why leaders have to be learners

7/30/2019 Why Leaders Have to Be Learners

1/7

Why Leaders Have To be Learners

All ill, all good in the count,

Is gain if looked at aright

Babarnama

Learning has only one aim. To constantly challenge the status quo and change

mindsets. Continuous learning is essential for the organization to survive and develop

in the continuously changing business environment.

The learning organization principally learns through :

Learning from Past - experiential learning from successes and failures.

Learning from present - continuous scanning and sensitivity to changing environmentLearning from future - Experimental learning (for explanation see my article in The

Indian Management, Jul 2002)

Organizational learning is promoted by leaders who lead through their own learning

examples.

It is not only in this age, we have determined the importance of learning for

organizational survival. Throughout history, we find examples of fall of powerful

empires due to ignoring the value of continuous learning.

Moghul empire is a prime example which came into being due to the learning

behaviour of its founder Babar and over a period of time, his successors became inward

looking and led to the disintegration of the empire.

Babar's father was ruler of a small principality in present Uzbekistan called Ferghana

and died when Babar was only 11. In present context, you can well imagine a boy of 11

taking control of an organization surrounded by enemies both within and on borders.

Mergers and acquisitions were taking place in those days too, though a little more

violently. Babar had to learn fast to survive "like a king on a chessboard". For themoment, Babar's stars were in ascendency and he triumphed over internal and external

enemies, primarily under the mentoring of his maternal grandmother.

However, Ferghana was too small a country to satiate Babar's vision and ambition and

he longed for something greater. Over a period of many years, he took and lost

Samarkand & Kabul twice and had many such failures including loss of Ferghana itself.


2/7

However, experiential learning was a key element of Babar's strategy and after every

battle, won or lost, he would sit with his key commanders and draw out lessons which

would guide their next move. Learning from his past mistakes was a conscious practice

and allowed him to moved forward and not get defeated by reverses.

When one has pretensions to rule and a desire for conquest, one cannot sit back and just

watch if events dont go right once or twice. - Babarnama

He did not yet know what fate had in store for him and as in today's business

environment, the future was grey and uncertain. Therefore, Babur began to organize

himself for the battles ahead, whipping his men into a superb fighting force. He also

took care to modernise his army, introducing muskets and cannons for the first time in

field battle. During 20 years of adversity and warfare Babar trained himself by adopting

the military tactics and modes of warfare of his adversaries - Turks, Mongols, Persians,

and Afghans and evolved his own integrated system of warfare throughexperimentation. In today's terminology, this would be called adopting Best Practices

from other organizations to increase effectiveness. These innovations would give him

crucial edge in India. Thus a learning pattern emerges of a man who was always on the

move, largely in adverse conditions.

The entire lifelong learning from past, present and future was tested when he faced

Ibrahim Lodi in the First Battle of Panipat in 1526. Since 1519, Babar had led five

expeditions into India, the first four being in the nature of pilot projects, testing the

enemy. Baburs fifth expedition to India started on 17 November 1526, when crossed theIndus. Ibrahim Lodi was a typical Chief Executive of a successful corporation,

complacent to what was happening outside his borders, not experimenting with new

styles of warfare and a host of other weaknesses, which come from success.

Most of the conditions were against Babar and by all accounts he should have lost the

battle. It was the month of April, hot for Babar & his army who were used to cool

climate. The enemy had a numerical superiority of 5:1, i.e. 100,000 soldiers as against his

20,000. Lodi also had a force multiplier in the form of 1000 elephants. Lodi was close to

his Headquarters and well supplied while Babar's had a long supply chain.

Till now, most of Babar's battles have been close combats in the hill country, in

constricted battlefields where large forces could not be deployed and it was not the size

of army which mattered but its spirit, the tactical use of terrain and the element of

surprise. In the open plains of Panipat, none of these could be used for decisive victory.

In a conventional battle, the large forces of Ibrahim Lodi could encircle Babar's small

army & decimate it.


3/7

Babar could think of defeating Lodi only through clever tactics. Therefore, Babar waited

for a month facing Lodi's forces trying to find the winning tactics.

To defeat Lodi, Babar had to neutralise the numerically superior enemy forces and

create a narrow battlefield where his cannons & muskets could be successfully

employed. He summoned his veterans to a war council. Together, reaching back to the

the lore of their turbulent land and the learnings from his own thirty-two years of

incessant wars, they conceived a revolutionary new strategy that dexterously modified

the traditional Mughal battle formations to accomodate Ottoman wall-of-fire gunnery

tactics and the wheeling cavalary charge of the Uzbeks-to halt the Afghan juggernaut in

its tracks and annihilate it. He made full use of what can be described as adopting Best-

in-Class practices.

