Aurangzeb, Leadership and Cognitive Biases
This article was originally published on Linkedin in January 2020.
Being born in Aurangabad, Maharashtra named after the last prominent Mughal ruler Aurangzeb, I have always been intrigued by the fact he spent 26 years of life in this region, fighting a war which eventually led to the downfall of the Mughal Empire. He ruled over a population estimated to be over 158 million, with an annual revenue of more than ten times that of his contemporary Louis XIV of France, however, within a few decades after his death the Mughal power was limited to the borders of Delhi. It was because apart from the fact that he was an unjust religious bigot there are several other flaws he had as a leader.
Thus, there is a lot to learn from Aurangzeb on how ‘not to lead’ and he serves as a very good example of the sunk cost fallacy and other cognitive biases which adversely affect one’s decision making. Here are some of the parallels drawn between Aurangzeb and seemingly successful leaders of today’s world who are equally disastrous to their organisations as Aurangzeb was to the Mughal Empire.
Smokescreen of Hard-work and Ethics
History has portrayed the Emperor as a workaholic who toiled hard till the age of 89. In spare time he sew caps and made copies of the Quran, money earned from this was used for his personal expenses. Unlike his predecessors who spent huge amounts on constructing magnificent buildings and leisure activities, he considered that the royal treasury must be used only for the citizens and the empire. However, his expenditure on wars was much more than the luxurious lifestyles of previous Mughal Emperors which in the end proved fatal to the empire.
Being hardworking is always perceived as being correct ethically and logically in terms of decision making. Owing to this he was able to create a negative perception of his brother Dara Shikoh of being too worldly and irreligious to lead the empire. Similar examples are also seen today, workaholic leaders in politics and corporates, create a smoke screen to hide their incompetencies and create a negative view towards those who work less than them and have a healthy work life balance.
Using fear to lead and Failure to create a vision
When Khan e Jahan Bahadur, who was leading the attack on Ramshej fort failed in his efforts he was asked to pay ₹ 37,000 into the royal treasury, since he had promised results. Similarly Raja Jai Singh of Amber, a loyal and the highest ranked Rajput General in the Mughal army who had earlier subdued Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was heavily penalised when the Maratha king escaped from house arrest in Agra.
A saddened Jai Singh wrote –
“In four ways losses have fallen upon me—first my mujra (honour) is gone, second the districts of my kingdom have been taken away (by Aurangzeb), thirdly what I spent on this war is gone, and fourthly—and what is worst of all—my son’s affairs have been ruined.”
Thus fear – fear of losing the rank, fear of getting penalized or getting rewarded with more lands or power were the only motivating factors. Even today business leaders without a vision of welfare or providing value to the customer are left with fear as the only tool to lead, which eventually fails owing to the lack of empathy and respect to the team.
During his reign, the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. (Historian William Durrant)
On the other hand, during Aurangzeb’s lifetime alone the Marathas resiliently fought under 4 different rulers one after the other since they were led by a vision and not by fear or expecting cash rewards.
Not ensuring stability on current projects before embarking on new ones
As he moved his capital to Aurangabad, in the North, Sikhs, Jatts, and Rathores rebelled. Raja Ram Singh along with the Jat Zamindars of Braj looted and desecrated Akbar’s tomb to avenge the execution of their previous leader Gokula Singh. This shows how weak the empire was internally without their king.
Thus his failure to stabilize the north before embarking to the campaign in south exacerbated the situation and opened several war-fronts at the same time.
Expansionist attitude without SWOT
An ambitious ruler, he set out to expand his kingdom further by trying to conquer the entire of southern India. But before he embarked on this mission he failed to prepare his armies with the style of warfare practiced in Deccan and most importantly failed to gauge the resilience of his enemies.
Earlier a similar situation was seen at the Battle of Saraighat in Assam. Although much weaker, the Ahom Army defeated the Mughal Army by brilliant uses of the terrain and tactics. This battle was such a disaster that further no major attempt was made by the Mughals to conquer Assam. It appears that he did not learn from the mistakes of his past projects and continued to rely heavily on simply using a vast number of resources for wars.
