Don’t Just Dangle the Carrot. Ignite the Person.
The Sumantra Principle and a Powerful Lesson for Pharma Brand Managers – 132
Preamble
Carrots and Sumantra by Geoffry Zachari is a book about Sumantra Ghoshal.
Sumantra Ghoshal (1948–2004) was one of India’s most influential management thinkers, known for bringing humanity, purpose, and energy into management theory. He taught at London Business School and authored landmark books like Managing Across Borders, considered among the 50 most influential management books.
A major part of his legacy is his role as the founding Dean of the Indian School of Business (ISB), Hyderabad, where he helped shape its global vision and academic culture.
Ghoshal believed companies should focus less on control and more on trust, purpose, and people, ideas that continue to inspire leaders worldwide.
The Sumantra Principle says: Create the right environment, and people will motivate themselves. People do their best work when they feel free, trusted, respected, and connected, not when they are pushed, punished, or bribed.
The Sumantra Principle
While ‘Carrots and Sticks’ is the classic model of motivation, the Sumantra Ghoshal asks a deeper question: what do you do when the carrot is no longer enough?
It reminds us that people are not driven just by rewards or pressure. They are driven by meaning, purpose, by dignity, by trust, by the feeling that their work touches lives.
When you speak to that by inner place, the place where purpose lives, people rise higher than any carrot can push them.
They don’t just work; they contribute. They don’t just comply; they care. That is the power of the Sumantra Principle.
This is a fascinating idea in the book Carrots and Sumantra by Jaffrey Zachari.
And for anyone who leads people, it carries a powerful message:
People perform better when they WANT to do something, NOT when they HAVE to do.
Let us understand this through two managers.
N.P. Shankar, Vice President (Sales and Marketing) of Rigel Pharmaceuticals tells his team:
“Achieve your target and you will get a handsome incentive, A 15-day trip of Europe via Eurail. Miss it and the company will screw you.”
And everyone responds, “We will do that!” But do they have the intrinsic motivation?
N. P. Shankar has introduced inhumanism into selling; a cold, mechanical approach that forgets the human being standing in front of us.
On the other hand, Vice President Om Prakash of Canopus Biopharma says:
“We want every person with diabetes in India to live a healthy, near‑normal life. That is why your Zepriva (semaglutide) truly matters.
Today, 11% of India’s population is diabetic, and 15.3% may be pre‑diabetic, according to the ICMR‑INDAB study, also published in The Lancet – Diabetes in 2023. This is a silent danger to our country.
Our Public Relations head has hired a prominent advertising agency. The agency will run a parallel movement to help the people of India understand this threat, and to inspire pre‑diabetics to act before it is too late.”
When people hear words like ‘your Zepriva’, ‘a silent danger to our country’, and ‘help the people of India’, something shifts inside them. Everyone says: I want to contribute to this mission. What can I do? How can I contribute?
Om Prakash has brought in Humanism in Marketing.
That is the difference between external motivation and intrinsic motivation.
N. P. Shanker uses the carrot (and also the stick).
Om Prakash ignites something inside everyone.
There is nothing wrong with carrots.
Incentives, recognition, bonuses, and rewards have a prominent place in sales management.
The problem begins when the carrot becomes the entire motivational strategy. A carrot can change behaviour. But it cannot necessarily create conviction. It can make someone run faster. But it cannot tell them where they should run. It can make people chase numbers. But it cannot automatically make them want to build something meaningful.
Intrinsic motivation comes from deeper sources:
Purpose.
Pride.
Ownership.
Curiosity.
Mastery.
Belief.
The desire to make a difference.
And this distinction becomes particularly important in pharmaceutical marketing.
Because pharma is not merely about selling products. It is about influencing clinical behaviour, building physician confidence, creating appropriate patient access and, ultimately, contributing to better patient outcomes.
That requires people who don’t merely work for the incentive. It requires people who believe in what they are doing.
