UdyamGita

Duryodhana knows his own limitations and is not confident about his credibility. To win Drona’s confidence, he takes the reference of Bhishma and says that Bhishma has formed this team. He assumes that with Bhishma’s credentials, Drona will accept the team formation without a second thought. This itself is a big red flag. Duryodhana does not own the decision. Instead, he relies on someone else’s credibility to build confidence among leaders and the team.

He then says that the Kaurava team is formed by Bhishma and the Pandava team by Bhima, and therefore his team is superior. Here, there are two clear red flags.

First, he is still stuck with Bhima. The Pandava team was clearly not marshalled by Bhima alone. Even here, Duryodhana tries to put down Bhima’s credentials by comparing them with Bhishma’s, which is unnecessary. Second, he presents a wrong data point. The Pandavas formed their team collectively. Just to make his side look better, Duryodhana connects unrelated data points. This creates a false feel good factor, and when such bubbles burst, they can completely destroy the team’s trust.

The business lesson is very clear. Never compare apples with oranges just to feel good. If you cannot accept the gap, you will never fix it. If you truly want to fix it, first accept the gap and then start working towards closing it.

This also becomes a classic case of bad green behavior by Duryodhana. Business owners should encourage employees to show good red instead of bad green. In status meetings, milestones are often marked green to show progress and red to highlight problems. Many times, teams manipulate or relate irrelevant data just to show the status as green. When this happens, management misses the real problem areas, and over time this can cascade into complete failure.

Instead, if teams honestly mark issues as red and come with a clear plan to fix them, they receive the right support and can turn those reds into green quickly. Encourage a culture of good red and say a firm no to bad green. Let this mindset sink in deeply. To win, you have to fix issues, and to fix them, the first step is to acknowledge the gap and own it.

Duryodhana now attempts to assert confidence. He declares that the Kaurava army is unlimited in strength and securely marshalled by Grandsire Bhishma, while the Pandava army—carefully arranged by Bhima—is limited.

On the surface, this sounds like reassurance. Beneath it lies insecurity. Duryodhana does not present this confidence as his own judgment; instead, he borrows authority. By invoking Bhishma’s stature, he hopes to remove doubt and win Dronacharya’s unquestioned acceptance of the setup.

Business Insight

This is a classic leadership red flag: lack of ownership masked by borrowed credibility.

Duryodhana does not stand behind the decision himself. He leans on Bhishma’s reputation to compensate for his own lack of conviction. In business, when leaders repeatedly justify decisions by citing big names, past successes, or external validation, it signals weak internal alignment.

More troubling is the comparison he draws. He claims the Pandava army is marshalled by Bhima—an inaccurate and misleading statement. The Pandavas were organized collectively, not by Bhima alone. Duryodhana deliberately uses an unrelated data point to make his side appear superior.

This creates a false sense of security. Such feel-good bubbles may boost morale temporarily, but when reality surfaces, they often destroy trust far more brutally.

Leadership Lesson

Two deeper leadership failures emerge here.

First, Duryodhana remains psychologically fixated on Bhima. Even when discussing strategy, he cannot move beyond his personal rival. This obsession clouds objective assessment.

Second, this verse illustrates a timeless organizational problem: “bad green.”

In business reviews, teams sometimes mark milestones as green by collating selective or irrelevant data—making problems look solved when they are not. Management feels reassured, issues go unaddressed, and risks quietly compound until failure becomes unavoidable.

Great leaders encourage “good red”—honest reporting of gaps with a clear plan to fix them. Acknowledging weakness is not failure; refusing to acknowledge it is.

To win, you must first own the gap. And to own the gap, you must stop comparing apples with oranges just to feel good.

Key Takeaways

• Own your decisions: Borrowed credibility cannot replace leadership conviction.
• Avoid false comparisons: Misaligned data creates dangerous confidence bubbles.
• Obsession blinds strategy: Fixating on one rival distorts judgment.
• Say no to “bad green”: False progress hides real risks.
• Encourage “good red”: Honest gaps with clear action plans lead to real wins.