Mina vs. Arjun – compassionate CEO vs. strict manager

    Two Indian leaders face the same cost-cutting crisis with opposite styles — Mina leads with compassion and keeps her people, Arjun leads with control and loses his best ones.

    Mina vs. Arjun – compassionate CEO vs. strict manager

    Mina vs. Arjun – compassionate CEO vs. strict manager

    Two Indian companies. Two leaders. The same brutal instruction from the board: cut costs, now. Mina found a way to do it that kept her people. Arjun found a way to do it that lost them. Same problem, opposite outcomes — and the difference wasn't strategy. It was Leadership, Trait #25 on the Winning Kite, and how each of them chose to use it.

    In short

    Where this sits on your Winning Kite

    In the Winning Kite, Leadership is Trait #25 — the last and, in many ways, the culminating trait on the EQ (Emotional Intelligence), left side of the kite. It is the trait where everything else you've built — self-awareness, empathy, emotional management, influence — comes together into the ability to move a group of people toward a shared goal. A kite needs balance on all four sides — EQ, RQ, PQ and Success — to fly. Mina's story shows what happens when a leader flies with EQ intact. Arjun's shows what happens when it's missing. Read the full framework at The Winning Kite (KITE Leadership Framework).

    The tale of two leaders

    I use this story often in my leadership sessions because it's deliberately simple — two people, one problem, two very different roads. In the imaginary Indian corporate context I built it in, Mina is a caring CEO. Arjun is a strict manager. Both of them, in their own companies, hit the same wall: costs had to come down.

    Mina took the compassionate route. She didn't start with the spreadsheet. She started with her people — trying to understand how they were feeling about the pressure the company was under, and what a cost-cutting exercise would do to their sense of security and motivation. She brought her team into the decision-making process instead of announcing it to them. Together, they looked for ways to reduce expenses that didn't gut morale — trimming what could be trimmed without touching the things that made people feel valued. Because her team had a hand in shaping the cuts, they understood the "why" behind every change. The result: Mina kept a positive atmosphere inside the company. Her people stayed loyal. They stayed engaged. The company came through the cost-cutting phase leaner, but not broken.

    Arjun took the other route. He had the same target — hit the number — and he pursued it with total focus, but with no regard for how his decisions landed on the people who had to live with them. He didn't consult. He didn't explain. He cut, and expected compliance. The result showed up quickly: high employee turnover, and low morale across his department. The very people he needed to execute the recovery were the ones walking out of the door. What should have been a temporary belt-tightening became, for Arjun, a slow leak of talent and trust that outlasted the crisis itself — and it dragged down the overall success of the company he was trying to save money for.

    That's the whole story on the surface. But sit with it a moment longer, because the lesson underneath is sharper than "be nice to people." Mina and Arjun made, roughly, the same decision. Costs came down in both companies. The difference was never the destination — it was the road, and who was allowed to walk it with the leader instead of being marched down it.

    Why compassion is a leadership skill, not a leadership style

    In my sessions, someone always asks: "Isn't Mina just lucky to have a nice team? Wouldn't Arjun's approach work in a more disciplined, no-nonsense industry?" I've trained in enough disciplined environments — Army units, PSU shop floors, RBI and BARC offices — to know the answer: no. Discipline and compassion are not opposites. The most disciplined organisations I've worked with are often the ones where the leader's EQ is highest, not lowest.

    What Mina understood, and Arjun didn't, is that a target is only half the job. The other half is bringing your people along with you while you chase it. Involving her team wasn't Mina being soft — it was Mina being strategic. People who help design a hard decision defend it afterwards. People who simply receive a hard decision resent it. Arjun got compliance in the short term and an exodus in the medium term. Mina got a company that came out the other side of the crisis intact, because her team never stopped believing she was on their side even while she was cutting their budgets.

    The leader as an emotional mirror

    This is where the Mina-and-Arjun story connects to a bigger idea I teach under Leadership: leaders act as mirrors for the group. Whatever emotional tone a leader sets ripples through the entire organisation below them. Share positive emotions, model steadiness under pressure, stay approachable — and the group tends to mirror that back, staying supportive and solution-focused even in hard times. Project rigidity, negativity and control instead, and the group mirrors that too, quietly disengaging even in the most disciplined structures.

    Because leaders hold disproportionate power and visibility, people unconsciously mimic their leader's emotional state. That's not a soft observation — it's a mechanism. It's why Mina's calm, consultative tone during the cost-cutting exercise produced a calm, cooperative team, and why Arjun's rigid, target-only tone produced an anxious, defensive one. Neither of them necessarily intended the atmosphere they created. But both of them were responsible for it, because a leader's emotional state is never private — it becomes the organisation's emotional state.

