impaired
and conflicted motivation amongst them. Pandavas fought with well-distributed
leadership, shared responsibility and high collective motivation.
The generals in the Kauravas’ camp had motivational problems, as individual objectives
did not naturally coincide with other team members and overall objective. Individuals
fought with their self-interest. They were not aligned and even at occasions against
overall team objectives. Generals like Bheeshma, Karna and Dronacharya lacked the
enthusiasm and joy. As rightly pointed out (Mahabharata, Bheeshmaparva: 3/72) joy and
enthusiasm amongst the combatants at all time is a strong indication of victorious side
which was prevalent in Pandavas’ camp. Pandavas fought with collective motivation,
referred by Sathe and Smart (1997) as the amount of energy behind the collective
purpose. The commitment for team purpose was so high that generals in Pandavas’ camp
scarified personal vow for the overall interest, unlike the generals in the Kauravas’ camp.

5 The ability

Personal limitations or lack of ability may occur due to the lack of requisite intelligence,
training, knowledge, skills, etc. At times employee may be unwilling to put in their best
or might constrain their ability and enthusiasm. In such circumstances, employees need to
be realised about their potential, and get motivated and trained to overcome the
limitations. The personal limitation or lack of ability may lead to downfall or execution
failure.
If one compares the ability across two camps, the Pandavas and the Kauravas, the
latter camp appears superior on variety of aspects. Kauravas had eleven Akshouhini
while the Pandavas fought with seven Akshouhini. Kauravas had some of the supreme
and undefeatable generals like Bheeshma, Master Dronacharya and Karna. Bheeshma,
Karna and Duryodhana had divine gifts or blessings that made them virtually immortal
and undefeatable. Each one was comparable if not superior than Arjuna and was capable
of taking on all the Pandavas alone. The Pandavas’ camp predominantly rested on the
ability and skills of Arjuna to win the war.
Karna, the son of Kunti by the Lord Surya was blessed with Kavach (divine body
armour) and Kundal (divine earnings). He alone had enough ability to take on with
the Pandavas successfully and was undefeatable. Karna gave away (donated) his
384 K. Thaker

Kavach and Kundal to Lord Indra, who at the instance of Sri Krishna came disguised
as a Brahmin and begged the divine gifts. Due to persistent disagreement, Karna took
vow to remain out of battle till Bheeshma remained generalissimo. As a result,
Kauravas could never fight the war with the combined strength of all the generals. At
the same time, Karna fought with constrained ability due to personal vow and curse.
At the instance of Sri Krishna, Mata Kunti revealed the real parentage that Karna
was son to her by Lord Surya (Sun God). At the urge of Mata Kunti, Karna promised
that with Arjuna or himself, she would remain mother of five Pandavas as before.
During the war, he defeated four Pandavas (except Arjuna) and let them alive. Guru
Parshuram (the great warfare master) cursed Karna on knowing that he resorted to
the falsehood in gaining the warfare skills. Karna could not recall the mantra for use
of Brahmastra (a divine and lethal weapon), he had gained from the Lord Indra. He
was also unable to lift the wheel of his chariot that got stuck during the war with
Arjuna on account of curse from a sage. On the extended 14th day of war to prevent
the vast damage from the frivolous attack of Ghatothkach in the Kauravas’ army, at
the request of Duryodhana, Karna had to reluctantly use a special weapon gifted by
his father, Lord Surya that he preserved for lethal attack on Arjuna.
Bheeshma pledged not to kill any of the Pandavas as they were as his grandchildren
as Kauravas. Yudhisthira humbly sought blessing and permission to fight the war.
In response, Bheeshma with no hesitation blessed Pandavas victory in the war on
the first day itself and also disclosed his weakness secrets.
Dronacharya indirectly gave away his secrets by saying he is invulnerable as long as
he had a weapon. All the skills that Dronacharya had, he imparted to his beloved
disciple, Arjuna. Dronacharya always boasted that Arjuna was the best archer of
the time and would prove his superiority. Dronacharya, as well, blessed Pandavas
for the victory on the first day of the war.
Mother Gandhari sanctified Duryodhana with steel body. At instance of Krishna,
Duryodhana committed blunder when his mother showered the strength of steel to
the uncovered body through her vision. Duryodhana covered his thighs and private
parts, and thus his body remained vulnerable. Bhima knew this secret weakness
from Krishna, and caused the downfall of Duryodhana by smashing on the thighs
with a mace.
Yuyutsu, son of Dhritarashtra who crossed over to Pandavas, exposed the weakness
of Kauravas for all to see. Shalya simply cheated by Duryodhana to be there with
him, but was originally a Pandavas’ ally.
Kauravas had the greatest empire of the time. They did not have many strong allies.
Most allies were forced, coerced and inducted in lieu of being defeated in war with
Karna. Pandavas had no empire left but developed strong allies through ties that
were on love and affectionate grounds such as marriages, friendship and family
relations. Pandavas through the exile turned their attention in improving over
weakness and acquiring Divyastras (celestial or divine weapons).
Thus the ability of the generals in Kauravas’ side remained constrained due to curse,
vow, blunders and personal constraints for the use of divyastra, disagreement, lower
motivation, etc. On the other hand, Pandavas could systematically enhance their ability
through handwork, penance, sacrifice, inducting strong allies, blessings and good wishes
 Management control insights from the Mahabharat 385

