Deloitte in India will add more than 50,000 people in the next 3-5 years to scale up its presence and service portfolio in the country, said N Venkatram, CEO, Deloitte India. The firm has grown its topline four-and-a-half times since 2015, he added. "We have grown by an average of 27% over the last eight years. Even in the next four years, we expect to grow at the same rate," said Venkatram. In a chat with Vinod Mahanta, Venkatram, who ends his tenure on March 31, spoke about losing 617 clients during audit rotation, dealing with the IL&FS fraud, transitioning from an audit-heavy firm to a multi-dimensional, full-service firm, and his take on the EY split. Edited excerpts:
The Big Four firms have been hiring a lot because of the heightened demand for services post-Covid. What are your expectations for your firm's future growth over the next 3-5 years?
How did you deal with the loss of hundreds of audit clients during the Companies Law-mandated audit rotation?
2015 was a very turbulent period. We faced the challenge of losing one-third of our audit portfolio (617 listed companies). Some of these marquee clients, like Tata, we had served for over 100 years. We implemented an attack and defend strategy, emphasising that losing an audit did not mean losing a client. We focused on providing non-audit services, which historically we had shied away from, to keep the continuity of the relationship with the client. We also conducted research on other markets, like Brazil, that had undergone audit rotation and found that the smallest firm always emerged as the biggest winner. With this in mind, we acquired firms to build up our advisory and tax practices.
We ran a course on collaboration to ensure that the handover of relationships with clients post-audit rotation was done in a beneficial manner for both the client and us. The golden rule was that audit partners don’t sell. For us it was about getting adequate capability to win 70 percent of the time because 617 clients we had to win what was the residue. We were interested in only 800 of the 6,000 listed companies. We won about 534 clients out of 800, and the audit practice is still the number one practice in the country by market capitalization. Audit rotation opened up opportunities to build fresh relationships with companies we had not previously audited. Now the focus is more on quality than quantity.
How did Deloitte transition from an audit-heavy firm to a full-service advisory firm in the last few years?
We expanded from being an audit-heavy firm to a multi-dimensional, full-service firm that includes new services like insolvency, cyber and tax technology. We learned from our core businesses of audit and tax to expand into new areas. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we really built out cloud, cyber and digital services. There was a realisation during COVID that more and more client solutions will be technology-based. We reached out to our colleagues in the network to set these up. I always stressed profitable growth, and I am most proud of the quality of the growth we achieved, not just the revenue increase.
You made two important acquisitions—a big consulting team from KPMG and another one from what used to be BMR Advisors—that made the firm stronger. Were these value-accretive?
Firstly, I don't do acquisitions. We select people, person by person. The term that we have is "acquihire" in that we don't really say that you're acquiring a company. Philosophically, you have to see the fit of each and every individual into the organisation. In the last 8 years, I have personally interviewed every person I take on as a partner in the firm. You have to ensure that person fits in with your culture and values and will be successful in your organisation. We added at least 1,000 people, including over 100 partners and directors. It's probably one of the largest groups of people being taken anywhere in the world. But I believe that individuals should be rewarded for their work within the organisation rather than paying externally, as this approach brings about a quicker payback period and results in a more motivated team of individuals rather than cash leaking out of the business.
What worked and what didn’t in the two acquisitions that you closed?
When you look at whether an acquisition works, you have to look at the strengths of the people you took. I would emphatically say both worked on that basis. I didn't get all the benefits I had envisioned from the tax acquisition. I had admired the firm’s (BMR Advisors) apprentice model for grooming junior employees into partners. Integrating the tax team into our larger organization took about two and a half years. Typically, I gauge success after this period by looking at how many employees leave. We've been extremely successful in retaining employees compared to most other acquisitions I've seen. The benefits of the acquisition come from the ability to bring new skills into the organization and scale them. We may hire people with certain skills for new areas outside our core competencies, such as insolvency. Our success comes from executing on our integration skills and replicating good practices, which have exponentially expanded our growth. The positive return on our investment in people and skills is demonstrated by our organisation's 4.5-fold growth and a payback period of around three and a half years.
