Leadership during crisis: How a near-death experience united a team, rallied a nation and brought cheer at Euro 2020

Anyone who is remotely familiar with sports in India knows that Football is not the national sport of India. Apart from the residents of the states of Kerala and West Bengal, and a few pockets in the major cities, Indians are not particularly fond of football. The sport does not excite us as much as Cricket, or any India-Pakistan match in any sport does.

My last serious interaction with football was the 2014 World Cup, when I watched the deserving young German team lift the trophy in the finals, after trashing Brazil 7-1 in a one-sided encounter in the semi-finals. I remember the minor controversy surrounding the “frenchness” of the players who won France the World Cup in 2018 (with this thoughtful ‘Between the Scenes’ from Trevor Noah). I was familiar with some of the big names in the world of football – Ronaldo (the Portuguese one), Neymar, Messi, Lewandowski, Salah, Suarez, Neuer and most names from the German Football Team.

So when one of my alumni invited me to play Euro 2020 on the fantasy league TruFan, I thought – why not! After all, I have been playing IPL for the last 2 years on the same platform, so why not flex my mind muscles in a sport I was not that familiar with and see where I ended up! I started reading about the different teams, the team combinations and the favourites. France, England, Belgium and Portugal were heavy favourites to win the tournament, followed by Germany, Spain and Italy. The other teams were considered potential semi-finalists, but no one gave any other team a chance to win the tournament.

The tournament started on a familiar note, with Italy beating Turkey 3-0 and Wales holding Switzerland to a 1-1 draw. The next match, Denmark vs. Finland was supposed to be a regular affair. It was the first time that Finland qualified for the Euro, and Denmark was expected to win against the inexperienced Finnish team. The match started on a strong note, but both teams remained goalless for the first 40 minutes. And then something happened, that would become the defining moment for the whole of Euro 2020, given the circumstances in which the tournament was being played.

Near the end of the 1^st half, Denmark’s star player Christian Eriksen collapsed on the field. It was not in response to a tackle by the opposing team – he just collapsed on the field and lay motionless. Everyone realised that something was wrong.  A lot has been written about this incident already – how his captain Simon Kjær prevented Eriksen from swallowing his own tongue thereby saving his life, how the Danish players and the paramedics formed a circle around Eriksen to allow the doctors to do their job in private and how the goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel and later Simon comforted Eriksen’s partner and mother of their two children. What stood out was the behaviour of the Finnish fans in the crowd. While Eriksen was being carried out of the stadium, they handed their flags to the paramedics to shield Eriksen. After a while, they started chanting “Christian” over and over and even the Denmark fans get it and start chanting “Eriksen” back. Such unity is rarely seen on a football field – fans get upset with their own team, let alone support their opponent!

(A Finnish Flag being used to cover Eriksen as he is escorted from the ground. Source: @CaIMcI)

To the surprise of everyone, the match resumed after a few hours. Finland scored 15 minutes into the 2^nd half, and the score remained 1-0 in their favour till the end of the 90 minutes. The loss to Finland was a big blow. Denmark were the clear favourites to win the match against the much-lower ranked Finnish team. A draw would have still been acceptable, but a loss changed the equation. The team did not care. They were worried about Eriksen, and the match was the last thing on their mind that night. Christian Eriksen wasn’t simply their best player. He was also part of the leadership group of the team and was a near constant in their side, having played in 109 of 120 matches since his international debut in 2010.

The next match was with the No. 1 team Belgium, and they knew it was not going to be an easy task to win/draw against them without their star player. They did stick to their game plan – to attack at every possible opportunity and to take shots even if it seemed tough to score. They were defeated but were surely not outplayed. They still had the belief that they could make it to the next round and go even further. But the road seemed long and hard.

The match against Belgium did have its incredible moments. A huge No. 10 Eriksen shirt was unveiled on the pitch before the start of the game as a tribute to their star player. Poulsen scored the second fastest goal in the history of the Euros to put Denmark in the lead, to a huge uproar in the whole stadium, which would have surely woken up anyone sleeping within a few miles of the stadium! Both teams agreed to put the ball out in the 10^th minute of the game to join in a stirring applause for Eriksen. Simon and Kasper were seen hugging in the Danish penalty area. Eriksen’s Inter Milan teammate and Belgian star player Romelu Lukaku was seen embracing the Danish player Thomas Delaney while a banner “All of Denmark is with you Christian” appeared in the stands.