from seniors. In Mahabharata (Bheeshmaparva: 3/75), Bheeshma rightfully advises

Yudhisthira ‘whether the army is small or large, cheerfulness, as an attribute of the
combatants, is said to be a certain indication of victory’.

6 Conclusion

The effective management control is essential for successful strategy implementation,

and thus victory over equals in the competitive business environment. Successful
execution requires striking balance and managing tensions across the organisation
(Simmons, 2000) or as rightly said organisational and functional fit (Hammermesh,
1982), which was quite evident in the Mahabharata; the imbalance and contaminated
ability, direction and motivation (misfit) led to the downfall of Kauravas. The fall of
Kauravas also demonstrates the use of ‘win without fighting strategy’ by Pandavas,
wherein the latter could effectively imbalance the DMA framework of the opponent.
Pandavas executed well by managing the DMA trinity. This is well manifested and
close to the DMA trinity discussed here and depicted as the DMA framework in
Exhibit 2.
Pandavas fought with focused action – unity of direction, commitment and well-
aligned motivation, and hence demonstrated a compatible team. Competency – ability of
Pandavas was comparable if not superior from Kauravas. However, personal constraints,
vow, curse and misalignment impaired very competence of latter. The compatibility is the
essence of successful execution and can be derived by striking balance and compatibility
of motivation, ability and direction amongst people and parts of the organisation. Thus
according to Parashar (2008), KAF, winning over equals requires right positioning, i.e.
direction and focused action, Transformation Leadership of Lord Rama is close to this.
Focused action requires compatible people (motivational alignment) and competent team
(ability), thus organisational and functional fit (Hammermesh, 1982). Unity of direction
and the commitment for the cause leads to collective purpose and motivation, which
is described as strong mind. Capacity, ability or capability, which the organisation has, is
characterised as strong body. A strong mind and strong body was well demonstrated in
Pandavas’ camp. The mind–body diagnostic framework (Sathe and Smart, 1997), and
Transformational Leadership style of Sri Rama (Muniapan, 2007), traits of successful
execution by Neilson et al. (2008) of Booz & Company, etc., are comparable and
adequately illustrated in Mahabharata along with the DMA framework discussed here.
Exhibit 3 depicts that the KAF and mind–body framework are comparable and can be
well illustrated in the great epic Mahabharata.
The strategy execution and victory depends on striking balance, managing tensions
and having the right kind of DMA; the alignment and optimisation of which leads to
successful execution or implementation and thus victory, which is amply demonstrated
in the Mahabharata. The same can be compared with the modern literature discussed in
Section 2. This is the first of its kind contribution relating the ancient literature,
great epics, such as Mahabharata and others, specifically with reference to management
control – strategy implementation and drawing parallels with modern thinking and
literature. This paper is unique in the sense that this is the first attempt to draw
management control – strategy execution lessons and suppose a framework from
Mahabharata in a practical and lucid manner. It recognises the contribution of ancient
Indian and Chinese epic in modern times and global context. The metaphor discussed in
386 K. Thaker

this paper can be suitably used to introduce the students with essentials of execution and
management control issues in an organisation.
Exhibit 1

Generals in Pandavas’ camp Respective target (generals) in Kauravas’ camp

Dhrishtadyumna Drona
Shikhandi Bheeshma
Satyaki Bhurisravas
Arjuna Bheeshma and Karna
Bhima Duryodhana and his brothers
Sahadeva Shakuni and his sons
Nakula Karna’s sons

Exhibit 2 The DMA framework

Exhibit 3
 Management control insights from the Mahabharat 387

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the anonymous reviewers of IJICBM for their constructive, well-
thought suggestion and encouragement to revise and improve this paper.

