I had a close friend who got caught in the siege at the Taj.  He lavishes praise on the hotel staff for their unselfish efforts to protect and supply guests whom they had hidden from the attackers.  This was real, selfless heroism.

Taj managers explained to Deshpande that they recruited for traits like empathy because that kind of underlying value is hard to teach. This, he says, is also why recruiters avoid hiring managers for the hotel from the top business schools in India. They deliberately go to second-tier business schools, on the theory that the people there will be less motivated by money.

Of course a night at the Taj is about 10,000 rupees ($200 US), a sum none of the “second tier” staff could ever dream to afford.

The premise of the Taj’s policy is that “second-tier” people are recruited to selflessly and ethically serve—even risk their lives for—selfish and unethical “first tier” people.

In turn, the premise of the HBR’s article is that the Taj’s management comprises “first tier” people, who should be admired for their policy, not because it is selfless and ethical (virtues of “second tier” people), but because it is effective (a virtue of “first tier” people).

Which brings us, finally, to the premise of NPR’s admiring reportage: that the HBR editors are “first tier” people who should be admired for admiring the “first tier” people managing the Taj, not because the editors are passing along some deep wisdom concerning human nature (a preoccupation of “second tier” people), but because they are signaling how human nature can be manipulated for socio-economic gain (a preoccupation of “first tier” people).

I admire NPR.

“The premise of the Taj’s policy is that “second-tier” people are recruited to selflessly and ethically serve—even risk their lives for—selfish and unethical “first tier” people.”

That seems unlikely. The article says that the managers of the Taj were not expecting anyone to risk their lives. Rather, they were very surprised by it.

“In turn, the premise of the HBR’s article is that the Taj’s management comprises “first tier” people, who should be admired for their policy, not because it is selfless and ethical (virtues of “second tier” people), but because it is effective (a virtue of “first tier” people).”

Thank you. Such a premise is not apparent on the face of the article so I appreciate you sharing your special inside information!

“There was the story of the kitchen employees who formed a human shield to assist guests who were evacuating, and lost their lives as a result. Of the telephone operators who, after being evacuated, chose to return to the hotel so they could call guests and tell them what to do. Of Karambir Singh Kang, the general manager of the Taj, who worked to save people even after his wife and two sons, who lived on the sixth floor of the hotel, died in the fire set by the terrorists.

Often during a crisis, a single hero or small group of heroes who take action and risk their lives will emerge. But what happened at the Taj was much broader.

During the crisis, dozens of workers — waiters and busboys, and room cleaners who knew back exits and paths through the hotel — chose to stay in a building under siege until their customers were safe. They were the very model of ethical, selfless behavior.”

Thank you for reminding us of the heroism of these people. It deserves to be recorded and remembered.

Michael,

Sorry my posting made you uncomfortable.

The points I made follow directly from the quotes I included verbatim.

For your part, how do you understand the Taj managers’ reasoning that people at “second tier” schools are “less motivated by money”?  May I suggest to you that in India people at “second tier” schools are not at “first tier” schools because they don’t have money?

And why are you less comfortable with that idea than the explicit belief on the part of Taj management that people at “first tier” schools lack empathy?

When you’ve spoken to Indians, how do they themselves describe their society? I have worked daily with Indians for decades. Even those that renounce the cynical prejudices conveyed uncritically in this article describe them as common throughout all parts of the country.

More important, your concerns about my comments on the HBR article nowhere suggest that you actually read that article, or have read the HBR generally.  The HBR and its acolytes are responsible for a great deal of the dehumanizing “best practices” ubiquitous in American society today, from annually laying off the “bottom quintile” of “performers” in a firm, to mandatory “diversity training”, to mindnumbing “brainstorming” meetings, to the Sovietesque mass analytics of Google and Facebook, to the infantilizing “open floor plans” which have made professional behavior impossible in the 21st century workplace. In the article in question they propose that the most fundamental human virtues be deliberately commodified and harvested, though they ultimately confess the have not yet figured out how.

I quote the purpose statement used to sell the $6.95 pdf download of the article:

“Can companies scale up and perpetuate extreme customer centricity?”

Do you really favor this sort of thinking about children of God?

“Sorry my posting made you uncomfortable.”

It didn’t, so please don’t apologise!

The rest of your post appears to be based on reading far more into my post than was actually there. I first pointed out that your statement that the managers of the Taj Hotel recruited second tier people in the belief that they would *risk their lives* for first tier people didn’t fit the facts.

I also took issue with your characterisation of the purpose of the article, which appeared conveniently simplistic, to say the least.

“May I suggest to you that in India people at “second tier” schools are not at “first tier” schools because they don’t have money?”

And may I suggest to you that the sky is blue? ;o)

“The HBR and its acolytes are responsible for a great deal of the dehumanizing “best practices” ubiquitous in American society today…”

I have no reason to doubt what you say. But I take the article as I find it.

“I have worked daily with Indians for decades….”

I have no reason to doubt this either. But what does it have to do with the points I raised in my post?

“More important, your concerns about my comments on the HBR article nowhere suggest that you actually read that article, or have read the HBR generally.”

I don’t know why this is “more important” or even relevant. As for reading the article, I was thinking the same thing about you! As for reading the HBR generally, you are correct that I nowhere suggested that I do.

““Can companies scale up and perpetuate extreme customer centricity?” Do you really favor this sort of thinking about children of God?”

It doesn’t particularly bother me, depending on the circumstances.

A final point: I am sure you find it personally gratifying to tell us all about “infantilizing” and “Sovietesque mass analytics”, however to my mind this distracts from the essential point:

Thank you for reminding us of the heroism of these people. It deserves to be recorded and remembered.