Going into the final match of Group B, Denmark knew that only a sizeable win over Russia, coupled with a favourable result of the concurrently happening match between Belgium and Finland, would see them progress to the knock-out stages. This was turning out to be the 2^nd most exciting group in the tournament (after the group of death comprising of Germany, Portugal, France and Hungary)

Despite all this pressure, the Danish team was more worried about Eriksen’s condition than their own qualification status. They were following every bit of news regarding their teammate and were praying for his speedy recovery. So, it was no wonder that his surprise physical presence infused a new energy into the team. One of the first things that Eriksen did after his discharge from the hospital, was to visit his teammates. Describing the scene at the training session, Danish goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel recalled “He came to training and we were out on the pitch -- it was a great moment. It was nice to see him. I was lucky enough to be able to visit him in the hospital and to see him there, but for a lot of the boys that was the first time for them seeing him. So, naturally, training stopped straight away and everyone went over to him." He continued “I think the most important thing for us was to know that Christian was okay. This visit helped a lot of the guys, I think, just to see him and to just to erase the last image we had of him on the pitch. It gave us the space to go and focus on the game because we were under pressure in a football sense, but I think, as you see, we didn't play like a side under pressure.” In his own words, this visit was “the catalyst the team needed.”

In an article written before the tournament began, Pernille Harder (captain of the Denmark Women’s Football Team, and 2-time UEFA Women’s Player of the Year) said that early losses do not matter as much as how teams cope with the loss and move on to their next matches. In her own words, “If you lose a game, you can’t let it get too deep, you can’t let the criticism and talk get to you. You have to move on to the next game, develop and improve through the tournament.” And improve they did in a spectacular fashion – trashing a clueless Russian Team 4-1 in their last group game. Only after their manager checked a live football app to see the score of the Belgium-Finland match did they realise that they had progressed to the knock-out stages, and the celebrations couldn’t get any better!

Their next match against Wales wasn’t going to be easy – they were playing away from their home-ground for the first time in this tournament, against a Welsh team that had finished a strong 2^nd in their own group. However, the match turned out to be a one-sided affair, and Denmark outplayed Wales in every parameter, winning decisively by a 4-0 margin. There was a new belief in the team that it could go all the way. In a later article, Pernille Harder mentioned that collective experience of trauma bonds people and the Denmark was channelling the same into their games. The players went through a traumatic experience, but they went through it together, and that’s what mattered.

Their next opponent was a resurgent Czech Republic team, that rallied around their star striker Patrik Schick to reach this stage (do not miss Patrik Schick’s blinder against Scotland, surely the goal of the tournament). But there was a measure of calm in the Danish camp. The support they received from their fans, and the positive news of Eriksen’s recovery lifted some of their pressure. They knew that everyone would be proud of what they did so far, no matter the result. This new-found sense of freedom carried them through as they defeated the Czech Republic 2-1 in the quarterfinals. Their captain Simon Kjaer admitted that Christian Eriksen's cardiac arrest brought the squad together and that it helped them reach the semi-finals “It did something to the group. We thrive and we're safe together. We know we can trust the people around us. We know that if one of us is in trouble, then someone else is there for you”, he was quoted. With this win, they reached their first Euro Cup semi-final in 29 years. The last time they did was in 1992, when they had gone to win the tournament.

The semi-final against England, at the English home ground, turned out to be as exciting as everyone expected it to be. The English wall was breached in the first half, with England conceding a goal for the first time in 8 matches thanks to a beautiful freekick by Damsgaard. However, the travel fatigue soon set in, and Denmark started making errors. Their defence was breached several times, and it was the heroic efforts of their goalkeeper who kept them in the game with his many incredible saves. In the end, Denmark lost 2-1 to England in extra time. Their dream run had ended. There was no question, however, that Denmark had won the hearts and mind of football fans all around the world.

Euro 2020 did have its underdogs who put up a fighting spirit. Teams like Hungary and North Macedonia showed why they deserved to qualify for Euro 2020. But this tournament will be remembered for Denmark, and how they won over the world with their behaviour, both on and off the field. They went farther than anyone expected them to at the start of the tournament, and they will be leaving with their heads held high.

There will be critics who will attribute this dream run to pure luck. They played all three group games at home. They qualified in 2^nd place even though they won just one match in their group. Their next two opponents in the knock-out games were Wales and the Czech Republic – not the two most daunting names in football history. However, given the circumstances in which they began the tournament, it would not be a surprise if lady luck decided to indeed smile on them. Denmark were always a good team, it just took a cardiac arrest to bring out their very best in the face of adversity.