How did the Il&FS scam impact Deloitte?
The firms in the profession realised that we no longer live in that glorious golden period when you only thought that it was the company that went bad and that the auditor had nothing to do with it. Because as the impact of the scams grows, people do come back and say, "What did the auditor do?" And the relevance of the fact that you know that the auditor is a watchdog and not a bloodhound quickly gets converted into the dog that did not bark. So, we put our heads down and reflected on all that was being said. India has been fortunate to have a strong accounting profession with a regulatory framework in place. With the country's independence itself, we had an accounting body, and a lot of our firms predate that accounting body by another 40 or 50 years. In this environment, there has always been enough guidance, and there has always been a framework within which auditors operate.
However, with the growth of Indian companies, more reforms were required not just in the profession, but in the area of corporate governance as well. Scams and scandals have put the profession on alert, causing firms to introspect and improve their processes.
A supportive and improvement-focused regulator is necessary for the profession to raise the quality of audits. Things like the GST network in India can provide more visibility into related-party transactions and give auditors access to information that can help them do a stronger audit.
Deloitte was one of the first big firms to go big on insolvency business too…
There is a story about Sir Shapoorji Billimoria, who, during the insolvency of a major trader in 1918-19, refused a bribe and reported the incident to the court, which earned the reputation of the firm and led to their appointment as the first auditors of the Imperial Bank after the merger of the presidency banks. Despite initial hesitation, we set up an insolvency practice and handled five of the twelve big companies that went into liquidation, collecting a large sum of money that mostly went back to nationalised banks.
How did you manage through the biggest crisis in recent times, the COVID-19 pandemic?
We had to suddenly say on March 24th or 25th, 2020, that no one could go to work. And within two days, all of us were working from home with complete certainty as to what would happen. We had a call first with partners and then with all staff to tell them how we would run the organisation. Partners will take the first cut, and we will go through the promotions and moderate salary hikes.
During the pandemic's second wave, we realised that we would be severely behind schedule and had to engage my partners. It was almost as if every second family had a loss. In the first wave, people were thinking about cash flows, but in the second wave, people were not even thinking about business. Two years of setbacks would have thrown our growth trajectory off track.
I set up a series of sprints in which 180 of us chose different lines of work to define growth in these areas. After six months, we held a growth summit for the entire organisation, where we discussed new areas of growth. 20% of our revenue now comes from these new areas. This legacy of growth is what I'm proud of, and we've grown at an average of 27% over the last eight years. Even if we look at our projections over the next four years, we expect to grow by over 26%. We were ready when COVID hit because we did not let go of people, trained them with new skills, and did not let the pandemic distract us from our growth trajectory.
EY has taken the stance that splitting the consulting and advisory businesses would end the conflict of interest issue. What is your take on that?
From my perspective, this issue has been around for a long time, and it doesn't necessarily solve the issue of conflict. Firms that have both consulting and advisory businesses are very conscious of the need for independence and have strong infrastructure in place to maintain it. By and large, auditors should stay away from non-audit services for their clients to avoid conflicts of interest. But as a general rule, I would say that you don’t need to cut off an arm to say you don’t want your left hand to shake your right.
Do you see Deloitte and the other Big Four firms getting into legal services in India?
I believe that all firms that have legal services overseas would bring in legal services, not just the Big Four. Initially, everyone would be more respectful of the fact that it is new in India. It would be more internal and focused on serving a client you already serve rather than looking to earn market share. It's a bit like how all our traditional services go—you start small and then scale.
The Big Four have become a lot bigger in the last few years, and the domestic firms have just not been able to compete. Why have the local firms lost out?
The fundamental error is in thinking that one has to compete to grow because the market itself is so large that everyone has a place in it. There will be a limit to which even the Big Four can grow; I would probably place that limit at four times where they are in the next four or five years, which is a huge number. The Big Four are becoming bigger and getting into newer areas like cybersecurity and consulting, but Indian firms can still compete by focusing on the opportunities in their own domestic market.
