Learn, Accept or Deny: Three Leadership Styles

The recently concluded assembly election in Tamil Nadu delivered a generational shift in politics. Yes, Tamil Nadu, the pioneer state for many things good and bad in electoral politics, has set a clear benchmark this time. For many observers, the results themselves came as a surprise. What fascinated me was not merely the electoral outcome. It was the three distinct leadership styles that emerged after the results were declared. These observations are not about ideology, governance records or political history. They are restricted purely to the styles displayed in the days following the election results until the vote of confidence which the Government managed to win.

I feel these differing styles offer a lot of perspectives and even a moment of self-reflection for MSME founders and business leaders as well. As Shakespeare said, “Heavy is the head that wears the crown”. As leaders we all wear a crown of some kind. The question is what kind of leader we choose to be when the weight of it shows.

1. Mr. Vijay — The Leader Who Is Willing to Learn

Mr. Vijay is not a typical politician. Until recently he was one of Tamil Nadu’s biggest film stars. In 2024 he founded his own political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam and contested his first election. Most political veterans gave him little chance. He won and is now Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, one of India’s most industrially significant states.

What stood out immediately to me when he took charge as the new Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was his willingness to learn and adapt. Some people mocked him for carrying notes and writing things down during the assembly meeting. To a section of observers, it looked childish or amateurish. But personally, I found it very effective. Perhaps I connected with it because I too like to write things down and jot points.

The thought that crossed my mind was “Here is a newbie who isn’t afraid to show that he is a newbie. Instead, he uses that as a strength.”

Most leaders try to project perfection from Day One. They try to create an image that they already know everything. But here was someone willing to openly acknowledge that he is still learning. That matters. Because the willingness to learn is often more valuable than the illusion of already knowing.

I also noticed another aspect — the willingness to roll up the sleeves and get onto the ground to do actual work. There was visible effort to engage directly, observe carefully and understand systems firsthand instead of merely functioning through layers of intermediaries.

Equally notable was the outreach. Meeting leaders from other political parties, visiting them in their homes and attempting to build bridges showed political maturity. Of course, there were exceptions and not every interaction happened smoothly. But the larger signal was clear — relationships matter. For a first-time leader stepping into a massive responsibility, this combination of humility, observation and action can become a powerful asset.

2. Mr. M. K. Stalin — The Leader Who Takes Ownership

Mr. M. K. Stalin is no political novice. Son of the late Mr. M. Karunanidhi, one of the most dominant political figures in Tamil Nadu’s history, he spent decades in his father’s shadow before becoming Chief Minister in 2021. Though he personally lost this election, his party, DMK ended up as the principal opposition party.

What he did in the aftermath is what interests me here. He immediately set the ball rolling by taking up responsibility for the defeat. He was very candid and open about it. He showed no defensiveness. Yes, leadership is tested most during defeat. Victory naturally creates celebration. Defeat reveals character.

What stood out in the approach of Mr. M. K. Stalin was the willingness to absorb responsibility instead of immediately shifting blame elsewhere. The decision to initiate a review process and study what went wrong reflects an important leadership trait: course correction. Every organisation, political party or business will eventually face setbacks. Markets change. Customers evolve. Competitors emerge. Internal weaknesses get exposed. The question is not whether mistakes will happen. They will. The real question is how leadership responds.

Strong leaders create systems for feedback. They are willing to hear uncomfortable truths. They understand that denial only delays recovery. Many leaders make the mistake of surrounding themselves only with people who constantly reassure them that everything is fine. But organisations stagnate when feedback stops flowing upward. The willingness to introspect after a setback is not a weakness. It is maturity.

And sometimes, the ability to course-correct quickly becomes more important than the original strategy itself.

3. Mr. Edappadi K. Palaniswami — The Leader Who Protects His Turf

Mr. Edappadi K. Palaniswami, known widely as EPS, built his political career from the grassroots up. A former Chief Minister himself, he leads the AIADMK, one of the state’s two historically dominant parties. His party lost this election and internally the pressure has been building for some time. How he responded to both the external defeat and the internal friction revealed a third style of leadership entirely.

What became visible here was resistance to ownership and an apparent attempt to protect existing power structures and fiefdoms. To be fair, this is not new territory for Mr. Edappadi K. Palaniswami. He has navigated political turbulence before. He understands survival politics better than most.

But there is also a limit to how long any organisation can function through centralised control and suppression of differing views. You cannot keep bulldozing people or suppressing dissenting voices indefinitely. Organisations weaken when internal dissent is automatically treated as disloyalty instead of feedback. This applies equally to politics and business. There are leaders who believe controlling dissent is the same as strengthening the organisation. It works temporarily. Strong performers leave. Independent thinkers are isolated. Senior voices are treated as threats because they influence younger cadres or employees. Eventually the organisation becomes loyal, but weak.

This is something many traditional MSMEs also struggle with. Markets change. Customers evolve. Younger employees think differently. But instead of adapting, leadership often chooses denial and tighter control.

The Business Parallel

Many MSME founders assume leadership insights come only from business books or corporate case studies. But leadership patterns are visible everywhere — including politics. In many ways, this election and its result was unusual. It gave us three distinct approaches to leadership. The questions that now lie in front of us as business leaders are:

• Are we willing to learn openly, even when it makes us look like we don’t have all the answers?
• Are we willing to own failure without deflecting to the market, the team or the timing?
• Are we able to hear uncomfortable feedback before it’s too late to act on it?

Leadership is not one fixed template. There are multiple ways to lead. But adaptability, ownership and people management continue to remain central across every domain. Businesses often fail not because of poor products, but because leadership fails to evolve with changing realities.

That is perhaps the biggest insight from these contrasting styles.