(Thank you for reading. Special thanks to Deepak bhai for helping me polish this write-up and to Pernille Harder for your insightful articles)

Session 12: Level - 5 leadership

Finally! The last class for the so-called "pre-midterm session" of this course! And the discussion was intense not because of the clip that was shown today, but because of the interpretation of the clip as put forth by DC.

Today we were shown a few clips from the 1982 Richard Attenborough's movie "Gandhi". Most of you who had seen this movie may already be familiar with 3 important scenes:

1. The one where he is kicked out from the train in South Africa
2. The one where he refuses to stop burning his passport and does not hit back at the policeman in spite of being brutally injured by him
3. The one where he gives his first speech in India after travelling and seeing the villages

Clip 1 showed conflicting emotions - an angry Gandhi, but also a determined Gandhi, a person who wants to change this system altogether. He became a man, who didn't much for himself personally, rather was a man for the people. The clip where he doesn't hit back at the policeman shows that he leads by example. Preaching non-violence and then practicing the opposite would have done no good to him. He practiced what he preached, and showed the way to millions. Clip 3 showed his "exemplary" abilities as a speaker. Gandhi was a shy speaker. People didn't listen to him much. But he was determined and could move the hearts of the people who would listen to what he has to say.

According to David Maxwell, the key trait of Level 5 leaders is "ambition first and foremost for the company and concern for its success rather than for one’s own riches and personal renown". Gandhi would have been the best example of a Level-5 leader (the company being the entire nation). According to Jim Collins, Level-5 leaders are just like the leaders that we traditionally conceive, but with an “extra dimension”: a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. On the other hand, Level-4 leaders are equally efficient and strong. They deliver impressive results too. But what motivates them is their self interests. Consider the former HP CEO, Carly Fiorina - she was called the Rockstar CEO at one point of time. Her early career was a cracker in itself! But she had personal interests in her mind. She had delivered the results before, but her current performance was down. She left the company in a tattered state. She was a Level-4 leader, for whom the interests of the company were secondary (although she always claimed that she has HP in her mind first). The main trait of a Level-5 leader is the co-existence of contrary emotions; emotions that are under control by contrary mindsets. 

So, finally it boils to this: It's not being Level-4 or Level-5 that matters, but what qualities that they possess.

But we had a big discussion (we = class) about the conflicting emotions part. It was pretty confusing and I am sure even DC was confused. I, for once, was not confused, but the person who had the doubt had a reasonable doubt. Anger, with calmness and resolve, leads to motivation. This is what drove Gandhi.

Session 11: Make Groups

This session was officially not taken as Sir told all of us to make groups for the projects. I guess he realized that shouting "politely" doesn't work always and that we are still students at heart. We will do class work only in the class (that too if we are interested to do it). So he gave us the class to make the groups. Good adjustment, good results.

 

Session 10: Why are we here?

Today DC started by showing a nice clip from Men in Black. You can see that clip here - Clip

The first half of the clip (till 2:04) showed a very enthusiastic James Edwards asking what is a seemingly simple question - "Why exactly are we here?" The answer provided by the nerdy Jake Jenson was "We are here because you are looking for the best of the best of the best, Sir". To which James replies "He's just really excited and he has no clue why we're here". Isn't that true with most of us at some point or the other in our lives? In engineering, we were all excited and pumped up. We were so pepped up that we wanted to change the world! And yet, we had no clue why we were there. Our parents told us "Beta, you are doing this because you are the best of the best, one of the chosen few". So are we here "because of this" or are we here "for this"? Are we here because of a reason or are we here for a reason? That is the critical question.

Looking back at my life, my MBA in IIM Lucknow is perhaps the classic example to this story. I wanted to MBA in an IIM to prove to the world that I am the best of the best of the best, one of the chosen few. Well, my parents wanted me to do the same crappy MS, but MBA was more prestigious. But that is just the "because of" part. What about the "for" part. Why am I here? By the time I have realized that, three terms were up, a year was screwed and my grades were screwed. I was absorbed by life and I dissolved in it completely. I still have no idea, even to date, why I did my MBA. Was it because I wanted to, or because I deserved to, or was it because I didn't want to do a MS? I have no idea.

The second part of clip (the table-pulling and the training scenes), where James shoots the little girl right in the forehead. James had the presence of mind. He had the qualification, but he was also aided by his sound temperament. He was, as DC said, "an active consumer of information". He could sense the surroundings around him, think logically and make rational decisions. He used his head and not his heart. His heart would have told him "Shoot the aliens", but his head told him "What is that 8-year old girl doing in this ghetto, carrying books related to Quantum Physics?" Even in the movie "21", Ben Campbell is chosen by Micky Rosa for being a member of the Blackjack team, because he used his head and not is heart while solving "The Monty Hall Problem". So the head is better than the heart. But passion comes from the heart, right?