Babur planned for the forthcoming battle, he used Panipat village to rest his right flank,

to protect his front he collected 700 carts and tied them together with raw hide in theOttoman fashion, the tactic the nomads had used against the Romans. In the protective

line of carts Babur sited his guns, he was amongst the first military commanders in Asia

to appreciate the value of field artillery. Between every two guns, five or six mantlets

(protective screens) were fixed behind which match lock men stood and fired their

matchlocks; after every 200 yards a sally gap for 100 to 200 horsemen was left; the left

flank was refused and protected by a ditch and a stockade made with branches of trees;

on 12 April 1526 Babur was ready. The objective was to lure Ibrahim to attack at the

constructed battlefield. But would Ibrahim fall to the bait?

After waiting anxiously for several days, Babar carried out an experiment to test the

enemy strength and provoke it. He sent 5000 soldiers at night into enemy camps to

create confusion and when discovered, they ran back to own camps. The apparent easy

rout of the Mughal night raiders emboldened the Afghans and sensing easy victory,

Lodi attacked next morning.

This was a fatal error and the Army walked into a bottleneck trap cunningly laid by

Babar. Lodis large forces could not maneuver successfully in the man-made narrow

battlefield. Babar's musketeers who were hidden on both sides now fired and this

created a panic in Lodi's forces. Within four hours, the battle was won by Babar andLodi was dead. In fact, the major part of Lodi's forces could not take part in the battle.

Babar's success came about because he had the courage to turn failure into success. In

his own failure, he discovered which factors could bring him success. When Babar was

defeated by his rivals, he did not start complaining about them. He did not compile any

lists of the conspiracies by his enemies or the plans they had drawn up for his


4/7

destruction. Nor did he start making vituperative speeches against his attackers.

Instead, Babar began to work out how his rivals had managed to win. What was the

cause of his defeat and their victory? Babar's thinking led him to the conclusion that his

opponents' military tactics were superior. Their strategy in warfare was more effective

than his. Now Babar began to adopt the tactics of his rivals, and by giving much

thought to them and carrying out experiments with them, he even managed to improve

upon them. Equipped with better resources and better military strategy, he now set

himself to conquering the new and vaster field of the entire subcontinent. With the

success of his new approach, he made himself the master of much more than he had

ever possessed in his ancestral domain.

The present world is no less a world of competition that it was in the days of Babar.

People still come into conflict with each other all over the world. There is sometimes

just no avoiding failure and defeat. But the successful man is one who can experience

the worst of failures, yet derive sustenance and inspiration from it, and one who canforge ahead, acting upon whatever ray of hope he sees, no matter how small and faint.

Babar's son and successor, Humayun was a courageous and learned person. Moghul

Empire, Humayun was thrown out of it. What was Humayuns learning style which led

to such disastrous consequences?

By three methods we may learn. First, by reflection which is noblest; second, by

imitation, which is the easiest; and third, by experience, which is the bitterest.

Confucius (B.C. 551-479 )

Babur had many leadership qualities, a principal one being his attitude towards

continuous learning, that is learning from past, present and future. This gained him a

prize in the shape of laying the foundation of Mughal dynasty in the richest country of

the world.

Humayun ascended the throne in 1530. Humayun ,which means fortunate would never

again know the meaning of this word . Dreamers, they move through a dream. Babur

once said of his hedonistic cousins. He could have said the same of Humayun. He was

courageous in battlefield and had shown his mettle many times, including The FirstBattle of Panipat. He obtained education from the finest minds of his times and in

todays terms, he was an equivalent of IIM graduate. He was a skilled mathematician,

astronomer and astrologer. He was a man of ideas and even designed a portable bridge

which could be used in times of war. But these talents had little to do with stern

business of government. He lacked the tenacity of purpose to forge his airy whimsies

into solid achievements. He lacked the grit to match the turbulence of the world he


5/7

lived in. Predictably, his reign, which began as a dream, darkened into an awful

nightmare.

Humayun learnt little from his father. How shared vision of a great empire enabled

Babur to command respect and loyalty from his men, a collection of warlike martial

races from Central Asia . Babur led them through years of deprivation, defeats and

failures with none of his commanders leaving him. Humayun did not know what was

happening around him. His intelligence was weak. The treachery of his brothers and

other nobles always came as a surprise to him while in that time, it should have been

anticipated and proactive action taken. His two brothers continuously conspired against

him to usurp the throne but each time, Humayun pardoned them, clearing way for

another treachery and pardon, repeating his mistakes, never contemplating

introspection and review of policies of statecraft. Once his counselors warned him -

Brotherly custom has nothing to do with ruling and reigning. If you wish to act as a

brother, abandon the throne. If you wish to be king, put aside brotherly sentiments. Asthis is no brother but your Majestys foe.

There are many such instances where he had the upper hand in subduing his vassals,

for example, Bahadur Shah, an Afghan chieftain in Gujarat. Humayun defeated him

three times but came back to Agra without consolidating his extended empire. The

result was each time Bahadur Shah rose and took back his domain. Over a period of

time, Humayun took & lost Malwa, Gujarat and Bengal more than once. He never

introspected these successes and failures and could not draw lessons for future action.

He never analysed the tactics of his opponents and therefore could not counter them.

There was no attempt to gain cumulative knowledge from experience. Each battle

became a new project with an equal chance of win or lose and after every battle, he

relaxed as if the lifes work was done.