India's growing $5 trillion economy means a lot more manufacturing and a lot more services, and chartered accountants have a major role to play in this. The Big Four are providing only a small fraction of the total amount of revenue that can be provided by offering services in areas like GST. The problem is that Indian firms are not charging commensurate rates for the work that they do, especially in smaller cities and towns. To compete, Indian firms need to use technology to scale up, raise their rates, and provide value-added services. They also need to specialise and consolidate, which requires investment.
Historically, a service business gives you a return of between 15 and 20%. Instead of investing in fixed deposits, if you invest in your own business and look at how to grow it, it will give you a return that allows you to continue to invest. We need more people who have the courage to say that we should invest in our own futures and build our businesses over time.
Given their size and the kind of work they do with major businesses, should the Big Four be regulated more tightly?
I think the whole problem comes because you call them the Big Four. In every industry, you have the "Big Four or Big Five," and there is a line of thinking that if you are big, you have to be regulated. Regulation is important because it is necessary for the existence of audits and for tax consultants. If there was no Companies Act, there would be no auditors.
Regulation is necessary because many times there is public money involved, and it is systemically important to the economies of the countries in which you work. It is necessary to have rules and norms by which you are regulated. Regulation also gives us support because it is within a framework, and you are regulated by somebody who understands what you're doing.
There is a need for regulation in businesses that arise from regulation, such as valuations and insolvency, but consulting businesses and IT service businesses should not be put under regulation because it would be very cumbersome.
Wherever there are conflicts of interest issues, the firms invest an enormous amount of time, energy, resources, and people into trying to solve them, but with the sort of growth that is taking place in the economy, it is not easy to keep pace all the time. Times change, and firms can improve themselves with technology and everything else coming.
NFRA has been rather slow in bringing erring auditors to the book. How will you rate the regulator’s impact till now?
NFRA is a new regulator. When considering the profession, it's essential to view it as a whole. Their constituents are largely public-interest entities, which are audited not just by the large firms but also by firms across the board. Therefore, I believe that the NFRA will need a collaborative approach with the profession, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, to leverage the opportunities ahead.
There are enormous opportunities for the profession, which every firm can seize. Therefore, the government, through the NFRA and the Institute, and professionals must work together to shape the future of the profession in India 5 to 10 years from now.
Currently, most global capability centres (GCCs) of overseas firms complete 60–70% of their back-end processing in India. In the future, when looking at internal controls over the financial reporting of these entities, this work will have to be done at these centres. Our professionals must be prepared to certify controls not just for their own national accounts but also for accounts that need to be signed off in other countries.
To achieve this, the NFRA, as a prime regulator, must take on the responsibility of reskilling the profession.
In my view, with the increasing importance of technology in accounting and processes, we need an equivalent of the world's IITs along with some form of certification for a different level of training for professionals entering these areas.
We're currently not thinking in the volumes required.
Therefore, the reform of the profession needs to start at the grassroots level to bring in new professionals who understand this new world. We also need to build these platforms in an economically sound way with maintenance, security, and stability to access information over a long period of time. This requires a collaborative effort between the government, the NFRA, the Institute, and professionals, as we need to expand the financial stack of information required by the audit community to include all chartered accountants in the country. This would provide them with the opportunity to provide services they never imagined possible.
Can you discuss the management principles that have guided your leadership of the firm?
I believe that leading an organisation is about being first among equals, particularly in a partnership. Although I didn't wear the responsibility lightly, it rested very lightly on me. I prioritise playing to your strengths, which is a lesson I learned during my life.
Two things have greatly influenced my life: the stock market, which taught me that being an auditor is a calling and something you do because it's the right thing to do. I have said to every batch of trainees, ‘Auditors are the gatekeepers to the capital markets.' It's a hard job in a country like India where each promoter, entrepreneur, or industrialist thinks he is self-made and has a view of his own. I also tell the trainees that you are actually a public servant on a private sector salary. They shouldn’t forget they are actually doing a public service, so they have to keep their scepticism in focus and stand up at the right point in time. The second thing that has been pervasive in my life has been following the way of Dharma: do the right thing and not worry about the consequences. I gained a lot of my strength from yoga. Ultimately, my legacy will be the team I have built and the values and principles that have guided my leadership.