DC also talked something about "Desire" and "Fear" as two means of concentration. We concentrate on something because we are either desire to (meaning we do not have a choice) or because we fear it (we can change that and hence we have a choice). Desire, as he said, puts the "I have to do it" in us and not the "I will do it" This "will" must come from the intellect, which is one of the main governing factors in any current occupation (we are in a knowledge-based society). Remove your fears and make yourself the "will do" person. One of the recent movies of Jim Carrey, "Yes Man", deals with the concept of saying "YES" to everything and embracing life as it comes to you. Saying "Yes" is a form of saying "I will". Do it, while you still can!

Session 9: Contribution

I don't have clear notes for this lecture, but I try to do as much justice as I can from the few sentences I managed to write down in my note book.

DC talked about the geographical diversity of managers being a crucial element in the future. This is understandable, because of Globalization and the world becoming smaller and smaller because of trade and services between countries. As much as I wish I could agree with him, I feel that this statement is grossly incomplete. Let us take myself as an example here. I have a certain geographical diversity in me. I was born in Mumbai (West India), raised in Hyderabad (South India), did my engineering in Kurukshetra (extreme North India) and am doing my MBA in Lucknow (the land of dons and Yadavs). I have been to Chennai (TN), Bangalore & Mysore (Karnataka), Delhi and Chandigarh (Punjab). My closest and trusted friends are from Bihar, Assam and Rajasthan, with whom I interact almost daily. I have even to been to the USA (Boston, Virginia, New York State, NYC, Washington State, Florida) and have had significant exposure to their culture, even doing my Summer Training there. I think that is a fair amount of exposure. 

But will that make me a good manager? Now consider this: I am usually intolerant of North India and North Indians (primary because of the similar feeling that they echo towards us South Indians). I literally hate Delhi and many other areas here because of the congestion, pollution and the immorality I see around me. I dislike American double-standards and their hypocrisy. I love my state and my language deeply, even though I am not fully a supporter of my state's policies. 

So in my view, tolerance is the most crucial element of being a good manager. A manager can have all the diversity he/she wants to, but unless he/she is tolerant of different cultures, it will be very hard to become a good manager. That is the key world - tolerance.

DC also talked about something nice, something he said he himself follows (I don't have any proof to disprove his statement). He talked about "Contributing weekly to the lives of three people around you, without looking for a return on your investment of time and resources". This brings attention to another great quality of a leader - Selflessness. A leader knows the needs of the group and puts the group above self. He doesn't expect anything in return for this contribution. That was a good thought. But to follow it in action is not as easy as it sounds. What will the other person think about you? Will he take your help, even if you tell him that you expect nothing in return? Will the person take the help, if given to him discreetly? Many such questions do pop up in my head. I help people many times, but my main motivation for helping others is that I will, someday in the future, need a similar help from them. And when the day comes, I can ask for the help. An ulterior motive always exists (unless I am helping my close friends, in which case I don't think about returns) in my mind.

Session 8: A note of appreciation

Today we were given a slip called "A note of appreciation". We were supposed to appreciate a person (in writing or in person) and tell him/her that we appreciate him/her. Well, the person I appreciate a lot was my dad. I wrote in my letter:

"Dear Dad,

I thank you for all the sacrifices that you and mom made for me throughout the years. You are the best dad a son can ever hope to have. More than that, you have been a true friend and a fabulous guide.

Varun.

P.S. Don't take it too personally, it's just an exercise."

Needless to say, I didn't tell it to my dad because he doesn't appreciate much of the mushy stuff anyways. The last time I got inspired like this, I happened to bend over and tough his feet in  respect, and he was pretty disappointed at me saying that it was not right of me to do that. So not even DC can make me do what my dad surely doesn't want me to do. He is my dad and he knows it more than me how much I appreciate him.

Another exercise was a good one as it made me realize that we can see even positivity inside negativity. Now, DC told us to write "5 positive qualities" that describe us as a person. I had to think hard for this one and managed to come up with 5 qualities. Then he told us to write exactly the opposite quality table i.e. write down the opposites to the 5 qualities that you mentioned just now. So my table looked like this:

Positive Qualities Negative Qualities

Truthful Liar

Punctual Laidback

Stickler to details Careless about details

Carefree Too careful

Observant/Seeks knowledge Ignorant

Now, we were asked to write down 2 statements that would put the negative quality mentioned in a positive light. Now that was hard to do, but I managed this:

1. When I lie, I have the other person's good/welfare/well-being in my mind.
2. When I am ignorant, my mind is calm, stress-free and it helps me learn much better.