References
Atalas, S.H. (1972) ‘The captive mind in development studies’, International Social Science
Journal, Vol. 24, pp.9–25.
Das, G.N. (1998) Lessons from Mahabharata. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
DeLisi, P.S. (2010) ‘Strategy execution: an oxymoron or a powerful formula for corporate
success?’ Available at: www.strategylinkconsulting.com/StrategyLink/.../DeliverOnYour
Promises.pdf. Retrieved on 18 February 2010. Fremont, CA: Organizational Synergies.
Gita Press (1996) The Bhagavad Gita or the Song Divine (9th ed.). Gorakhpur, India.
Hammermesh, R.G. (1982), ‘Note on implementing strategy’, Harvard Business School, 9-383-
015, P2, Rev. 10/88.
Herbiniak, L. (2008), ‘Making the strategy work: overcoming the obstacle to effective execution’,
March/April 2008, © Ivey Business Journal, 2002, Available at: http://www.ibj.ca/article.asp?
intArticle_ID=746, Retrieved on 20 June 2010.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard; Translating Strategy in to Action.
Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001) The Strategy-Focused Organization. Boston, MA, USA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Khandelwal, N.M. (2001) Management Concepts from the Mahabharata. New Delhi: New Century
Publication.
Ma, H. (2003), ‘To win without fighting: an integrative framework’, Management Decision,
Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 72–84.
Mathur, D.C. (1974) ‘The concept of action in the Bhagavad-Gita’, Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.34–45.
Merchant, K.A. (2002) Modern Management Control Systems. Asia: Pearson Education, pp.6–9.
Mukherji, P.N. (2006) ‘Sociology for what? Rethinking sociology in an era of transformatory
changes’, Sociology Bulletin, Vol. 55, pp.172–200.
Muniapan, B. (2007), ‘Transformational leadership style demonstrated by Sri Rama in Valmiki
Ramayana’, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.104–115.
Neilson, G.L., Martin, K.L. and Powers, E. (2008), ‘The secrets to successful strategy execution’,
Harvard Business Review, June, Vol. 80, No. 6, pp.61–70.
Panda, A. and Gupta, R.K. (2007), ‘Call for developing indigenous organizational theories in India:
setting agenda for future’, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2,
pp.205–243.
Parashar, S.P. (2008) ‘Winning over equals: insights form Bhagavad Gita (Krishna-Arjuna
framework)’, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.354–359.
Sathe, V. and Smart, G. (1997), ‘Building a winning organization: the mind-body diagnostic
framework’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16, pp.418–427.
Satpathy, B. and Munipan, B. (2008), ‘The knowledge of “self” from the Bhagavad-Gita and its
significance for human capital development’, Asian Social Science, Vol. 4, No. 10,
pp.143–150.
Silverthorne, S. (2010) One strategy: Aligning Planning and Execution. Q&A with Marco Iansiti,
HBS Working Knowledge, Available at: http://hbs.edu/cgi-bin/print?id=6370. Retrieved on 22
June 2010.
388 K. Thaker

Simmons, R. (2000) Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy.
Text and Cases. Prentice Hall, pp.1–15.
Sun Tzu (6th Century BC) The Art of War. USA: Best Success Books.
Zubin, M.R. and Venkat, K.R. (2009) ‘Do Karma Yogis make better leaders? Exploring the
relationship between the leader’s Karma Yoga and transformational leadership’, Journal of
Human Values, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.165–183.

Websites
http://www.academon.com/Book-Review-Sun-Tzu’s-The-Art-of-War/97234, Retrieved on 13 April
2010.
http://www.slideshare.net/yaswanth/winning-strategy-in-the-mahabharata, Retrieved on 27 January
2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata, Retrieved on 19 March 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama, Retrieved on 18 June 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana, Retrieved on 18 June 2010.