You have inculcated some principles of yoga in your management style too..
I ran the organisation on the principles of balance, consciousness, and ego containment that I learned from yoga. Balance is essential in both yoga and leadership. When you balance, it is not because all your arms and legs are of equal strength. Each individual has strengths and weaknesses. But, when you balance, you must ensure that the stronger hand supports the weaker one. One of my management philosophies has always been to collaborate. We should build on the foundation of collaboration, where the strong support the weak, bringing balance to the organisation. Balance brings harmony to the organisation.
The second most important part is consciousness. As you move your consciousness, awareness comes to that part of the body. The same is true for communication. When you run even a small organisation, it is essential to communicate. Communication can eliminate agitation and its negative effects.
The third thing is ego. As a leader, you must contain your ego. It's good to have an ego; everybody should have one, but it should know its place. If you cannot contain your ego, you will not be able to make decisions that are fair to everyone.
You’ve spent a lot of time working closely with the Tata Group. How did working with multiple Tata leaders and watching the Tata culture closely influence you?
One of the benefits of our profession is that you get to observe people up close.
I learned a lot from several generations of leadership across organisations, including the Tata Group. The culture of organisations is built over time by the people who have led them. I learned a lot at the legacy firm from which I came, SB Billimoria, which was founded in 1902.
Mr. Yezdi Malegam mentored me for a long time. I learned about fairness and having the courage to speak up from him. I also learned from independent directors, management, and employees of the Tata Group. Meeting all three gave me insight into how employees are motivated to work for an organisation. I learned that having a culture of courage and the ability to speak up is crucial for innovation and change. The culture of democratisation of speech at the Tata group impressed me, and I started inculcating that culture in my organisation. I also learned from Mr. Ramadorai of TCS the importance of responding to emails quickly. It's about respecting the other individual by responding in a timely manner. The Tata group made many acquisitions during my time advising them, and I learned how to give and get respect and integrate people through words and actions rather than just financial incentives. I learned from my clients every time I interacted with them.
The Big Four firms have been hiring a lot because of the heightened demand for services post-Covid. What are your expectations for your firm's future growth over the next 3-5 years?
The overall organisation had about 5,000 people when I took over in 2015, and now we have almost 24,000. In the next 3-5 years, Deloitte in India will add more than 50,000 people. During COVID-19 alone, we added 10,000 people. We were adding a thousand people a month during COVID-19. In terms of revenue growth, we have grown four-and-a-half times since 2015. During COVID-19, we really doubled down on growth and gained market share. There is a beautiful quote by Brazilian racing driver Ayrton Senna that says, ‘You cannot overtake 15 cars in sunny weather, but you can when it's raining’.
How did you deal with the loss of hundreds of audit clients during the Companies Law-mandated audit rotation?
2015 was a very turbulent period. We faced the challenge of losing one-third of our audit portfolio (617 listed companies). Some of these marquee clients, like Tata, we had served for over 100 years. We implemented an attack and defend strategy, emphasising that losing an audit did not mean losing a client. We focused on providing non-audit services, which historically we had shied away from, to keep the continuity of the relationship with the client. We also conducted research on other markets, like Brazil, that had undergone audit rotation and found that the smallest firm always emerged as the biggest winner. With this in mind, we acquired firms to build up our advisory and tax practices.
We ran a course on collaboration to ensure that the handover of relationships with clients post-audit rotation was done in a beneficial manner for both the client and us. The golden rule was that audit partners don’t sell. For us it was about getting adequate capability to win 70 percent of the time because 617 clients we had to win what was the residue. We were interested in only 800 of the 6,000 listed companies. We won about 534 clients out of 800, and the audit practice is still the number one practice in the country by market capitalization. Audit rotation opened up opportunities to build fresh relationships with companies we had not previously audited. Now the focus is more on quality than quantity.
How did Deloitte transition from an audit-heavy firm to a full-service advisory firm in the last few years?