This helped me realize two things. First, the good qualities that describe me as a person are not always true. When I do something that is exactly opposite to what I am defined as, I am still doing it because there is something good about it also. I am always positive; although it may seem to be that I am negative. However, that is just a minor realization.

Second, I saw that you can see goodness in anything and everything. This is something that I have always followed in most of the cases - Goodness is inherent. When people see the bad side of things, I see the good side of it too. Of course, it may not always be ethical. For example, when people criticize the Nazi regime, I used to see it as the age that redefined world politics. The war, which would have not been possible had Hitler not risen to power, made it possible for us, the Indians, to get independence early because the British were depleted of many resources! I am not defending Hitler. The man was a tyrant, but he also showed the world that a small country, when humiliated (Germany was humiliated post WW-1) can still rise to power and challenge the so-called superpowers. Hitler was a mass-murderer. But he was also a leader.

DC also reiterated the difference between "role and self". There is always a interrelationship between them, but essentially there us a difference. And we have to understand that.

Session 7: Open to interpretation...

I was not present in this session. So I had to talk to my fellow classmates and ask them what DC taught in this session. 

A leader, in sir's definition, transforms the conventional assumption of space-time. He challenges the mental module. DC talked about the procedure to deal with a new environment. The attitude must be to listen first. Decode the culture. This is the usual stuff - when you are in Rome, first learn what the Romans do and then decode it. Increase your appreciative index and decrease your critical index. This point made no sense to me - if I don't like a particular culture, why should I be appreciative of it. I can be tolerant of it, but why should I appreciate it? Second, if the same culture doesn't appreciate my culture, why should I appreciate the other culture? After all, life is a give and take. I am no Gandhi. If I don't like it, I won't do it. 

But yes, leaders can do it, because they are destined for greatness. They are committed towards transformation. People start from being a implementer, to a driver, to a facilitator right to being a transformer. But a leader starts directly from the "transformer" stage.

He talked about change being a value addition. Leaders bring about a change to add value to the existing system. This is true in most cases. But consider this: A person who leads an army into battle (like Alexander) for the purpose of conquering the world. Is there is any value addition here? For Alexander, yes. For the world, perhaps not. Alexander wanted to conquer the whole world and transform all lands as a part of his kingdom. He planned well, and acted accordingly. But the only value addition was to him. Perhaps the great Alexander felt that conquering the world would add more value to it. But logically, it won't add any value, because it would be tougher to rule, more problems will arise and it is very difficult to manage. So according to me, the change and "value addition" is what the leader perceives it to be. It may or may not be what the followers or the affected people think.

Session 6: Break your thoughts! Be unpredictable!

Today we had a lecture on what the great people do and what is it that distinguishes the good from the best. Some of the usual stuff was doled on us like what the big sports persons do, what CEOs do etc. It was the usual stuff that one hears in all the lectures related to stress-busting.

The basic thought here was that of concentration. We all have our things that we can concentrate on, for hours and hours. So it's not a distinguishing factor at all. What distinguishes us is our ability to clear your head once in a while. Break your thoughts, re-organize and then go for the kill once more!

This is how the greats do it. I remember Roger Federer, who in his break time relaxes and doesn't think about the game at all. I am sure that the Wimbledon match he lost to Nadal last year was because of his lack of pulling out of his own thoughts. During the rain break, he must have taken a real break and hence came back to win 2 sets, before losing in the final set. That was one helluva match!

In my Intermediate tuition, my Physics professor had a unusual way of taking a break. He used to take the cycle keys of one of the students and do cycling in circles on the side-road. He told us that this helped him relax and clear his head. He said that it gave him new ideas and also assemble the old ideas that are cluttered in his head in a haphazard manner. He also mentioned that this behaviour was usually not expected for any professor - Who does cycling on the road in circles in the middle of the day; even if the road is usually empty? It was something unexpected, something unpredictable. What DC wanted to tell us was to shut of the reality for a while. Reorganize your thoughts, be clear!


DC also talked about money being an illusion, which I felt was crap (I am not joking, this is what I felt, because I mentioned that in my notes). Money is life for many people who do not have it. People like DC are already successful and they are above money. But the middle and lower-middle class families are dependent on money. Their lives revolve around money. Why do we study? Because we want to earn MONEY. Why do our parents slog it out? Because they need MONEY to pay for things. So calling money an illusion is similar to calling the earth flat. Because what you see is your point of view. The masses will never feel money is just an illusion and that life has a meaning. Yes, we all crave for a better life. We all want a more fulfilling life. But we need money to make that happen. Perhaps when I start earning millions like Tom Cruise or Christian Bale, I may think that "Ok, money is just a illusion". Till then, I cannot agree to this point at all.

