Two of the premier institutions, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) and National Institute of Design (NID), are celebrating their golden jubilee in December. The spirit of Vikram Sarabhai would feel vindicated that seeds sown by him continue to flourish and grow in a distinctive, notable and socially meaningful manner. He was a remarkable institution builder because he himself had lived just over a golden jubilee of his life. But almost all the institutions he created have continued to remain a point of reference in their chosen field. Why has excellence continued and what should be done to ensure that they continue to lead the way?

Let me share some lessons, which I feel might help institution builders and also the students in search of excellence. One of the basic building blocks of institutions that Vikram built was that they invested in future of people. Unlike many other institutions, which began by hiring people who had reputation behind them, IIMA and also NID invested in people who still had to build their reputation. It is a risky but entrepreneurial option.

I was hired 30 years ago without a doctorate then and with no degree in social sciences. Many universities would not even admit me for PhD for this reason. But IIMA looked at the publications, judged the potential and gave me a chance. I was nobody when I came; I became somebody after years of investment by the institute and colleagues.

Disregarding the difficulties one may face, the fact remains that these institutions provided abundant space for people to dig new furrows or deepen existing furrows. Here is an issue, which distinguishes what makes some institutions very good, but some become great. Many times colleagues don’t realise that if they don’t invest in their own ideas, why will others invest in their ideas? I recall a dialogue after a faculty meeting when a friend commented that I had so many staffers. I replied that this was a simple choice. When one does any consultancy project, one can decide to pay oneself all that one earns, or invest in younger colleagues who help him pursue ideas for which an external sponsor may not yet exist. Almost entire research I did in the field of grassroots creativity and innovation or in the formal sector, or on protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs), was self-financed in that manner. No external sponsor would have understood the importance of IPRs 25 years ago when neither WTO was there nor did anybody dream that IPRs could be an instrument in defence of poor people. The work in managing research and development in the organised or unorganised sector or in high-risk environments was pursued through similar research efforts.

My suggestion is that colleagues and institutions pursuing excellence take lead, identify their own agenda and invest their own resources (as much as they can) in pursuing that. This gives autonomy, agency and freedom and also liberates one from institutional dynamics. Institutions should also support that but it may not always be possible. But if one works only on problems defined by the clients who can pay, then one will keep shifting ground from one domain to another and never become an expert in the true sense. When Ranjan at NID did work on bamboo products, he became an authority. He may have got projects later on. Ashoke Chatterjee pursued the communication needs of the formal as well as developmental sector and became a worldwide expert. Late prof Labdhi Bhandari at IIMA opened the field of social marketing. How do we address the needs of those sectors and social segments which deserve our skills but cannot desire them?

This is a moral as well as personal ethical problem. Indian society generally respects those who have pursued unpopular agendas addressing needs of disadvantaged social segments. How much value we attach to that respect is for each one of us to decide. Learning from people, which Ravi Mathai argued for in an engaging manner, imbues a kind of energy that can only propel us to more and more difficult terrains and thus enhance our ability to take risk. No institution or individual ever achieves excellence unless he/she courts uncertainty, nay, maximises it. At the same time forgiving mistakes, accommodating dissent and diversity and encouraging adventurism are hallmarks of institutions, which are destined to be great, not just very good.