We expanded from being an audit-heavy firm to a multi-dimensional, full-service firm that includes new services like insolvency, cyber and tax technology. We learned from our core businesses of audit and tax to expand into new areas. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we really built out cloud, cyber and digital services. There was a realisation during COVID that more and more client solutions will be technology-based. We reached out to our colleagues in the network to set these up. I always stressed profitable growth, and I am most proud of the quality of the growth we achieved, not just the revenue increase.
You made two important acquisitions—a big consulting team from KPMG and another one from what used to be BMR Advisors—that made the firm stronger. Were these value-accretive?
Firstly, I don't do acquisitions. We select people, person by person. The term that we have is "acquihire" in that we don't really say that you're acquiring a company. Philosophically, you have to see the fit of each and every individual into the organisation. In the last 8 years, I have personally interviewed every person I take on as a partner in the firm. You have to ensure that person fits in with your culture and values and will be successful in your organisation. We added at least 1,000 people, including over 100 partners and directors. It's probably one of the largest groups of people being taken anywhere in the world. But I believe that individuals should be rewarded for their work within the organisation rather than paying externally, as this approach brings about a quicker payback period and results in a more motivated team of individuals rather than cash leaking out of the business.
What worked and what didn’t in the two acquisitions that you closed?
When you look at whether an acquisition works, you have to look at the strengths of the people you took. I would emphatically say both worked on that basis. I didn't get all the benefits I had envisioned from the tax acquisition. I had admired the firm’s (BMR Advisors) apprentice model for grooming junior employees into partners. Integrating the tax team into our larger organization took about two and a half years. Typically, I gauge success after this period by looking at how many employees leave. We've been extremely successful in retaining employees compared to most other acquisitions I've seen. The benefits of the acquisition come from the ability to bring new skills into the organization and scale them. We may hire people with certain skills for new areas outside our core competencies, such as insolvency. Our success comes from executing on our integration skills and replicating good practices, which have exponentially expanded our growth. The positive return on our investment in people and skills is demonstrated by our organisation's 4.5-fold growth and a payback period of around three and a half years.
How did the Il&FS scam impact Deloitte?
The firms in the profession realised that we no longer live in that glorious golden period when you only thought that it was the company that went bad and that the auditor had nothing to do with it. Because as the impact of the scams grows, people do come back and say, "What did the auditor do?" And the relevance of the fact that you know that the auditor is a watchdog and not a bloodhound quickly gets converted into the dog that did not bark. So, we put our heads down and reflected on all that was being said. India has been fortunate to have a strong accounting profession with a regulatory framework in place. With the country's independence itself, we had an accounting body, and a lot of our firms predate that accounting body by another 40 or 50 years. In this environment, there has always been enough guidance, and there has always been a framework within which auditors operate.
However, with the growth of Indian companies, more reforms were required not just in the profession, but in the area of corporate governance as well. Scams and scandals have put the profession on alert, causing firms to introspect and improve their processes.
A supportive and improvement-focused regulator is necessary for the profession to raise the quality of audits. Things like the GST network in India can provide more visibility into related-party transactions and give auditors access to information that can help them do a stronger audit.
Deloitte was one of the first big firms to go big on insolvency business too…
There is a story about Sir Shapoorji Billimoria, who, during the insolvency of a major trader in 1918-19, refused a bribe and reported the incident to the court, which earned the reputation of the firm and led to their appointment as the first auditors of the Imperial Bank after the merger of the presidency banks. Despite initial hesitation, we set up an insolvency practice and handled five of the twelve big companies that went into liquidation, collecting a large sum of money that mostly went back to nationalised banks.
How did you manage through the biggest crisis in recent times, the COVID-19 pandemic?
We had to suddenly say on March 24th or 25th, 2020, that no one could go to work. And within two days, all of us were working from home with complete certainty as to what would happen. We had a call first with partners and then with all staff to tell them how we would run the organisation. Partners will take the first cut, and we will go through the promotions and moderate salary hikes.
During the pandemic's second wave, we realised that we would be severely behind schedule and had to engage my partners. It was almost as if every second family had a loss. In the first wave, people were thinking about cash flows, but in the second wave, people were not even thinking about business. Two years of setbacks would have thrown our growth trajectory off track.