    I also teach a companion example alongside this one: two team leads in an Indian software company, Ravi and Priya. Ravi has what I call emotional charisma — he consistently shares genuine, positive emotion with his team, and he does it with his whole self: words, body language, voice, expression. His team feels motivated and works together effectively, and the project succeeds. Priya isn't as in tune with her own emotions. She comes across as insincere, even manipulative, though that may not be her intent — and her team responds with a lack of trust, poor collaboration and missed deadlines. Convincing people requires sincerity. You cannot fake the emotional tone a team needs from you; they can tell the difference, the same way Mina's team could tell the difference between being consulted and being managed.

    What the research says

    A study at a top Indian management institute looked specifically at how a leader's emotional approach shapes organisational outcomes. The finding was consistent: the most successful leaders combined a people-friendly style with strong leadership — not one instead of the other. Effective leaders in the study were positive, outgoing, expressive, approachable, trusting and kind, well above average. Less successful leaders were rigid, negative and controlling — and that emotional style failed to deliver results even inside highly disciplined organisations, which quietly demolishes the excuse that "strict works better in strict environments." This mirrors what Daniel Goleman's research on emotional intelligence in leadership has long argued — that EQ, not IQ alone, predicts who actually leads well once the pressure is on. Avinash's framework simply gives it an Indian face and a name: Mina and Arjun.

    Companies estimate that emotional skills account for anywhere between 80 and 100 percent of the factors that separate a good leader from a forgettable one. The most successful CEOs I've studied and worked with combine three clusters of skill: personal skills like self-confidence, dedication and the drive to achieve; social skills like influence, empathy and reading the room; and thinking skills like strategy and creative problem-solving. Excellent leaders weave emotion into their plans deliberately — a great CEO doesn't just announce a target, they give an inspiring speech about where the company is headed, using stories that make the message stick. That's not decoration. That's leadership doing its actual job: exciting, motivating and guiding people, not just directing them.

    How to apply the Mina lesson at work

    You don't need to be a CEO facing a cost-cutting mandate to use this. The pattern shows up any time a leader has to deliver a hard decision — a target, a restructuring, a policy change nobody asked for.

    Leadership, in the end, is not the ability to hit a target. Both Mina and Arjun hit their targets. Leadership is what's left standing on the other side of that target — a team that trusts you, or a team that's already updating its resume. If you're building leadership capability inside your own organisation, my Signature Corporate Training Programs go deep into this exact trait, alongside the other 24 traits that make up the EQ side of the Winning Kite. You can also explore the full library of corporate training topics I run for teams across India.

    Bring These Ideas to Your Team

    Avinash Chate turns the traits in Stars at India Inc. into live leadership & emotional-intelligence workshops. TEDx speaker · 11+ yrs training Army, BRO, RBI, BARC, JSW & 1000+ leaders.

    ✅ Thanks! Avinash team will reach out within 24 hours.

    '}).catch(function(e){f.outerHTML='

    Something went wrong. WhatsApp +91 8793630001

    '});return false;">Select ServiceKeynote / Motivational SpeakingLeadership Development TrainingTeam Building WorkshopManager DevelopmentEmployee TrainingBook Avinash Now →

    Or WhatsApp directly: +91 87936 30001

    Work with Avinash Chate

    Avinash Chate

    TEDx Speaker · Founder, The Future Corporate · Author of Stars at India Inc.

    Avinash has trained the Indian Army, BRO, RBI, BARC, JSW Steel and 1000+ corporate leaders across India. His work focuses on leadership, emotional intelligence and behavioural training rooted in Indian values and modern business needs.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the Mina vs. Arjun story about?

    It is a contrast between two Indian leaders who both had to cut costs. Mina, a CEO, involved her team, protected morale, and cut costs without losing loyalty. Arjun, a manager, focused only on the target and lost people and trust in the process.

    Why does compassionate leadership work better than strict control during a crisis?

    Because people remember how a decision was made, not just what was decided. Compassionate leaders like Mina bring people into the process, so even hard news lands as shared responsibility. Strict leaders like Arjun issue decisions from above, which breeds resentment, turnover and quiet disengagement.

    Is compassionate leadership the same as being a soft or weak leader?

    No. Mina still had to cut costs — the hard business decision did not change. What changed was how she made it: with empathy, consultation and honesty. Compassion is a leadership skill, not an absence of one.

    Where does Leadership sit in the Winning Kite framework?

    Leadership is Trait #25, the capstone trait of Emotional Intelligence — the EQ, left side of the Winning Kite. It draws on nearly every other EQ trait: self-awareness, empathy, emotional management and influence, all combined into the ability to guide others toward a shared goal.

    Related Articles by Avinash Chate

    Avinash Chate services

    Corporate Training · Leadership Development · Team Building · Motivational Speaking · All service locations

    ← Back to all articles · Book Avinash Chate

    By Avinash Chate — Maharashtra’s #1 Corporate Trainer & Motivational Speaker. .