This is going to be a beautiful one. The short answer is that because IIMA didn’t have the same director twice and it doesn’t have a Director’s bungalow. Confused?

Some people will say it’s the rigour. After all, the first year is tough, there are so many group assignments, projects, cases. E.g. I read 500+ cases in the first year itself.

Some people will say it’s the case pedagogy. IIMA began with an affiliation with HBS and the curriculum was developed on the lines of HBS curriculum. Most of the classes have cases, which are essentially business contexts with lots of data. The idea is to step into the decision maker’s shoes and see the problem from his eyes so as to tackle the problem effectively. It’s a brilliant (IMO, best) way to teach business and IIMA’s strong focus on it definitely sets it apart from other IIMs.

Some people will say it’s the architecture. IIMA is a heritage campus, full of semicircular arches and red bricks adorning them, as beautifully envisioned by the legendary architect Louis Kahn. I have personally experienced an ineffable vibe that emanates from his buildings, that simply makes you cherish living there.

Some people will say it’s the students. After all, IIMA’s cutoff is higher than all other IIMs and most students prefer IIMA as their first choice.

Some people will say it’s the faculty. IIMA is famous for its world class faculty, some of whom are alumni of IIMA itself. And this is where the answer begins.

IIMA doesn’t just have excellent faculty, it has an excellent faculty-governance system. The first full-time director of IIMA, Ravi Matthai set up this system, where in the most important decisions related to the institute are taken by the faculty. Issues are discussed between various faculties in a meeting, debated upon fervently and finally a consensus reached which is conveyed to the Director. As Director, Ravi Matthai didn’t have it mandatory to consider the faculty opinion, but he still set up this system to make the faculty more involved and nurture a combined sense of freedom and responsibility. But more than that, this was a system that led to accountability.

Academicians are firmly ensconced in a mindset of freedom and creativity, and Matthai’s system makes them feel at home. It prevents the Director from being a dictator and makes him accountable to the Faculty for his decisions.

Precisely to maintain this accountability along with creativity, no Director in the history of IIMA has taken a second term. The first precedent was set by Ravi Matthai himself, who resigned at the end of his first term, amidst fierce opposition because everyone wanted him to continue. As a part of this focus, there is no separate Director’s bungalow and it’s instead just one of the faculty houses.

So all the above things make IIMA different (and great), but the biggest influencer has been Ravi Matthai and his systems cultivating accountability and autonomy.

P.S. You can get a more detailed info on IIMA’s history and functioning in this book by Prof. T. T. Ram Mohan.

A painting that I made, of one of the many beautiful corridors of IIMA