I set up a series of sprints in which 180 of us chose different lines of work to define growth in these areas. After six months, we held a growth summit for the entire organisation, where we discussed new areas of growth. 20% of our revenue now comes from these new areas. This legacy of growth is what I'm proud of, and we've grown at an average of 27% over the last eight years. Even if we look at our projections over the next four years, we expect to grow by over 26%. We were ready when COVID hit because we did not let go of people, trained them with new skills, and did not let the pandemic distract us from our growth trajectory.
EY has taken the stance that splitting the consulting and advisory businesses would end the conflict of interest issue. What is your take on that?
From my perspective, this issue has been around for a long time, and it doesn't necessarily solve the issue of conflict. Firms that have both consulting and advisory businesses are very conscious of the need for independence and have strong infrastructure in place to maintain it. By and large, auditors should stay away from non-audit services for their clients to avoid conflicts of interest. But as a general rule, I would say that you don’t need to cut off an arm to say you don’t want your left hand to shake your right.
Do you see Deloitte and the other Big Four firms getting into legal services in India?
I believe that all firms that have legal services overseas would bring in legal services, not just the Big Four. Initially, everyone would be more respectful of the fact that it is new in India. It would be more internal and focused on serving a client you already serve rather than looking to earn market share. It's a bit like how all our traditional services go—you start small and then scale.
The Big Four have become a lot bigger in the last few years, and the domestic firms have just not been able to compete. Why have the local firms lost out?
The fundamental error is in thinking that one has to compete to grow because the market itself is so large that everyone has a place in it. There will be a limit to which even the Big Four can grow; I would probably place that limit at four times where they are in the next four or five years, which is a huge number. The Big Four are becoming bigger and getting into newer areas like cybersecurity and consulting, but Indian firms can still compete by focusing on the opportunities in their own domestic market.
India's growing $5 trillion economy means a lot more manufacturing and a lot more services, and chartered accountants have a major role to play in this. The Big Four are providing only a small fraction of the total amount of revenue that can be provided by offering services in areas like GST. The problem is that Indian firms are not charging commensurate rates for the work that they do, especially in smaller cities and towns. To compete, Indian firms need to use technology to scale up, raise their rates, and provide value-added services. They also need to specialise and consolidate, which requires investment.
Historically, a service business gives you a return of between 15 and 20%. Instead of investing in fixed deposits, if you invest in your own business and look at how to grow it, it will give you a return that allows you to continue to invest. We need more people who have the courage to say that we should invest in our own futures and build our businesses over time.
Given their size and the kind of work they do with major businesses, should the Big Four be regulated more tightly?
I think the whole problem comes because you call them the Big Four. In every industry, you have the "Big Four or Big Five," and there is a line of thinking that if you are big, you have to be regulated. Regulation is important because it is necessary for the existence of audits and for tax consultants. If there was no Companies Act, there would be no auditors.
Regulation is necessary because many times there is public money involved, and it is systemically important to the economies of the countries in which you work. It is necessary to have rules and norms by which you are regulated. Regulation also gives us support because it is within a framework, and you are regulated by somebody who understands what you're doing.
There is a need for regulation in businesses that arise from regulation, such as valuations and insolvency, but consulting businesses and IT service businesses should not be put under regulation because it would be very cumbersome.
Wherever there are conflicts of interest issues, the firms invest an enormous amount of time, energy, resources, and people into trying to solve them, but with the sort of growth that is taking place in the economy, it is not easy to keep pace all the time. Times change, and firms can improve themselves with technology and everything else coming.
NFRA has been rather slow in bringing erring auditors to the book. How will you rate the regulator’s impact till now?
NFRA is a new regulator. When considering the profession, it's essential to view it as a whole. Their constituents are largely public-interest entities, which are audited not just by the large firms but also by firms across the board. Therefore, I believe that the NFRA will need a collaborative approach with the profession, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, to leverage the opportunities ahead.
There are enormous opportunities for the profession, which every firm can seize. Therefore, the government, through the NFRA and the Institute, and professionals must work together to shape the future of the profession in India 5 to 10 years from now.