Session 5: Mind vs. Mindset

I am tired writing this all to fast, but this is what happens when you are reactive, instead of being pro-active. In this session, DC talked about the difference between the mind and the mindset, something which was pretty obvious to me from the word go. It was the usual talk, on how we see the world through our mindset and not our mind. We fail to see our own mindsets, but observe the world around us through our mindsets.

This did not make sense to me at all. After all, our mindsets are because of our upbringing, our childhood, our parents, our surroundings. We see the world from a perspective that is ours. Our mindset is unique to each one of us. Then what is wrong with having a mindset? Limiting myself to certain thought is not going to kill me, right? It's not as if we never listen to what our opposition has to say. We listen, we think and we accept it or reject it. We are logical, but also rational.

Yes, sometimes having a mindset makes us illogical, creates fears and boundaries. But I never resented having boundaries and fears, as long as they were not restrictive in my nature. My boundaries were always elastic. I could liberalize my thoughts as much as I wanted to, yet never cross my limits. If I feel it, it must be real for me.

DC then made us write us a certain reality and create alternate realities, where in this reality doesn't exist at all or needn't exist because of circumstances. This was a good exercise and I wrote my reality down as follows:

Reality: I will never get over the fear of water and swimming.

Alternate Realities:

1. All the major water bodies in the world have evaporated! There are no more deep water bodies left on Earth!
2. Swimming has been legally banned by the United Nations!
3. I like swimming, but there is no one alive who can teach me swimming and hence I can never learn swimming.

It must look like an absurd exercise, but it teaches a new approach to problem solving. When you try to solve a problem, first create a alternate reality, in which the problem does not exist at all! When you do this, you can get information supporting this alternate reality. DC said our brain is morphed in this way etc. But the thing is, it does work. I know it by experience, long before DC told us about this technique.

In engineering, I was faced with a problem as to how to approach quizzing. I knew that I was not too good at it, although I was keen on making my mark. I then assumed this: I was good at it, a really good quizzer. In this alternate-reality (which was clearly not true then), I saw myself as I must be - a person who reads the news, who quizzes regularly, who has the fire in him to do that, who had the mind that could remember huge volumes of data and can recall it whenever possible. I then saw that these were the qualities that I needed to have as a quizzer. It was amazing; this alternate-reality stuff really works. But for me, it is merely equivalent to putting yourself in different shoes and looking at the picture now.

Session 4: Your Business Card...

Today was perhaps the most interesting session by DC ever. And I for once was a part of it too, albeit in a small way.

Today it was all about business cards. What does a business card tell about you? It tells your name, your position, has your vital information for communication like your email id, your phone numbers and your home/office address. It gives details of the "you" that others know. It doesn't give them any idea of what you think, what your style is, what you know you are - So it does not reveal your personality at all.

Recently I was watching the movie "American Psycho", where the hero and his colleagues, all of whom are I-bankers, keep making different business cards every other week. They are obsessed with the border, the finishing etc of the card. I never knew that a business card meant so much of a style statement. Certainly, the way the information is represented on the card is also some indicator of what the person is about and hence all that hue and cry for just one business card. (By the way, the "hero" of the movie actually killed the person who dared to have a business card better than his, but that's a topic for some other day)

DC talked about something new this time - your Personal Leadership Signature. We were all given cards and asked to think for a while and write on the back on it how we like to introduce ourselves to others, in any way we can. What is the driving force for you in your day to day life? How would you want them to view you? Your Business Card shows your role, but this card must show your identity!

Many good answers emerged, some with solid English! Most of them were good. Mine was simple and reflected what I generally do:

"I am critical of everything around me, in order to see the world from a different perspective as compared to the others"

Well, this is what I really do - I am motivated to criticize things and I can say I am a good Devil's Advocate than many around me. I can easily look at the not-so-rosy picture. Yes, sometimes it bogs me down and makes those around me irritated at my negative outlook (because usually the things around me are positive in nature). I am trying to change, but critical thoughts always run in my mind.

This exercise helped me realize what I am - I am a critic, a good one. I observe the things around me and look at them from a non-traditional point of view. Perhaps I thrive on being a rebel, who looks for the best in the "other approach" and hence sees the worst in the "current approach". That makes me a alternate-reality generator (fancy name) of sorts.

