MMA’s “Read & Grow” series featured an engaging discussion on Liz Wiseman’s Multipliers, exploring how leaders can unlock talent, foster innovation, and transform teams into high-performing, empowered organisations.
Sreenivassan Ramaprasad: The book Multipliers was written by Liz Wiseman, a former Oracle executive who now runs her own leadership institute. The book is based on extensive research on over 150 leaders across continents. She introduces a powerful paradigm: leaders are either ‘multipliers or diminishers.’ The difference between the two can double the talent, intelligence, and capacity of a team. The core idea is deceptively simple yet transformative.
Some leaders drain intelligence, energy, and capability from their teams, while others amplify them. Multipliers bring out brilliance in others, whereas diminishers—often unintentionally—shut down creativity and initiative. The book contrasts these two styles of leadership across nine chapters. At the heart of this contrast lies a basic assumption: multipliers believe people are smart and can figure things out, while diminishers believe people need them to think on their behalf.
Five Key Traits
The book identifies five key traits of multipliers. First, they are talent magnets—they attract and unleash top talent. For example, Saurav Ganguly spotted players like Yuvraj Singh and M.S. Dhoni from smaller towns and gave them the platform to shine for India. Second, multipliers are liberators. They create a safe yet challenging environment that brings out people’s best thinking. Third, they are challengers. They pose tough problems and push teams beyond perceived limits. This reminded me of Kapil Dev in 1983, who inspired India to beat the mighty West Indies despite being written off. Fourth, multipliers are debate makers. They involve everyone, encourage rigorous debate, and arrive at decisions collectively, unlike diminishers who impose their views. Finally, they are investors who delegate ownership with accountability, encourage experimentation, and build long-term capability.
The book also highlights that diminishers are not always ill-intentioned. Sometimes well-meaning leaders become accidental diminishers. In trying to protect their people or micromanage, they inadvertently stifle potential and growth. The later chapters discuss how to recognise these tendencies and consciously shift towards becoming a multiplier. There are also strategies on how to handle diminishers in the workplace so that you can continue to contribute your best.
The final message of the book is that anyone can become a multiplier. Even if you find yourself acting as a diminisher today, with a shift in mindset and deliberate practice, you can grow into a leader who amplifies the intelligence, creativity, and capability of your team—and in doing so, multiply the success of the organisation.
A. Sekhar: I’ve been associated with American companies for much of my career, and this book reflects a lot of the ethos and perspectives of how they operate. But what struck me is that the ideas aren’t limited to the U.S. context. We see the same patterns in Indian companies as well, because leadership behaviours—whether multiplier or diminisher—play out universally.
Sowmya Mahadevan: I want to share something that happened just in the last 30 days. We had a problem with one area of the product, so I put together a cross-functional team—operations, engineering, and support—to solve it. My approach was to call these young people in, lecture them, explain, motivate, even inspire them. They would nod, walk away, and nothing would change. I repeated this cycle a few times, and still there was no progress.
As I was reading Multipliers, I came across the concept of the ‘debate maker’, and it struck me that I wasn’t giving the team space to speak or debate. I was doing all the talking. So, the next time, I changed my approach. I asked each of them to present their observations and their view of the problem. They came prepared, shared great insights, and started challenging each other’s ideas. That shifted everything. Suddenly, the team was energised, sitting together, eager to solve the problem. For me, it was a lightbulb moment: I thought I was being articulate and clear, but in reality, I wasn’t listening. I wasn’t creating a space for debate.
While the book is written from an American perspective, the idea of being a ‘debate maker’ is even more critical in India. Here, hierarchy often makes people hesitant to challenge assumptions, especially when their leader holds a title. Leaders in our context need to go further to create safe spaces, actively invite questioning, and encourage debate. Only then can they truly be multipliers.
Sreenivasan Ramaprasad: Did you assume they wouldn’t have the solution because you already did?
Sowmya Mahadevan: Yes, exactly. I realised I was being an accidental diminisher. I believed I had the answer and that the team either didn’t have it or couldn’t see it from my perspective.
Sreenivasan Ramaprasad: At CADD Centre, one of our early successes came not because we had the best talent. We had ordinary people, but they consistently delivered extraordinary work simply because we believed in them and gave them the opportunity. Decisions were made collectively, debates were encouraged, and everyone, including me, felt empowered. That sense of empowerment made all the difference and that’s exactly what a multiplier does as a leader.
