When the Method Matters Less Than the Outcome
In my previous article, I asked:
Why did Krishna spend more time persuading people than fighting battles?
That naturally leads to another question.
Was Krishna a manipulator, a strategist, or an ethical pragmatist?
The Mahabharata has several incidents where Krishna uses unconventional methods to achieve an outcome.
When facing Bhishma, Shikhandi was placed in front of Arjuna, knowing Bhishma would not fight Shikhandi.
When Ghatotkacha was creating havoc on the battlefield, Krishna knew that Karna possessed a divine weapon—the Shakti—which he had been saving for Arjuna. Ghatotkacha’s presence eventually forced Karna to use it, eliminating the weapon that could have become a serious threat to Arjuna.
And when Dhritarashtra was consumed by anger and wanted to embrace Bhima after the war, Krishna anticipated what could happen. An iron statue of Bhima was placed before Dhritarashtra instead. The king crushed the statue, believing it to be Bhima.
There is also a popular retelling of Krishna advising Duryodhana to cover himself before meeting Gandhari, thereby leaving his thighs vulnerable.
Now, what do we call these actions?
Manipulation? Strategy? Or ethical pragmatism?
Perhaps the answer depends on who is looking at it.
If you are a politician, it may be called manipulation.
If you are a General on a battlefield, it may be called strategy.
If you are a Project Manager trying to navigate a difficult situation, it may simply be called pragmatism.
Think about our own professional lives.
How do you present bad news about a project delay without creating panic?
How do you convince a key employee to stay when you know you cannot give them everything they want?
How do you negotiate with a vendor who is overshooting the targeted price?
How do you implement a major change when you know that a direct confrontation will create resistance?
In each of these situations, being completely blunt may not necessarily produce the best outcome.
Yet we often glorify being “straightforward.”
“I am a very straightforward person. I say exactly what I think.”
Fair enough. That is a choice.
But leadership is not a competition to see who can be the most blunt.
If a better outcome can be achieved through diplomacy, why should confrontation be the first choice?
This is where stakeholder management, negotiation and change management become particularly interesting.
Leadership is rarely black and white.
The decision may be right or wrong, ethical or unethical—but sometimes the answer also depends on the context, the intent, the consequences and the lens through which we judge it.
Managing a transformation, an M&A, a difficult stakeholder, a resistant team, or a sensitive project situation often requires us to wear different hats.
Sometimes the strategist.
Sometimes the negotiator.
Sometimes the diplomat.
And sometimes, yes, the ethical pragmatist.
Perhaps that is one of Krishna’s most uncomfortable lessons for modern leaders:
Doing the right thing does not always require doing it the obvious way.
And that brings us back to Krishna.
Was he a manipulator?
A strategist?
Or an ethical pragmatist?
Perhaps he was all three—depending on who was watching.
