Equity vs Equality — The Krishna Way
Krishna did not look only at the chariot. He looked at the weight it was carrying.
It was the 17th day of the Kurukshetra war. The battle was at its peak. On one side was Arjuna, with Lord Krishna as his charioteer, and on the other side was Karna. Arjuna released a powerful arrow at Karna’s chariot, and according to a popular retelling, Karna’s chariot moved several yards backwards. Arjuna looked at Krishna, expecting appreciation, but Krishna remained silent.
Then Karna released an arrow at Arjuna’s chariot. The chariot moved only a little. To Arjuna’s surprise, Krishna said, “Well done, Karna.”
Arjuna asked, “Krishna, my arrow pushed Karna’s chariot so far, while his arrow moved my chariot only a little. Why are you praising him?”
Krishna smiled and explained that Arjuna was looking only at the movement of the chariot, while he was looking at the weight the chariot was carrying. Arjuna’s chariot had Krishna himself as the charioteer, and Hanuman was present on the flag. It had divine protection and great support. Even with all that support, Karna’s arrow was able to move it.
The lesson is simple: do not judge only the outcome; understand the circumstances behind the outcome.
And this is where Equality meets Equity
In the corporate world, we often use the words Equality and Equity as if they mean the same thing, but they are not.
Equality means giving everyone the same standards, the same rules, the same targets and the same performance measures. This is important because an organisation needs fairness, accountability and transparency.
But Equity asks a different question: Were everyone working under the same circumstances?
Did they have the same team strength? Did they have the same resources? Were their market conditions similar? Did they inherit a healthy portfolio or a difficult one? Did they have experienced people or vacancies? Were they working in an established market or a difficult geography? Were they dealing with old problems that existed before they took charge?
If the circumstances are different, then simply comparing the final numbers may not tell the complete story.
Outcome vs Circumstances
This is one of the biggest challenges in corporate performance assessment.
We look at revenue, profit, growth, recovery, NPA, business targets and other numbers. These numbers are important and cannot be ignored. But numbers tell us what happened; they do not always tell us why it happened.
Imagine two executives.
One has a strong team, a healthy portfolio, good market conditions and established clients.
The other has staff shortages, a stressed portfolio, inherited problems, a difficult market and limited resources.
The first executive achieves 100 against a target, while the second achieves 80.
The dashboard will simply show 100 versus 80.
But a leader must look beyond the dashboard and understand the circumstances. Perhaps achieving 80 in difficult conditions required much more effort, leadership and problem-solving than achieving 100 in favourable conditions.
This does not mean that 80 should automatically be considered better than 100. It means that the numbers alone are not enough to understand performance.
A good leader therefore asks two questions:
“What did you achieve?”
And then:
“What did you have to overcome to achieve it?”
That second question often reveals the real leadership story.
Krishna’s lesson was not simply about winning a battle. It was about having the right perspective.
A manager may ask, “Who is performing the best?”
A leader also asks, “What circumstances is each person working in?”
If someone is behind, the answer may not always be lack of ability. Perhaps the person needs better resources, more guidance, better exposure, a stronger team or an opportunity to work in a different environment.
This does not mean lowering standards. It means understanding the situation before making a judgement.
Fairness does not mean treating everyone identically
In an organisation, fairness does not always mean treating everyone in exactly the same way.
Fairness means having common standards while understanding different circumstances.
There should be accountability, but with context.
There should be targets, but performance should be understood in the right environment.
There should be support, but standards should not be lowered.
That is the real meaning of equity.
Equity is not lowering the bar.
Equity is understanding the distance someone had to travel to reach the bar.
This matters in Appraisal and Promotion
The same principle applies when we assess people for appraisal and promotion.
A person’s performance should not be understood only through final numbers. We should also look at the portfolio they handled, the condition in which they received it, the strength of their team, the problems they inherited, the changes they introduced, the crises they handled, the people they developed and the systems they improved.
Some leaders deliver strong numbers.
Other leaders build the systems and teams that will deliver strong numbers in the future.
Both contributions matter, even though they may not always appear in the same quarter’s scorecard.
The Leadership Trap
The easiest form of management is to look at the outcome and make a judgement.
“Target was not achieved. Performance is poor.”
Leadership asks another question:
“Why was the target not achieved?”
Mature leadership goes one step further:
“Given the circumstances, what did the person do, what did they change, what did they learn, and what can be done differently next time?”
That is the difference between judging people and leading people.
Krishna did not simply look at how far the chariot moved. He looked at the weight the chariot was carrying.
Corporate leaders need the same perspective.
When we see an employee’s performance, look at the outcome—but also understand the circumstances.
When we see a business unit’s numbers, look at the numbers—but also understand the market, resources, portfolio and challenges.
When we assess a leader, look at the achievement—but also ask what that leader had to handle, what they changed and what they built.
Numbers tell the story of the Outcome.
Circumstances tell the story of the Leader.
The Kurukshetra war belongs to another age, but the leadership lesson remains relevant even today.
The next time we look at a scorecard and say, “This is the best performer” or “This person has performed poorly,” perhaps we should pause and ask one more question:
What was the outcome—and what were the circumstances?
Because every chariot is not the same.
Every team is not the same.
Every market is not the same.
Every portfolio is not the same.
And every leader does not get the same starting point.
So remember:
Equality in Standards.
Context in Assessment.
Equity in Support.
Fairness in Leadership.
Because:
Looking at results is Management.
Understanding the circumstances behind the results is Leadership.
And perhaps that is The Krishna Way.
Do not only look at how far the chariot moved.
Look at how much weight it was carrying.
Comments
Post a Comment