My second question is this: in your own experience, have you worked under a multiplier or a diminisher? And what impact did it have on you or your team? No need to name the person, but I’m curious about the difference it made.
A Sekhar: Yes, it happens. We all work with multipliers and diminishers, and sometimes you even see a diminisher turn into a multiplier. That’s always encouraging, because once they realise the value of what you’re trying to do, the whole team can achieve something much bigger than the sum of its parts.
When I started my career 40–45 years ago, the prevailing mindset was that the boss is always right and your role was simply to execute instructions. But as I grew into leadership roles, I realised that if I followed the same approach, I would never get the best out of my team. The real power comes from giving people space, listening to their ideas, and trusting them.
I remember one powerful experience in a public sector undertaking. I was asked to handle a refinery shutdown. It was something extremely time-critical and completely outside my area of expertise. I didn’t have the technical know-how, but I did have a capable team. So I gave them the freedom to think, plan, and decide. Many of them were in non-supervisory roles and had never been asked to make decisions before. This trust brought out their best. They took ownership, solved problems, and executed brilliantly.
Even in my own smaller organisation today, I follow the same principle. Decision-making is left to the team. Yes, mistakes happen, and sometimes they cost us. But as long as people learn from them, that’s enough. The next time, they come back stronger and better prepared. That’s the multiplier effect in action. And I’ll add this. Everyone in corporate life will face diminishers at some point. If someone says they never have, they’re not telling the whole truth.
Sreenivassan Ramaprasad: How does a diminisher impact?
A Sekhar: It really depends on the role you are in. At certain stages, you may have no choice but to toe the line and keep going. At other times, you may get the chance to sit across and explain your perspective, which sometimes helps, sometimes doesn’t. But one thing is certain. When you’re under a diminisher, output and performance do go down. Fortunately, the work environment today is very different from what it was 40 years ago, and more people are beginning to recognise this.
Sowmya Mahadevan: You come across both diminishers and multipliers in your career. Let me share an example. Early in my career—around age 27 or 28—I was setting up the Indian operations for a U.S.-based company. Then my company got acquired, and suddenly I had a new boss in the U.S. Honestly, I hated working with him. Nothing I presented was ever good enough; he would always find faults. I remember thinking, ‘What more can I do?’ But he kept pushing me: “Can you do better? Is this it?” I had no choice but to raise the bar every time.
Eventually, the parent company decided to expand operations in India based on my performance. We grew from 20 people to 150 in just three months, and I suddenly had huge new responsibilities. Looking back, I realise that this tough boss was actually playing the ‘Challenger’ role mentioned in the book. At the time I disliked him, but he saw potential in me that I hadn’t seen in myself. He pushed me out of my comfort zone, and I’m grateful for it today.
Of course, I’ve also dealt with many diminishers. Sometimes you can work around them, sometimes you can manage them, and there are strategies for dealing with them. But if it still doesn’t work, it’s important to recognise that and make a change. The key is to distinguish between a diminisher and a challenger. A tough boss with the right intent—someone who stretches you to deliver your best—is not a diminisher. That’s not a reason to leave. In fact, you should embrace that discomfort, because that’s where real growth happens.
Sreenivassan Ramaprasad: Could he have done it differently?
Sowmya Mahadevan: Perhaps. I think part of it was also cultural. He was American, I was Indian. In our context, if someone raises their voice or speaks passionately, we often think they are scolding us. We grow up in an environment where we try to be nice, people-pleasing, and avoid confrontation. So I think it was less about him being a diminisher and more about the cultural difference. He was a bit confrontational, and I wasn’t used to that. Looking back, I was also young then and didn’t fully understand. But even so, it never made me want to quit. On the contrary, it pushed me to do better, to prove him wrong, and to raise my performance.
Sreenivassan Ramaprasad: I had a similar experience early in my career. In my second job, I worked with an old-school manager who was very much a diminisher. He gave instructions, controlled everything, and created so much tension that people were afraid to even approach him. For three months, I simply observed him and tried to understand his behavior. Eventually, I realised that all his stress and shouting weren’t for personal gain. He was genuinely focused on meeting the company’s goals. Once I understood that, I changed my approach. Whenever I wanted to get something done, I framed it as, “Would this be better for the company if we do it this way?” His acceptance was immediate. Within two months, my relationship with him changed completely, and I almost became like a consultant to him. That experience taught me that once you understand the person, you’re in a much better position to deal with them.
