Building Blocks: Beyond the fundamentals

In the last two weeks, we examined the foundational elements of changemakers, focussing on the attributes that enabled them to attain their current positions. Now, we will delve deeper into several crucial factors that contributed to their resilience throughout their journeys. We will explore how they managed to uphold their principles when faced with challenges, emerging unscathed. Additionally, we will discuss how certain failures reinforced their determination, and how pivotal moments in their lives influenced their belief systems and future trajectories.

What is true customer service?

Though we say customer is king, we keep an eye on profitability and top line. Balancing between flawless customer service and financial viability is an art. Lavanya Nalli, Vice Chairperson, Nalli Silks shared an interesting story from her early days which truly defines what customer service, trust, integrity and respect means.

As she narrated, “During my induction at Nalli, I spent time across multiple stores to understand the business. After my stint in Mumbai, I had a defining experience at our Chennai store that has stayed with me ever since.

“A high-value customer walked in looking for a very specific saree for a family function that Friday. She was particular about every detail—the temple motif, the colour, the contrast border, and the pallu. One of our most seasoned sales executives attended to her.

“We did not have that exact saree in store. The executive checked with other stores, branches, and weaving sources, and eventually located one with a weaver in Kancheepuram. But it could only be delivered by Saturday morning, which was too late for the customer. She needed it earlier to stitch the blouse and complete other preparations. I watched closely, curious to see how he would solve the situation.

He asked a colleague to get her coffee and a copy of The Hindu and keep her engaged. Ten minutes later, he returned carrying a bag from a competitor’s store. To my surprise, he pulled out a saree that matched her requirements perfectly and said, “Ma’am, I got this for you. It hasn’t been billed yet. Please see it, and if you like it, I will get it billed.” He told her he trusted their quality and would not have brought it otherwise. She loved it, bought it, and he carefully explained the return policy before handing it over.

“I was stunned. Here was a salesperson who had willingly given up his own sale and commission, sourced a saree from a competitor, and still ensured that a premier customer left satisfied. I was upset and thought it was an act of disloyalty.

When the customer left, I confronted him and asked how he could do such a thing. His reply changed my thinking completely. He said, ‘Your grandfather taught me this. The lady came to us with a problem. We may not have had the saree, but she trusted us to solve it. And that is what I did.’

“At 21, I did not fully understand the depth of that answer. Today, I do. As a consumer, I do not want to be manipulated into buying what is available; I want someone to solve my problem with honesty and care. That executive did exactly that, without jargon, strategy language, or management theory—just values in action.

“Now, in 2026, when so much of business is driven purely by profit, revenue, valuation, and IPO ambitions, I believe there is still immense space for institutions like ours—businesses built on trust, service, and an enduring legacy of putting the customer first.”

Out of every 10 ideas, six may fail and only four may succeed

Failure may be the opposite of success, but it is often the foundation of it. We frequently say that failure is a stepping stone to success, yet in reality, we rarely treat it lightly. Whether it is a child failing an exam or an adult facing setbacks, society instinctively values success more than failure. In my conversation with Angshu Mallick, Executive Deputy Chairman at AWL Agri Business Ltd, he offered a powerful perspective: out of every 10 ideas, six may fail and only  four may succeed—but the world notices only the successes. The failures remain unseen, though they shape determination, learning, and resilience. His belief is simple: consistency matters more than brilliance. Even an average person can succeed by staying committed and not losing momentum midway. Consistency builds brands, companies, careers, and futures. His message is clear: keep trying, keep learning, and never give up.

Echoing a similar view, P. Chandrashekhara Reddy, Sr. VP, Sales & Marketing, Gemini Edible & Fats India, said, “I believe failure is acceptable as long as we understand the downside and learn from it. What I always tell my team is this: do not repeat the same mistake in the same way if it clearly did not work. At the same time, do not reject an idea forever just because it failed once. Timing matters. Some ideas fail because they are introduced too early, while others fail because they come too late.

“If something did not work in 2014, it does not mean it will fail again in 2015 or 2016. The assumptions, inputs, targets, and market conditions may have changed. That is why I encourage people not to be discouraged from revisiting an idea. We have re-tried initiatives a second or third time, and in some cases they succeeded, while in others they still did not.

“Every failure must be understood in context: what we were trying to do, what inputs we had, and what the situation was at that point in time. Since situations keep changing, a fresh attempt with better inputs can lead to a different outcome. Success is never guaranteed, but thoughtful learning and informed re-trying are essential for growth.”

