Q1. Compare leadership styles of Kelkar and Krishna Kumar.
Ajit Kerkar –
Mr. Kerkar’s behaviour was Employee oriented as he was personal in his approach. He also seemed to possess high self-efficacy, because of which people followed him as a single source of authority for close to 3 decades. He also seemed to have created in-groups and out-groups – though whether this was intentional or unintentional is not clear. But even then, people seemed to have faith in his ability to pick potential leaders and strong performers. He was also a charismatic leader as he seemed to have driven the success of the business on his vision and personality. His leadership style was transformational – he gave personal attention and was highly respected.
Although loved by almost everyone, Mr. Kerkar’s style seemed to have had some negative impacts – merit based competition seemed to be low, people expected a slow, bureaucratic career growth that rewarded loyalty more than performance and there were no proper performance evaluation matrices in place. Moreover, the hotels lacked a sense of professionalism and hence had lost out on reputation. The strategy of a family feeling, belongingness and familiarity might be good for internal stakeholders, but customers and guests expect a high degree of professionalism and perfection from a hotel chain of such repute. Finally, the long rule of Mr. Kerkar has left Taj Hotels lagging in modernity and internationalism – a bad thing when most of their clients were foreign.
Krishna Kumar
Mr. Kumar seemed a more meritocratic manager than Mr. Kerkar. He had immediately set out to reform the old systems, though he was cautious to not completely dismantle the existing traditions and culture. He was highly production oriented and showed a lower tendency to form in/out groups. He also was aware of the problems and did not mind taking tough decisions to