Currently, most global capability centres (GCCs) of overseas firms complete 60–70% of their back-end processing in India. In the future, when looking at internal controls over the financial reporting of these entities, this work will have to be done at these centres. Our professionals must be prepared to certify controls not just for their own national accounts but also for accounts that need to be signed off in other countries.
To achieve this, the NFRA, as a prime regulator, must take on the responsibility of reskilling the profession.
In my view, with the increasing importance of technology in accounting and processes, we need an equivalent of the world's IITs along with some form of certification for a different level of training for professionals entering these areas.
We're currently not thinking in the volumes required.
Therefore, the reform of the profession needs to start at the grassroots level to bring in new professionals who understand this new world. We also need to build these platforms in an economically sound way with maintenance, security, and stability to access information over a long period of time. This requires a collaborative effort between the government, the NFRA, the Institute, and professionals, as we need to expand the financial stack of information required by the audit community to include all chartered accountants in the country. This would provide them with the opportunity to provide services they never imagined possible.
Can you discuss the management principles that have guided your leadership of the firm?
I believe that leading an organisation is about being first among equals, particularly in a partnership. Although I didn't wear the responsibility lightly, it rested very lightly on me. I prioritise playing to your strengths, which is a lesson I learned during my life.
Two things have greatly influenced my life: the stock market, which taught me that being an auditor is a calling and something you do because it's the right thing to do. I have said to every batch of trainees, ‘Auditors are the gatekeepers to the capital markets.' It's a hard job in a country like India where each promoter, entrepreneur, or industrialist thinks he is self-made and has a view of his own. I also tell the trainees that you are actually a public servant on a private sector salary. They shouldn’t forget they are actually doing a public service, so they have to keep their scepticism in focus and stand up at the right point in time. The second thing that has been pervasive in my life has been following the way of Dharma: do the right thing and not worry about the consequences. I gained a lot of my strength from yoga. Ultimately, my legacy will be the team I have built and the values and principles that have guided my leadership.
You have inculcated some principles of yoga in your management style too..
I ran the organisation on the principles of balance, consciousness, and ego containment that I learned from yoga. Balance is essential in both yoga and leadership. When you balance, it is not because all your arms and legs are of equal strength. Each individual has strengths and weaknesses. But, when you balance, you must ensure that the stronger hand supports the weaker one. One of my management philosophies has always been to collaborate. We should build on the foundation of collaboration, where the strong support the weak, bringing balance to the organisation. Balance brings harmony to the organisation.
The second most important part is consciousness. As you move your consciousness, awareness comes to that part of the body. The same is true for communication. When you run even a small organisation, it is essential to communicate. Communication can eliminate agitation and its negative effects.
The third thing is ego. As a leader, you must contain your ego. It's good to have an ego; everybody should have one, but it should know its place. If you cannot contain your ego, you will not be able to make decisions that are fair to everyone.
You’ve spent a lot of time working closely with the Tata Group. How did working with multiple Tata leaders and watching the Tata culture closely influence you?
One of the benefits of our profession is that you get to observe people up close.
I learned a lot from several generations of leadership across organisations, including the Tata Group. The culture of organisations is built over time by the people who have led them. I learned a lot at the legacy firm from which I came, SB Billimoria, which was founded in 1902.
Mr. Yezdi Malegam mentored me for a long time. I learned about fairness and having the courage to speak up from him. I also learned from independent directors, management, and employees of the Tata Group. Meeting all three gave me insight into how employees are motivated to work for an organisation. I learned that having a culture of courage and the ability to speak up is crucial for innovation and change. The culture of democratisation of speech at the Tata group impressed me, and I started inculcating that culture in my organisation. I also learned from Mr. Ramadorai of TCS the importance of responding to emails quickly. It's about respecting the other individual by responding in a timely manner. The Tata group made many acquisitions during my time advising them, and I learned how to give and get respect and integrate people through words and actions rather than just financial incentives. I learned from my clients every time I interacted with them.
Read More News on
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 News, Budget 2024 Live Coverage, Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
...moreDownload The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
Read More News on
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 News, Budget 2024 Live Coverage, Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
...moreDownload The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
Get Unlimited Access to The Economic Times