Session 3: What can you do without getting bored?

Today DC talked about a lot of stuff. While I browse through my notes, some of the stuff was good to read. One point that hit me was that the world starts from negativity. We always look for what we lack and not for what we have with us.

I had the same feeling last term. In the course "Cross Cultural Management", Prof. Pankaj Kumar talked about what we do when we look at the mirror. He said that we look into the mirror many times, just to look better and better. We look for the good things in us and try to project it. I had the exact opposite view and I told him that we don't look at ourselves to remind us that we look good - we look at our face and lament internally at having such a "face" and try change it to the maximum possible extent. We always look at what we don't have and try to cover it up. This is a negativity that has crept in us from a long time - right from childhood, we are told by our parents that we naturally don't look good, so need all the touch-ups to look smart and good. When we change a look, it is because we are not happy with our current look - even that extra strand of hair bothers us.

Leadership may well be an emergent process, but we need to be motivated that we can achieve what we want to achieve. You cannot have something emerging out of nothing, right? I am a pessimist by nature and that drives me. I know the worst case and always prepare myself for it. People may call me paranoid and overly careful, but I am what I am. My emergence has been a tale of looking at the dark side and preparing myself for it. People prepare for the worse, I prepare for the worst.

The last part of the lecture talked about what we are good at. One of the interesting questions that DC asked us what "What can you do without getting bored?". If I had the choice, I would have answered "Sleeping!", but lately I was getting even bored of that! I thought about it for a while, and realized that I can quiz for hours and hours. I like quizzing and it has been my passion for a long time now. I can also write continuously with zeal and fervour. I can do these two activities without getting bored.

This is what I am good at - Quizzing and Blogging! And I feel this session of DC was lingering in my mind when I wrote my post about my experience at the "Manfest BizQuiz". One excerpt from it is as follows:

"Well, I am confident that I can become a good quizmaster in the future. My focus would be on general quizzes and not “just” biz quizzes. I want to promote trivia quizzes and will, one day, become the best QM in India – that’s a promise I made to myself.

My quizzing partner in IIML, Debratna Nag, said he would help me out in this. We are in this together. So will my college friends Jango and Anda (I will ask them and I am sure they will not say no to it). Anyone else interested in my venture? I am all set to start it all by 2014 (tentatively) and my aim is to host my first quiz at IIM Lucknow, making even a General Quiz as a flagship event here. I will do it parallel to Karthik Narayan’s IQL (I dare not clash with my quizzing idol) and I will concentrate more on North and Western India (Even South-Western India) and the premier institutes. IIM Lucknow would be a good platform to start it all - don’t you feel so?

Anyone interested leave a comment or contact me with your details (just in case I don’t know you personally). I would need all the help I can get. Yes, I am not joking about this. I am serious and I will start it as soon as possible. 2014 is just a tentative year. I can be early too.

I need people to help me with the logistics, questions for the quizzes, publicity and sponsorship issues. I would also need people who can get me quiz-hosting opportunities at various colleges in the country – engineering or management. I am also open to schools and quizzing for charity. So if anyone feels he/she can help me out in any way please do let me know whenever you find the time.

And I am not doing this just for the money or the fame – I am doing it because I want to quiz. I want to show the world what good quizzing can be and how quizzing can develop into a sport not just for a few brainiacs, but for one and all. This is similar to the theme that KN runs on - that quizzing is for one and all. Every person who attends a quiz must be able to enjoy it and not just those who qualify for the finals."

Well, I think I made my point here - I want to become a quizzer and I shall work for it from now on. DC or no DC, I am inspired already!

Session 2: Your Story

After a long hiatus, I am back to writing this blog. I am a bit more in a hurry, because of the fact that the classes are going to start next week and I have to write close to 15 pages of this "Lecture Takeaways" stuff before the classes start. I am referring to the notes from this session onwards (listening to some guppie songs in the background).

There was an interesting discussion about "What is your story?" in the class and frankly speaking, I initially thought it was all just for passing time in the class. But it was actually nice when some of my own peers spoke out about their life stories. I always used to think that my life was tough and hard on me. When I heard a few of these stories, I was feeling so happy that I had a relatively smooth life - no restrictions (like one girl who spoke out), no money issues, no parental issues etc. It was like hearing out stories of people in some newsroom chat.

I never thought about my life story at all. My life went smoothly without many hassles. My dad and my mom made many sacrifices for me - they refused many promotions just so that I can stay in the same school and have both of them around me all the times. They always thought the best for me. They wanted me to get into an IIT, but I didn't work hard enough because I felt I was not capable enough. I managed to enter a NIT, but I never felt like I was able to fulfill my parents' expectations at all.