Success demands integrity, not shortcuts

Reflecting on her experience of leading a global technology harmonisation programme, Sindhu Gangadharan, SVP & MD, SAP Labs India, underscored a powerful leadership truth: success demands integrity, not shortcuts.

She recalled being given the opportunity to lead one of SAP’s most strategic programmes—an assignment that has since evolved but was then both intense and defining. The role required her to move beyond her position as Chief Product Owner and take on a cross-CTO mandate, reporting directly to the CTO and driving technology harmonisation across multiple lines of business. It was not just a test of leadership across functions; it also required her to let go of a deeply ingrained product-centric mindset.

Her initial approach was rooted in expertise. She believed that knowing the technology inside out would be enough to drive adoption. It was not. The turning point came when she reframed the challenge. Instead of asking, “How do I explain our capabilities?” she began asking, “What does each line of business need to adopt this technology successfully?” That shift changed everything. Rather than advocating integration, analytics, and UI capabilities as technical strengths, she focussed on understanding what would help each business make its products more valuable and attractive to its own customers. The perspective moved from her product to their business and that made all the difference.

That breakthrough came only after failure. The original approach did not work, but instead of ignoring it, she treated failure as feedback. She asked hard questions, sought perspective from others, and listened. The answer was straightforward: technology conversations had to be framed around business outcomes—profitability, relevance, and customer value. That lesson shaped not only the programme, but also her broader philosophy of leadership and change.

An equally important lesson lay in how she communicated with senior stakeholders and board members. The easier option would have been to present the programme as “green” and suggest that everything was progressing smoothly. There was pressure from several directions to do exactly that. Instead, she chose the harder path: in every review meeting, she was candid about what was not working and what needed to change. It was uncomfortable and intense, but in hindsight, that honesty was central to the programme’s success.

Her experience offers a sharp reminder that strategic leadership is not about defending expertise or hiding problems. It is about understanding what others truly need, learning quickly from failure, and having the courage to speak the truth even under pressure. In the end, success is built not through shortcuts, but through clarity, integrity, and the discipline to stay honest when it matters most.

“Real integrity is doing the right thing, knowing that nobody’s going to know whether you did it or not.” - Oprah Winfrey

Perception management (Empowerment vs Delegation) and standing firmly by one’s team—an interesting perspective

Leadership has evolved over the years—from command and control to collaboration and influence. More leaders now recognise that long-term success is rarely achieved alone; it is built through teams, trust, and the willingness to adapt. As careers progress, course corrections become inevitable, and some of the most valuable lessons come not from success alone, but from how leaders respond to perception, pressure, and responsibility. Rahul Bhalla, MD, Growth & Strategy, Accenture, reflected on two defining experiences from his career that shaped his understanding of leadership—especially the importance of perception and standing firmly by one’s team.

One lesson emerged when he was leading a team of nearly 200 people within a larger organisation. He had always been deliberate about putting his team in front, particularly because many members were young and early in their careers. But during an annual discussion, his manager interpreted that behaviour as over-delegation—as though he was stepping back and allowing others to carry the work.

That feedback prompted deep reflection. Though he knew he was closely involved and committed to supporting the team, yet the perception from above was different. The episode reinforced a crucial leadership truth: perception matters, because in many situations, perception becomes reality.

From then on, he changed how he showed up in meetings. He realised that when a team member is presenting in a review, a leader can only play one of two roles: reviewer or co-presenter. There is no meaningful middle ground. If a leader simply puts a team member forward without framing the context, it can seem as though he is distancing himself from the work. He therefore became intentional about setting the context, clarifying his own involvement, and showing that the work was a shared effort. As a result, if criticism arose, he was seen as standing with the team rather than judging it from a distance.

The insight was subtle but significant: empowerment is not the same as over-delegation, and the difference often lies in how a leader is perceived. It is not merely about optics; it is about making one’s contribution visible and one’s support for the team unmistakable.

The second experience was more painful for him because it came as a regret. While he was away on leave, a member of his team presented their work and received feedback from a senior leader that he later learnt was deeply unfair—both in substance and in the manner it was delivered. After speaking with others who had attended the meeting, he confirmed that the treatment had indeed been unjust.

His regret was not that the incident occurred, but that he did not escalate it. Even after recognising the unfairness, he has remained silent. That episode taught him the importance of speaking up, especially as a leader. Creating an environment where people feel safe to speak is vital, but leadership also requires using one’s own voice when someone in the team has been treated unfairly.

Together, these two moments became defining leadership lessons. They first taught him that leaders must make their support visible and stand beside their teams, especially in moments of scrutiny. The second taught him that silence in the face of unfairness can itself become a failure. In both cases, the message was clear: leadership is not only about enabling performance, but also about owning responsibility and having the courage to act when it matters most.

