New Delhi, Dec 9 (IANS) Ratan Naval Tata, the Chairman Emeritus of Tata Sons and Chairman of Tata Trusts, has said that he has always been bothered by big businesses and corporations killing another organisation.
In an interview with YourStory, Tata said that it is important to work for the benefit of others and buying other companies just to bury them has bothered him. Tata added that one should be happy about another company or person's prosperity which he called, "the closest definition of happiness."
"Big businesses and corporations think nothing of killing another organisation because it's competing with their business. Companies are known to buy out other companies just to bury them in a drawer. That has always bothered me. So, if you can live with feeling happy about another company or another person's prosperity, then that would be the closest definition of happiness," he said.
Elaborating on the point, Tata said that while some people are good at causing misery, he feels happy by seeing someone else's happiness.
"Some people excel in seeing or causing misery. I get euphoric in seeing somebody's happiness. Even if it's a person selling vegetables on the side of the road, if there's humour or happiness on their faces, that makes me happy," he said.
Tata's advice to the young is that they do the right thing against all odds. "Doing the right thing may be the more difficult option, but it's still the better option," he said.
Tata also added in the interview with YourStory that he is worried about the disappointment he might cause by shutting the door on people.
"I just have a problem shutting the door on people. I would like to see them happy. So, to say that I don't have the time to see someone and think about the disappointment that that might cause, bothers me," he said.
Tata also gave himself low scores on treating employees fairly because sometimes compromises were required for the organsiation.
On his legacy, Tata said, "It's been more than a job. It's been a lifetime because the job has many attributes. One is the job itself and the performance you have for your shareholders and others, and the other is how you treat your employees. How fair (you've been).
"I would have a lower score than I would like to have on how fair you've been with your employees consciously because there are so many times you have to compromise something in the broader interest of the organisation. It would have been harder, but it would have been the right thing," he said.
--IANS
san/arm
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)
0