Perhaps that's why I aimed for the IIMs. My parents wanted me to do MS because a) It was easier to do and b) My uncle in the US would help me out a lot with that. But I rebelled against this and studied for CAT and got through the IIMs. And my parents were very proud of me. So my life story has always been to aim for what I felt I could do and what I deserve, without thinking about how it affected others around me. It enabled me to make my own limits and choose my own path, without bothering about how it world affect others. Although, this may look like that it goes against my philosophy of always helping others around me; but this is a different thing. Helping people and living up to their expectations are two different aspects. I live life my way; I chose my own destiny; I will listen to, but I won't do what I feel is not meant for me.

DC said in the class that "A story starts by a change in one of the 3 parameters - Think; Relate and Act". My story started with a change in how I act - I act how I want to act. I may think like my parents, I will certainly relate to those around me, but I act the way I want to and not the way they want me to.

Session 1: What is Leadership?

Today's class was interesting. The class started in the usual way for any course, with Mr. DebChat asking what Leadership meant to all of us. After listening to the usual definitions, he told us clearly that all our definitions were pure BS (that was unusual). In my mind, leadership was all about finding a sense of purpose and the ability to motivate like-minded people to pursue that.

A similar, but more clear definition was given by Mr. DebChat (henceforth referred to as DC). He talked about leadership as an opportunity - you see an opportunity and then you exploit it. All great companies started from just one idea.

It struck me that he was right. All great companies came from one single idea by some lucky genius. So it means anyone with an idea can become a leader, provided he is able to get other like-minded people motivated towards that idea too. One thing he mentioned was that ideas are all around us like fire - you just need the right conditions (matchbox) to light it up.

All this sounds good to me - I had many ideas and even had friends who were motivated towards that idea. But was the motivation strong enough? I guess not, or else we would have executed that idea by now. But I remembered that once in school, I was very motivated to start a quiz club. I had to fight with the Vice-Principal for a classroom and with the help of a teacher managed to start it. I was very enthusiastic before, but later this enthusiasm died down. It even affected the club, which closed in a year. So it is not only essential for me to have the idea, but i also need to have the enthusiastic about the idea.

Even in IIM Lucknow, I and Abhay had many ideas - in fact we were a idea-mining factory in Term 1. We used to sit for hours discussing on what new venture we should start (That explains my low grades in Term 1) in the future. We even came close (we registered a magazine for children, but we never started it so far) and in fact Abhay is even pursuing one of the ideas seriously (The Green Planet foundation). So along with enthusiasm, one needs to be able to generate new ideas continuously, because ideas come and go very fast. If you have an idea, speak it out and act on it. 

Perhaps we didn't know exactly "where to strike". The spark was missing in us, especially in me. I feel that if it wasn't for me, the ideas could have been materialized much faster than the current speed. But we are in the process of it and have to wait and watch what happens. I am not the "I don't watch; I do" types - I always like to see where things are headed and then take action. Perhaps I am reactive by nature or perhaps it's my low motivation that drives me to this reactive nature - I may never know.

This ends Session 1. I have no mood to write anymore for a long time, because a person I learnt to respect in the last 1 year, John McCain (I really respect and admire him too much) recently lost the US Presidential Elections to a unknown face, whose best (and only) quality is that he can speak well (just like DC in IIML). McCain was a true leader - he had the sense of purpose. But Obama - he saw the opportunity and labelled McCain to be another "George Bush". Yes, this very opportunity cost McCain the election. Obama classifies to be called a leader by DC's definition. Well, only time will tell if Obama is a true leader, or merely a puppet. My next post will be when I have the mood to write anything at all. I will refer to my notes from then.

Purpose of a new blog?

Hi

I created this blog because my lecturer @ IIM Lucknow, Mr. Debashis Chatterjee, who teaches "Leadership", told each one of us to maintain a diary about what we learnt from each session of his and what value has it added to us. All the ideas and thoughts mentioned in this blog are mine and not fabricated / copied from anywhere else.

During these 24 sessions, this blog will be used solely for the purpose of the course i.e. my thoughts and learnings from the day's lecture. After that, it may be used for other purposes too. But I am sure that I will post more regularly on this blog.

This doesn't mean I am discontinuing my original blog - my usual blog will be updated soon and I will continue to post once a week on that blog. But this blog will be updated according to the lectures scheduled by the PGP Office.

Varun Reddy Sevva

PGP 23221

Section B

IIM Lucknow.