Ownership and responsibility are two eyes of a leader

In a conversation about his transition from supply chain to sales, Biplab Pakrashi, CEO, N.K. Proteins, reflected on how these values shaped one of his earliest and most significant interventions.

When the company was in its early years, it had introduced a concept called the “budget”—a substantial allocation given across sales levels to support the market. He came into sales after first handling commercial and supply chain, then leading the East, and eventually all-India sales. That was when he first encountered the system.

Curious about how it worked, he discovered that one executive was receiving a budget of ₹10 lakh—an enormous amount in 2004–05—and that it was being approved routinely. When the next cycle came up, Pakrashi said he would sanction it only after understanding how it had been used. The executive saw this as a sign of mistrust. Pakrashi saw it differently. For him, it was not about doubting individuals; it was about accountability. This was company money, and it had to be measured.

As he dug deeper, he realised that while the original intent of the budget was valid—to provide support during volatility—there was no mechanism to assess whether it was actually serving that purpose. Over time, the budget had become the centre of every discussion. In target-setting conversations with sales teams and distributors, the first question was always: “What is the budget?”

The more he examined the system, the more flaws he found. Budgets were supposedly reconciled quarterly, but the accounting was superficial. Out of nearly 3,000 distributors, the bulk of the allocation went to only about 500. Then he uncovered an even more troubling practice known as “parking budget”. If someone had been given ₹3 lakh but spent only ₹2.5 lakh, the unspent ₹50,000 would be parked against a few distributors so that it would not be withdrawn in the next quarter. To Pakrashi, this was plainly unfair and raised serious integrity concerns.

He soon concluded that this so-called support system was no longer functioning as support at all. Instead, it had become a way to please a few distributors—a kind of “toffee” that kept people happy without materially changing sales. Whether the budget was given or not, the sales outcome was largely the same. The system had survived more as a mental crutch than as a real business lever.

So he changed it. Instead of loose, open-ended budgets flowing through the system, he introduced fixed allocations managed by zone or cluster heads based on business volume. Any support had to be tied to a clear purpose—such as secondary liquidation—and backed by a plan. Teams seeking support had to show opening inventory, stock levels, and how the assistance would improve movement. In short, support had to be measurable and justified.

The shift created resistance because it challenged a legacy practice. But Pakrashi was clear that many systems continue simply because people get used to them, not because they are effective. He saw the same pattern in month-end billing pushes and discount rituals that distorted sales behaviour. On paper, such practices may look like smart support mechanisms. In reality, many are habits that create dependency. Removing them causes discomfort at first, but over time the business becomes healthier, more transparent, and more disciplined. His lesson was simple but powerful: leadership requires the courage to question inherited systems, insist on accountability, and take responsibility for building mechanisms that genuinely serve the business.

After making a decision, sticking to it is essential

One of the most crucial qualities a leader must cultivate is the capacity to make timely decisions. After making a decision, sticking to it is essential. R.S. Sodhi, former MD of Amul and Former President of Indian Dairy Association highlighted this aspect. “Around 2013 or 2014, when we were increasing the price of milk in Delhi, I received a message that the Chief Minister was concerned. Elections had been announced, and the concern was that a price hike could hurt politically. I was asked to roll it back.

I explained that the increase was not limited to Delhi; it was being implemented across markets. More importantly, the additional price paid by consumers was being passed on to farmers, for whom this was a critical source of income. Even a ₹1 increase in milk price could significantly improve farmer earnings. The decision, therefore, was not simply about consumer pricing—it was also about sustaining rural livelihoods.

When I explained this directly, the response changed. It was acknowledged that if the price increase benefitted farmers, then it was justified. The suggestion was simple: communicate that clearly to the public.

The very next day, we issued a small newspaper advertisement explaining that the increase in milk prices was directly linked to an increase in farmers’ income. That communication made the rationale clear: while consumers were paying slightly more, the benefit was going to the people who produced the milk and depended on it for their livelihood.

Once the issue was framed in those terms, the opposition to the decision eased. The price increase went ahead because the larger purpose was understood.”

The episode was a reminder that difficult decisions often face resistance when seen only from one angle. But when leaders explain the broader impact honestly and clearly, people are more willing to support what is right. In this case, principled pricing and transparent communication ensured that the interests of farmers were protected without unnecessary rollback.

(Part 3 of a four-part series. The writer is the author of Building Blocks: Lessons on leadership that I’ve learnt on my journey, and the founder of Prajna Consulting, a boutique consulting firm. Views are personal.)