Let me move to the next question. We’ve seen the five disciplines of a multiplier—talent magnet, liberator, challenger, debate maker, and investor. Which one do you relate to most in your own leadership style?
A Sekhar: I would say I’m more of a liberator. I allow people to make mistakes, and I only step in to course-correct. Many of the people who came to me had very poor qualifications, but within a couple of years, they transformed themselves and became so capable that large corporates hired them away. Even though I lose them, I feel proud that they move on stronger than when they came in.
Sowmya Mahadevan: For me, it’s the ‘investor.’ I’ll share an experience from the past year to explain why. I don’t think anyone is a multiplier all the time or a diminisher all the time. We all go through shades of both.
I had a junior HR person in my organisation, fairly fresh talent, and at first, I became very micromanaging. I wanted everything done in a certain way, so I pushed for operating procedures, checklists, and constant supervision. But despite all that, things just weren’t working out. After some time, I realised this wasn’t going anywhere, and I had to step back. Instead of dictating tasks, I started having conversations around why we were doing certain things. I encouraged her to watch YouTube videos, read books, and then come back so we could discuss the purpose behind each process and what we were trying to accomplish.
It wasn’t a quick turnaround. It took time and patience. But over the past year, the growth I’ve seen in her has been remarkable. I’ve been able to step away from many of the daily, routine activities because she has taken ownership. That’s when I realised the true power of being an investor—delegating with accountability and getting results over the long term.
Sreenivassan Ramaprasad: If there is one behavior you would stop, start or strengthen after reading this book, what would it be?
A Sekhar: Change is continuous, and I have to keep evolving. I can’t say I follow just one behavior. If I had to choose, I’d say I need to be more of a challenger—pushing people to stretch further, because that’s when I believe I get the best out of them.
Sowmya Mahadevan: For me, it’s about learning to keep quiet and listen more. As leaders, we often feel the need to fill silence in a room—to step in with instructions or ideas, thinking we’re motivating people. But I’ve realised that true growth comes when we create space for others to speak, debate, and challenge assumptions.
In the Indian context, this is even harder. We’re culturally conditioned to defer to elders and authority, so people hesitate to ask questions or voice doubts. Silence doesn’t mean they have nothing to say. It often means they’re holding back. I’m trying to draw people out through questions, encouraging dialogue and debate. That’s the only way both the individual and the organisation can grow.
Sreenivassan Ramaprasad: How would you introduce the concept of multipliers versus diminishers to a new team member or a leader in your organisation?
Sowmya Mahadevan: In my team, I’ve already had conversations with HR. I plan to conduct workshops and discussions around these concepts, because I truly believe you’re only as good a leader as the number of leaders you help create. Interestingly, I was listening to the audiobook in the car one day with my 12-year-old son. I thought he’d be bored, but he insisted on listening. Afterwards, he turned to me and asked, “Amma, are you a multiplier or a diminisher?” That struck me that these ideas apply not only in leadership, but also in parenting. As parents or as leaders, our role is to be multipliers: to help people grow beyond the limits they think they have.
A Sekhar: My approach would be slightly different. People don’t spend much time reading these days. So instead, I’d distil the key insights, share examples, and then direct them to the book for reference if they want more. Sometimes even assigning a single chapter and asking them to come back with their perspective works better than asking them to read the whole book.
Sreenivassan Ramaprasad: And finally, one message to youngsters based on this book?
A Sekhar: Have faith in yourself. You have tremendous potential—realise it, be patient, and trust that opportunities will come. The good news is that many managers today are beginning to understand these concepts, and over time, there will be far fewer diminishers.
Sowmya Mahadevan: I would say this—if you don’t read the whole book, at least read the chapter on how to deal with diminishers. Every one of us has infinite potential, and it’s up to us to discover it. Don’t hand over control of your growth to someone else and say, “I’m not progressing because of that boss or that environment.” There are always ways to handle difficult people and situations. Your growth is ultimately in your own hands.
***
