Longevity Is Usually A Reward For Being Unspectacular

Careers That Endure Are Typically Not Spectacular. This Is So In Politics As Well As Other Fields

- MANU JOSEPH

In the end, what many tributes to Dr. Manmohan Singh tried to say, shorn of frills, was that the economist survived long in politics because he posed no political threat to his party's true power centre. He was so reassuring; he even lost the only Lok Sabha election he contested.

For a man who was said to be incapable of subterfuge or even office politics, a skill in which Indians excel, Dr. Singh thrived in public office. He had been governor of the Reserve Bank of India and our most famous finance minister before he became one of India's longest-serving prime ministers. And he could achieve all this not only because he had an economic vision, but chiefly because he was not politically extraordinary. His source of power was assured that he would always need them and that he would never develop another source.

Often, endurance is nature's reward to a person whose presence is not spectacular. This phenomenon can be seen in almost everything humans do.

This is why corporate bosses, even when they claim, "I only hire people who are smarter than me," typically don't do that at all, especially when that fact is too evident in the 'smarter' candidate. A nerd with narrow genius and no managerial prospects might fare well, but people whose presence or role is spectacular in a broad way do not go very far up the tapering hierarchy. Founders and entrepreneurs always pounce on super talent as they are at no threat of being eclipsed, but in a typical office, the calibre of a boss is often the upper limit for talent in his team.