And this brings us to a fascinating, and somewhat uncomfortable story from the recent Indian pharmaceutical market.
The Semaglutide Story
When semaglutide entered the Indian market, it created enormous excitement. The molecule had already generated global attention. The opportunity appeared huge.
For 30+ pharmaceutical companies, it was a market that seemed too attractive to ignore.
The race began.
Companies wanted to establish their brands quickly. And the field force was given an immensely powerful reason to move fast:
Incentives.
Attractive incentives were reportedly offered to sales teams for achieving ambitious targets. And the sales force responded.
Why wouldn’t it? The carrot was fat and juicy. The opportunity was exciting. The targets were clear. The numbers started moving. On the sales dashboard, the story looked beautiful.
Targets achieved. Sales growing. Teams performing.
Everyone could celebrate.
But then came the twist.
A few months later, reports emerged of substantial unsold inventory, with the dead-stock value being put at more than ₹100 crore. Rigel Pharmaceuticals alone had accumulated thirteen crores. On the other hand, Canopus had no deadstock and accumulated inventory.
And suddenly, an uncomfortable question appeared:
If the targets were achieved, how did so much inventory become dead?
This is where the Sumantra Principle becomes particularly relevant.
Perhaps the problem was not that the sales force was insufficiently motivated.
Perhaps it was that the motivation was predominantly external.
The incentive may have succeeded in stimulating immediate sales. But sustainable market development requires something much deeper.
The field force and the brand managers have to understand:
Who is the appropriate patient?
What is the doctor’s concern?
What are the barriers to adoption?
What does the patient really need?
Will the prescription continue?
Is the demand genuine and sustainable?
Are we helping doctors, their patients, and their caregivers, or merely pushing numbers?
These questions cannot be answered by an incentive scheme alone.
They require judgement. They require ownership. They require the courage to say:
“This target may be aggressive. The market may not support it. Let us examine what is really happening.”
That is intrinsic motivation at work.
A field force driven only by the carrot may think:
“How do we achieve our target?”
Field force who has developed ownership may think:
“How do I help doctors, patients and caregivers?”
These two mindsets are different.
One is about the number. The other is about the care for the patients with diabetes.
One can produce a short-term spike. The other can create a sustainable brand. And this is perhaps where the semaglutide episode offers a valuable lesson to pharmaceutical leaders.
Don’t confuse sales achievement with brand development.
A target can be achieved because people have been incentivized to achieve it.
But brands are built only when there is genuine demand.
A prescription generated today is not necessarily a sustainable prescription. A stockist order is not necessarily patient consumption. A primary sale is not necessarily a secondary sale.
And a beautiful sales graph does not always mean that the brand is healthy.
This is where sales leaders and brand managers need to look beyond the dashboard.
Don’t ask only:
“Did we achieve the target?”
Ask:
“Why and how did we achieve it?”
And even more importantly:
“What is happening after the sale?”
Is the product moving? Are patients continuing therapy? Are physicians convinced?
Is the demand pulling the product through the channel? Or are we merely pushing stock because an incentive is attached to it?
The carrot can sometimes hide these questions. And that is why the Sumantra Principle is so powerful. It reminds us that people are not machines waiting for rewards. They are thinking human beings. Give them a target and an incentive, and they may achieve the target.
Give them purpose, knowledge, autonomy and ownership, and they may build something much bigger.
The semaglutide episode, therefore, should not simply be dismissed as an incentive-related mistake.
View it as a leadership lesson.
A carrot can produce a sprint. But sustainable brand building requires people willing to run the marathon.
So, the next time we design an incentive scheme, perhaps we should ask one additional question:
“What are we doing to make our people WANT to build this brand?”
Because…
Carrots can drive behaviour. But only intrinsic motivation can create commitment.
What is that most important lesson from the Sumantra Principle?
Don’t merely dangle the carrot. Ignite the person.
The Sumantra Principle will create the right environment, and people will motivate themselves.