After the emasculation of the IIMs through two-tier board control and a careful process of selection of the “right” board members, comes the bit about the “coordination” that the pan-IIM super board will do amongst the IIMs, bringing them all down to the lowest common denominator. The report preaches the doctrine of “sameness” across all IIMs, ignoring the idea that strategically, differentiation is what makes the larger IIMs collectively more competitive. IIM-C chose a more analytical, quantitative orientation while, IIM-A pursued a more generalist program, inspired by its original collaborator, Harvard Business School. IIM-B has gone the functional and sector specialisation route. In recent times, IIM-A has chosen to launch a one-year executive MBA and a one-year program for policy makers and development sector folks; both are very successful, took a lot of effort to create, and happened because some of its faculty were passionate about it and took the initiative. That’s how academic institutions produce good work — fiats and mandates from higher up never work without faculty passion and motivation. 

To discourage all such “non-centralised” entrepreneurial activity, the report also recommends that the pan-IIM board should have the power to transfer faculty that they consider underutilised in one IIM to another. Faculty have moved across IIMs and will continue to do so — but their choice depends on their interests and priorities, and not because some underemployed pan-IIM committee with the dangerous weapon of “transfer” in its hands, decided to “load balance”. The committee clearly does not understand the value of brand differentiation, or what motivates knowledge workers; perhaps because control, and not value creation, is their primary paradigm. 

... contd.