The report of the IIM Review Committee, headed by Maruti Suzuki India Chairman RC Bhargava, does not appear to have gone down well with the heads of the premier management institutes. The creation of a pan-IIM board, mentoring of the new IIMs by older ones, and judicious use of the land (by having faculty and their relatives living in nearby places rather than on the campuses itself) are some of the proposals which the IIMs fear will dilute their powers. In an interview with LESLIE D’MONTE, the review committee chairman clarifies these points. Excerpts:
How long did it take you to compile the report?
We started the process somewhere last October, and so managed to complete it within a year. We had 12-15 exhaustive meetings with all parties concerned, after which we (Rediff Chairman & CEO, Ajit Balakrishnan and Bhargava) did most of the typing (ourselves) on the computer. We had sent questionairres to all IIMs, faculty members, ex-alumni, ex-chairmen, etc. to ensure that we could cover a wide spectrum of views.
Yet, there’s objection to the creation of a pan-IIM board...
I fail to understand where the objections stem from. For one, even the current Chairman of the IIM boards is appointed by the government and the IIM board members are not consulted. We, on the other hand, have recommended that the IIM board should be consulted before such appointments. We have also suggested that the creation of posts should be done by the IIM board. Currently, it’s done by the government. Moreover, we have also proposed that IIM boards should have a say when it comes corpus utilisation, and seat expansion plans.
They (the IIMs) haven’t yet fully understood the idea behind the proposals, and hence the objections. While we discussing the pros and cons, we were clear that the IIMs should not be government-controlled but board-managed. We were also clear that the key financial and administrative powers relevant for academic institutions should be with the boards and not government-controlled.
But it is also true that we have to recognise the basic public character of the IIMs, and therefore evolve a system of management which gives it the flexibility of a private institute without losing its public image. Thus, the system we have proposed gives the government too legitimate claim while ensuring maximum managerial efficiency. IIM boards cannot have unfettered, unregulated authority. It’s an unreasonable demand especially when the institutes have been set up with public money. The land, too, belongs to the government.
In your report, you have indicated that IIMs should stick to their core tasks...
Most of the IIM management development programmes (MDPs) consist of courses for comparatively junior PSU executives. This reflects on the perception of business and industry about the value addition which IIMs can provide for senior managers. While these development programmes generate funds for the IIMs and faculty, they do little to enhance their reputation for excellence or help in creating knowledge for better teaching of the MBA courses. IIMs currently account for less than 5 per cent of MBAs produced in India and this percentage will not change appreciably even after the expansion plans of the current IIMs are completed. Clearly, if IIMs have to continue receiving public funds, they need to contribute to improving the quality of management education in India, and themselves become centres of excellence and thought leadership. IIMs have not been publishing enough in world class peer reviewed journals. They need to sponsor PhDs, and develop a plan on the lines of countries like China.
There’s criticism that your proposals are based on a Western model...
I do not believe the criticism is justified. What other model do we have anyway? Aren’t all IIMs based on a Western model? How many IIMs even make a mention of Eastern models? For instance, who teaches Japanese management despite the fact that the model can be very relevant in today’s times?
Have non-executive members not added value to the boards?
What’s the point of having eminent professionals on the boards of the IIMs if they are underutilised. The attendance at board meetings (excluding directors and faculty) is under 40 per cent. Very little has happened at the IIMs. The pan-IIM board, on its part, envisions attracting very eminent Indians from all walks of life and across geographies to enrich management education with their experience. All they need to do is attend two meetings a year. That’s not much to ask for, and we’re sure it will be successful.