Unlike his father, he neglected the training & development of his army with the result,

although he commanded a large army, it was led by a motley collection of opportunistic

chieftains, the troops became indisciplined and demoralised .The cohesive force of

Babur was gone.

His serious flaws in learning is most visible in his encounters with Sher Khan who latertook the title of Sher Shah Suri and displaced him as emperor.

Sher Khan was a wily & crafty leader about whom Babur said Keep an eye on Sher

Khan Babur cautioned. He is a clever man and the marks of royalty was visible on his

forehead, As soon as I saw this man, it entered my mind to arrest him for I find in him

qualities of greatness and marks of mightiness.


6/7

Sher Khan was in the employment of the ruler of Bihar and on his death became the de

facto ruler of Bihar. He started looking for opportunities to increase his domain in

Bengal. As usual, Humayun did not perceive the dangers brewing within his empire.

He ignored signals of the rising power of Sher Khan, complacent in the ways of his

inherited empire. He was always fighting on two fronts at the same time. When he was

in the field subjugating enemies, his brothers were conspiring and vice-versa. The time

for decisive & final action against Sher Khan came his way many time but his

ambivalent attitude allowed the opportunities to pass till Sher Khan, a true

Machiavellian tactician, was ready to directly challenge the emperor.

This lack of energy in responding to shifting strategic situations was the greatest failing

of Humayun.

The first major battle between Humayun and Sher Khan took place on the banks of

Ganges in Chausa on 25th June 1539 with a night attack by Sher Khan. The numericalsuperiority was 2:1 in favour of Moghuls but superior tactics and highly disciplined

forces of Sher Khan prevailed. Humayun fled to Agra with the help of a water carrier

who helped him to cross Ganga. Sher Shah did not pursue Humayun as he wanted to

consolidate his gains and knew that an opportunity to challenge Humayun will come

again.

On reaching Agra, Humayun did not reflect on the reasons for his defeat and the battle

tactics used by Sher Khan. He did not regroup his army and bring some semblance of

discipline or train with different tactics. Seven months passed in glorious indecision till

Sher Khan who had, by now, crowned himself Sher Shah Suri was ready to challenge

him again on the banks of Ganga near Kannauj. Humayun still had formidable

firepower with over 700 guns, 21 cannons and 5000 musketeers. Mughal army had over

40,000 soldiers compared to 15000 of Sher Shah.

For over one month, the two armies faced each other and Humayun inspite of his

sizable army did not attack. Sher Shah sensed an opportunity and attacked at noon on

17th May 1540 forcing Humayun to flee which he did for the next several years till Sher

Shah died giving an opportunity for Humayun to return and reclaim his throne.

So what was the learning from the fate of Babur & Humayun, father & son. Baburs

success was a result of his humble approach to learning. He would reflect on his failures

and draw pragmatic conclusions which he applied in future actions. On the other hand,

Humayun blamed stars for his misfortune and found solace in their shifting

configuration. Over a period, this resulted in deterioration of armys fighting spirit.

Babur was always experimenting, if not with battle tactics, then with gardening &


7/7

cultivation. His ability to conduct dialog with his subordinates as equals allowed him

access to vital information ,insights and view problems and opportunities from

different perspectives. Humayun never built trust based relationship with his

subordinates and was thus deprived of valuable counsel and teamwork.

Baburs learning attitude is visible in other actions too. All things fresh and new

gladdened him. He had the curiousity of a child and the candor & spontaneity to

explore it. He introduced melon and grapes in India. He planted sugar cane in Kabul

and was delighted when his experiments bore fruit.

Babur saw technology as a tool for growth and he prepared his army to exploit field

artillery to the fullest. Humayun did not keep track of changes taking place in military

technology which was changing the face of warfare. Here is a lesson to many

organizations which introduce technology like ERP, portals etc. with little regard to

undertaking process improvements and thus are unable to deploy effectively.

What a contrast babar makes to Humayun! While Babur took on adversity with

cheerful, exuberant energy, Humayun submitted to it with passivity. Humayuns life

was eventful but undramatic. Possibly, his biggest achievement was birth of his son,

Akbar. Today, Babur would be a match to Jack Welch or Bill Gates while I would not

trust Humayun to manage the corner store.

The world is no different today as it was in the days of the Moghuls. Our security

today, is based on only three things: our ability to learn, our ability to change, and our

ability to accept or live happily amid uncertainty. The paradox is that what we fearmost as adults is learning, changing, and uncertainty. Fine education and rich

experience are not enough to survive and grow today. Dialogue and reflection are

qualities which leaders would have to add to their arsenal. Change management is

increasingly becoming a packaged industry and few organizations are institutionalizing

processes which allow adults to learn and grow. Transfer of knowledge and attitude

towards continuous learning is especially important in owner managed organizations

where transfer of reins to next generation of offsprings is taking place.

Babur saw it very well and he got what he envisioned. However, due to hispreoccupations with empire building and later consolidating, he could not transfer

knowledge of statecraft to his son resulting in Humayun losing his inheritance.

why leaders have to be learners

Documents