A Journey from Hastinapur to the Corporations through the Matrix of Blake & Mouton

By-Dr Srabani Basu

Associate Professor, Department of Literature and Languages, Easwari School of Liberal Arts

SRM University AP, Amaravati.

The Mahabharata, India’s timeless epic, is not merely a tale of dynastic conflict and moral dilemmas. It is also a grand study in leadership, about how individuals wield power, influence, and vision in moments of crisis. The battlefield of Kurukshetra becomes, in effect, a laboratory where leadership styles emerge, clash, and evolve.

Modern leadership theory offers us powerful frameworks to understand these roles. Among them, Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid,which evaluates leaders across two axes, concern for people and concern for production, is instrumental. Their seven leadership archetypes (1.1 Impoverished, 9.1 Task-oriented, 1.9 Country Club, 5.5 Middle of the Road, 9.9 Team Leadership, Opportunistic, and Paternalistic) find striking parallels in the epic’s key characters.

By mapping Krishna, Bhishma, Yudhishthira, Duryodhana, Karna, and others onto these styles, we glimpse not only their motivations but also how their choices determined the destiny of Hastinapura.

1.1 – Impoverished Leadership: Dhritarashtra:

Blake and Mouton define the 1.1 style as “low concern for people, low concern for production.” Such leaders avoid responsibility, preferring inertia over action.

Dhritarashtra, the blind king of Hastinapura, exemplifies this mode. Despite being the sovereign, he abdicates moral responsibility, passively allowing events to unfold around him. He fails to check Duryodhana’s arrogance, ignores Vidura’s counsel, and becomes an onlooker to Draupadi’s humiliation. His blindness is both physical and symbolic. He failed to “see” the ethical imperatives of rulership.

In organisational terms, Dhritarashtra resembles a leader who avoids tough decisions, neither motivating his people nor driving results. His neglect leads to the erosion of authority, paving the way for destructive conflict. 

9.1 – Authority-Obedience / Task-Oriented Leadership: Bhishma

The 9.1 leader is single-mindedly focused on efficiency, order, and rules, with little regard for individual needs.

Bhishma, bound by his vow of loyalty to the throne of Hastinapura, embodies this style. His leadership is uncompromising, rooted in duty rather than compassion. Even when he disapproves of Duryodhana’s actions, he continues to serve him, believing fidelity to the throne outweighs personal conviction.

On the battlefield, Bhishma is ruthless, leading with discipline and martial skill. Yet his rigidity prevents him from adapting to moral realities. In modern parlance, he mirrors the “results at any cost” manager who is efficient but inflexible, often sacrificing human considerations for organizational loyalty. 

1.9 – Country Club Leadership: Yudhishthira

The 1.9 style emphasizes a high concern for people but minimal concern for results. Leaders in this quadrant prioritize harmony, sometimes at the expense of decisive action.

Yudhishthira, the eldest Pandava, is celebrated for his compassion, integrity, and fairness. His leadership seeks consensus, often yielding to maintain peace. His acceptance of the dice game invitationdespite knowing Shakuni’s cunning, is symptomatic of his excessive need to preserve relationships.

While he commands deep respect for his virtue, his reluctance to assert authority prolongs suffering. Yudhishthira represents the leader who values goodwill and morale but risks underperformance when faced with cutthroat competition. 

5.5 – Middle-of-the-Road Leadership: Karna

The 5.5 style strikes a balance between people and production, but without excellence in either.

Karna, the tragic son of Surya, occupies this middle space. As a leader, he shows loyalty to Duryodhana, gratitude to his benefactor, and genuine compassion toward the downtrodden. Yet, his pursuit of duty often clashes with his moral compass. He hesitates in Draupadi’s disrobing but remains silent out of loyalty. He seeks fairness but participates in adharmic strategies like killing Abhimanyu.

Karna thus reflects the “compromised” leader who is torn between values and obligations, achieving neither high efficiency nor strong relationships. His leadership is marked by noble intent but practical inconsistency. 