Leaders in startups in order to prove their mettle take up several ambitious engagements without proper assessments of strengths and end up draining their assets. People with expansionist attitude portray themselves as powerful and more capable than those who take a cautious approach.
Sunk Cost Bias
It is an amusing fact that he spent nearly 6 years to conquer fort Ramshej (near Nashik, Maharashtra) and another 7 years to capture Fort Jinjee. Enormous wealth and efforts were spent for 13 years in Deccan just to capture these 2 forts.
If we view this from the lens of Behavioral Economics, we can see that Aurangzeb’s 26 years war in Deccan is the classic example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Individuals commit the sunk cost fallacy when they continue a behavior or endeavor as a result of previously invested resources (time, money or effort) (Arkes & Blumer, 1985).
Such cognitive biases continue to haunt people and organisations even in our daily lives. Consider this example of the sunk cost bias –
Individuals sometimes order too much food and then overeat just to “get their money’s worth”. Similarly, a person may have a $20 ticket to a concert and then drive for hours through a blizzard, just because she feels that she has to attend due to having made the initial investment. If the costs outweigh the benefits, the extra costs incurred (inconvenience, time or even money) are held in a different mental account than the one associated with the ticket transaction (Thaler, 1999). (Source: https://www.behavioraleconomics.com)
A related phenomenon is plan continuation bias which is the tendency to continue with a plan that is failing. A ship’s captain or aircraft’s pilots may face this dangerous bias leading to fatal disasters while persisting to the planned course instead of aborting. Plan-continuation bias can result from the interaction of various factors as cognitive load, task demands, and social influences. In a review of 37 accidents by NASA and Ames Research Center, it was determined that almost 75% of the tactical decision errors involved in these accidents were related to decisions to continue on the original plan of action despite the presence of cues suggesting an alternative course of action.
Startups who have received millions in funding fall into this trap of plan continuation wherein they continue to spend on projects which eventually fail. Dekker (2006) suggests that this occurs when the cues used to formulate the initial plan are considered to be very strong.
There are several other cognitive biases that adversely affect one’s decisions. For example –
- Confirmation bias, due to which people favour information that confirms their own existing beliefs and biases.
- Sunflower Bias – Tendency to align with the views of the leader. This one is perhaps the most important bias to look for in the corporate world. When a leader speaks up first, there are huge chances when people with Sunflower bias will align with the leader without contributing original thought. “When the boss speaks up first, the likelihood that anybody who’s not the boss will speak up with a dissenting opinion is much lower than if you, for example, have a conscious rule that the bigwigs in the hierarchy are the ones to speak up last, and you listen to all the other evidence before their opinion is offered. People hesitate to being pessimistic as they stand at the risk of being branded as eternal naysayers.” (A case study against combating bias, Mckinsey Quarterly, May 2017 – https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/a-case-study-in-combating-bias)
- Champion Bias – The tendency to evaluate a plan or proposal based on the track record of the person presenting it, more than on the facts supporting it.
The recent events at Boeing 737 Max controversy which has led to hundreds of deaths in plane crashes or the admittance of SoftBank’s CEO that he made poor investment judgments are the culmination of several faults owing to biases and presence of leaders with greed and a non-confrontational nature.
Well, it will be a foolish exaggeration to compare corporate leaders to Aurangzeb who has gone down in Indian history as one of the most cruel and unjust rulers, but today we do not have kings and armies, it is the corporates who are calling the shots and toxic leaders lead companies to disasters and into following unsustainable business practices causing harm to society.
References:
Wikipedia – Aurangzeb, Jai Singh, Raja Ram Singh.
https://www.academia.edu/15340298/The_death-bed_letters_and_the_last_wills_of_Emperor_Auragzeb
https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-siege-of-ramsej-aurangzeb-was-frustrated-for-years-2672396
Thinker Sutra 