Notes
1
The Mahabharata is one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India, the other being the
Ramayana. The epic is a part of the Hindu history. A major text of Hinduism and a cornerstone
of Hindu mythology, it is of immense importance to the culture of the Indian subcontinent. For
more details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata.
2
One hundred Kauravas were the sons of the blind king, Dhritarashtra (elder brother of Pandu), by
Queen Gandhari. The eldest of the brothers, Duryodhana, was the chief antagonist of the
Pandavas. Also see note 3.
3
Pandavas were the five acknowledged sons of the diseased king, Pandu, by his two wives, Kunti
and Madri. Their names were from eldest, Yudhishtira (Dharmaraja), Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula and
Sahadeva. All five brothers were married to the same woman, Draupadi.
4
Like performance appraisals that distinguish high, adequate and low performance and rewards
for fulfilling particular commitments area also important but are most effective when applied
after decision rights and information flows have been addressed.
5
Is a deity worshipped across many traditions in Hinduism in a variety of perspectives. The stories
of Krishna appear across a broad spectrum of the Hindu philosophical and theological traditions.
Krishna was mentor of the Arnjua (third brother amongst Pandavas) and has been adorned by
many believers in India as one of the incarnation of God.
6
The Ramayana is an ancient Sanskrit epic. It is attributed to the Hindu sage, Valmiki and forms
an important part of the Hindu canon. It depicts the duties of relationships, portraying ideal
characters, such as the ideal servant, the ideal brother, the ideal wife and the ideal king. The
victory of Dharma – truth over Adharma is well demonstrated when Sri Rama with his army
wins over the powerful and blessed devil, Ravana and his army.
7
Rama is one of the many popular figures and deities in Hinduism, specifically Vaishnavism and
Vaishnava religious scriptures in South and Southeast Asia. Most of the details of Rama’s life
come from the Ramayana, one of the two great epics of India. Born as the eldest son of Kausalya
and Dasharatha, king of Ayodhya, Rama is referred to within Hinduism as Maryada
Purushottama literally the Perfect Man or Lord of Self-control or Lord of Virtue.
8
Bheeshma is one of the strongest characters of the Mahabharata. He was the grandfather of both
the Pandavas and the Kauravas. An unparalleled archer, he once vanquished the mighty
Parasurama, his master. Bheeshma means ‘He of the terrible oath’, referring to his vow of the
lifelong celibacy. Originally named Devavratha, he became known as Bheeshma after he took
 Management control insights from the Mahabharat 389

the bhishan pratigya ‘terrible oath’ – the vow of lifelong celibacy and of service to whoever sat
on the throne of his father (the throne of Hastinapur).
9
Drona or Dronacharya is the royal guru to the Kauravas and the Pandavas. He was a master of
advanced military arts, including the devastras (celestial weapons). Arjuna was his favourite
student. Drona’s love for Arjuna was second only to his love for his son, Ashwatthama.
10
Ibid 2.
11
Karna was born to his mother, Kunti, by his father, the solar deity, Surya. Karna was born,
before his mother’s marriage to prince Pandu. He is described as the closest friend of
Duryodhana. Friendship developed during the convocation performance by Kauravas and
Pandavas when Karna claimed his superiority but was insulted, and then Duryodhana came to
rescue by giving him respect – endowing him a kingdom and supporting when needed the most.
Karna fought on his behalf against the Pandavas (his brothers) at the Kurukshetra war in The
Mahabharata.
12
The villain Shakuni was the brother of Gandhari (mother of Kauravas) in The Mahabharata. He
was portrayed as an extremely intelligent but devious old man, who was very fond of his
nephew, Duryodhana.
13
Kunti is the mother of the eldest three of the Pandava brothers from the Indian epic
MahƗbhƗrata.
14
As per Hindu mythology and culture, on saying the Gita, Sri Krishna removed all the attachment
and agitation from the mind of Arjuna.
15
Parva means episode – Chapter. In The Mahabharata, there are eighteen parvas. For more details
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata#The_18_parvas.
16
Yudhisthira (Sanskrit meaning ‘steady in war’, from yuddha meaning ‘war’, and sthira meaning
‘steady’), the eldest son of King Pandu and Queen Kunti, was king of Indraprastha and later of
Hastinapura. He was the leader of the Pandavas’ side in the Kurukshetra war in the epic
Mahabharata.
17
One Akshouhini is equal to 21,870 chariots and equal number of elephants, 65,610 horses and
109,350 foot soldiers. For more detail see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata.

View publication stats