9.9 – Situational Leadership: Krishna

The 9.9 styleconsidered Blake & Mouton’s idealbalances a deep concern for people with a relentless drive toward results. Leaders here are visionaries who inspire collective purpose while ensuring effective execution.

Krishna is the epitome of this archetype. He recognizes the war as inevitable yet transforms it into a dharmic duty. By offering himself as Arjuna’s charioteer, he demonstrates servant leadership. Through the Bhagavad Gita, he integrates philosophy with strategy, aligning Arjuna’s personal despair with cosmic necessity.

Krishna inspires loyalty, fosters trust, and simultaneously drives performanceensuring the Pandavas fight with clarity and conviction. In organizational terms, he is the transformational leader, able to integrate empathy with vision, guiding individuals to transcend their limitations for a greater cause. 

Opportunistic Leadership: Shakuni

Blake and Mouton added the Opportunistic style later to describe leaders who exploit situations for personal gain, shifting between styles for advantage.

Shakuni, the wily uncle of the Kauravas, is the archetypal opportunist. He manipulates Duryodhana’s insecurities, engineers the rigged dice game, and thrives on sowing discord. His leadership is purely self-serving, leveraging others’ weaknesses to further his vendetta against the Kuru dynasty.

In contemporary terms, Shakuni mirrors the manipulative leader who thrives in organizational politics, exploiting loopholes, fostering division, and destabilizing teams for hidden agendas. His short-term tactical brilliance ultimately undermines long-term stability. 

Paternalistic Leadership: Dronacharya

The Paternalistic style blends authoritarianism with benevolence. Leaders here protect and discipline simultaneously, often expecting loyalty in return for patronage.

Dronacharya, the revered teacher of both Pandavas and Kauravas, exemplifies this approach. As a guru, he nurtures his disciples, imparting martial excellence. Yet, his sense of obligation to Hastinapura binds him to the Kauravas, even when he recognizes their moral failings. His insistence on demanding Ekalavya’s thumb as guru dakshina shows the shadow side of paternalism: favouringloyalty to hierarchy over merit.

In corporate terms, Drona resembles the leader who invests in employee development but demands unwavering allegiance, creating dependency rather than empowerment. 

The Mahabharata’s enduring appeal lies in its nuanced characters—none are purely virtuous or villainous. Each leadership style reveals both strengths and pitfalls:

Dhritarashtra (1.1) teaches us how neglect corrodes authority.

Bhishma (9.1) shows the perils of rigid duty divorced from empathy.

Yudhishthira (1.9) demonstrates that compassion without decisiveness can invite exploitation.

Karna (5.5) illustrates the tragedy of divided loyalties.

Krishna (9.9) embodies the transformative potential of integrated leadership.

Shakuni (Opportunistic) warns against manipulative politics.

Drona (Paternalistic) reveals the dangers of conditional benevolence. 

In boardrooms, start-ups, universities, and governments, leaders often oscillate among these styles. The Mahabharata, though centuries old, reflects enduring truths: leadership is rarely about choosing between good and evil, but about navigating complex obligations with clarity and courage.

Krishna’s 9.9 approach provides the ideal, balancing task and relationship, performance and empathy. Yet the epic reminds us that in real life, leaders like Bhishma, Yudhishthira, or Karna, caught in vows, ideals, or gratitudeoften stumble because they privilege one axis over the other.

The Managerial Grid, when mapped onto the Mahabharata, becomes more than a management theory. It becomes a mirror, urging modern leaders to ask: Am I blind like Dhritarashtra, rigid like Bhishma, hesitant like Yudhishthira, conflicted like Karna, cunning like Shakuni, conditional like Dronaor integrated like Krishna? 

The Mahabharata remains a reservoir of leadership insights, as relevant in corporate strategy rooms as in spiritual discourse. By reading its characters through Blake and Mouton’s lens, we see leadership not as static categories, but as evolving choices shaped by values, context, and vision.

Ultimately, Krishna’s style reminds us that the highest form of leadership integrates both axes: people and performance, while grounding action in dharma. Leaders who aspire to this balance, whether in politics, business, or education, can transform conflict into opportunity and uncertainty into clarity.