1. IIM KOZHIKODE WORKING PAPERS SERIES
IIMK/WPS/78/MC/2010/17
What is Psychoanalysis and Management?
SUMMARY
What are the interdisciplinary intersections between psychoanalysis and management?
The main argument in this working paper is that psychoanalysis has not only a theory of
human subjectivity on offer, but also makes it possible to understand and formalize a
range of organizational phenomena in relation to unconscious processes. It also helps to
identify the range of ‘operative fantasies’ with which employees make sense of their lives.
The ‘psychoanalysis of organizations’ is therefore an important addition to the repertoire
of cognitive tools and interpretive frameworks in management theory. These tools and
frameworks will make it possible to address organizational problems differently by
teaching leaders to manage in a ‘psychoanalytically informed manner’. Unconscious
processes then are not reducible to clinical phenomena but are involved in organizational
dynamics as well. This is evidenced by the notion of ‘the geopolitical transference’, where
organizations and countries develop a signal-based relationship in terms of their
domestic and foreign policies in a way that complements their respective interests
through forms of symbolic identification that may or not be conscious. Psychoanalysis
can also be used to help both managers and employees to ‘work-through’ the affects
generated in the workplace in order to minimize the possibility of ‘acting-out’
unconscious conflicts in decision-making situations. Another important source of affinity
between psychoanalysis and management is the preoccupation with the ‘case’ as a unit of
cognition, and the relationship between the different forms of storytelling in academic,
clinical, and organizational settings that constitute the ‘case method’ as an approach to
scientific discovery, teaching, and research.
Introduction
What is psychoanalysis and management? Why does it matter as a discourse?
What has been done so far in the area? What more remains to be done? These are
the questions that those encountering the theoretical intersections of
psychoanalysis and management for the first time are likely to pose but they are
also questions worth addressing per se. The answers to these questions will also
throw light on some of the fundamental problems of management theory, which
have not been sufficiently addressed since they either presuppose a theory of
human nature or a theory of human subjectivity. These approaches to the
problem of how human beings are involved in the processes that constitute
‘work’ incidentally are not the same since they have different ideological
implications. The main attraction of psychoanalysis, as a potential source of
ideas, is the fact that it has a full-fledged theory of the psyche on offer; so even
1

2. those who do not agree with some of its propositions will know what they are
disagreeing with. This is certainly better than many piece-meal theories which do
not make their presuppositions clear or which do not have a metapsychology to
govern its acts of interpretation. Furthermore, psychoanalysis works on the
theoretical presupposition that the differences between the normative and the
neurotic is a matter of ‘degree’ rather than a difference of ‘kind’ with the
important exception of the psychoses which may be beyond the therapeutic
reach of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis also works with the notion of the
‘normative’ (as opposed to the ‘normal’) as a way of negotiating the social
construction of the neuroses. This is not just a form of theoretical modesty but is
based on the understanding that the notion of the normal is mediated by the
forms of ideology in place, and that ‘adaptation’ does not have to be the only
mode of coping in situations marked by social differences as argued by the ego-
psychologist Heinz Hartmann (1958). So instead of invoking a naturalistic notion
of the normal (given that ‘adaptation’ is a term that is borrowed into the
psychological sciences from biology), it prefers to work with the social
constructionist notion of the normative (Evans, 1996).
The ‘Normal’ and the ‘Normative’
The normative then is a form of normality that is not only constructed by social
forces, but recognized to function in the form of a social construct. There are a
number of reasons as to why this is the case. The most important of these reasons
pertains to the fact that the scientific model of the normal could not account for
creative individuals who seemed possessed of affective and cognitive powers
that went beyond the mean (the average) in a normal spread of individuals. So it
is important not to conflate the ‘normal’ which is an ideological notion, with the
average, which is a statistical notion, as is often done in everyday life. Instead,
by invoking the notion of the normative, it is possible to recognize, as
psychoanalysis does, that there are powerful social forces which try to
domesticate individuals and processes that fall outside the normal spread of
possibilities. The notion of normativity then makes it possible to differentiate
between the biological and the psychological as distinct ontological domains of
human life. These ideas are important because it is commonplace for people to
invoke an unexamined notion of human nature without understanding the
relationship between the biological and the psychological in making us human.
Furthermore, the expressions of human nature are mediated by culture. So while
there are certain traits that are considered to be structural universals by
anthropologists, we know from empirical experience that there are also
important cultural differences between communities, organizations, and
societies, and that these differences are important in understanding human
behavior, human nature, and the range of behaviors that constitute the normal,
the normative, and the pathological.
2

3. The Subject of Psychoanalysis
What is the notion of human nature then that is specific to psychoanalysis as a
discourse? Given the theoretical complexities involved in invoking any of the
categories given above, psychoanalysts have moved away from theories of
human nature (given that they are ideologically problematic) to the notion of
‘subjectivity,’ which is understood as a topological construct that is mediated by
biology, culture, and language. The notion of ‘subjectivity’ however revolves
mainly around understanding the role that language plays in making us human
in symbolic systems of which kinship relations, as studied by structural
anthropologists such as Claude Levi-Strauss and psychoanalysts such as Jacques
Lacan, is the most important example (Dunand, 1996). So in place of the
individual, which is the default bourgeois notion for a unit of society,
psychoanalysts prefer to invoke the empty subject of language who attains
autonomy through a process of existential individuation (Ragland-Sullivan,
1991). So what from a socio-economic sense appears as a simple ‘given’, is, from
a psychoanalytic sense, ‘achieved’ by negotiating subjectivity in the matrix of
familial and kinship relations through a process of trial-and-error, in the quest
for identity, a sense of meaning, and a place in society (Goux, 1994; Kenny, 2009).
This, briefly put, is the difference between the psychoanalytic notion of
subjectivity and what, in everyday conversations, is referred to as ‘human
nature’.
The De-substantivized Subject
What is the relationship between psychoanalysis and management? Why will the
notion of subjectivity help us to address issues in which the traditional
approaches have not made much headway? The notion of subjectivity is
important because it will help us to understand human behavior as a
‘desubstantivized’ set of psycholinguistic processes (Arnaud and Vanheule,
2007). So, for instance, a substantive notion of human behavior works on the
assumption that a given individual will more or less act in a particular way as
dictated by a psychological profile. The content of the profile is the individual
substance or sample of human nature. But, as we know, psychological profiles
are neither stable nor constant. While it is better to have a profile than nothing,
the profiles cannot be used to make predictions about human behavior in the
deterministic sense of the term. They can at best rationalize observed behavior,
after the fact, under the aegis of the attributes or parameters of a particular
psychological category. Furthermore they will not help us to understand the
range of private meanings that surround a given act. We can at best observe
behavior but not the underlying fantasy structure that propels the subject in its
quest for meaning in organizations or in life, especially in environments where
3

4. differentiation and individuation are taken seriously. Besides, if individuals are
interviewed or asked to fill out questionnaires to understand the significance of
their acts, it turns out that many of these actions are either not done consciously
or the symbolic significance of these acts is not necessarily understood by the
individual. The default notions of behavior and communication in organizations
is often built on the assumption that not only does the average employee know
what he is up to, but also understands the symbolic significance of his behavior.
Psychoanalysts however question whether this is in fact the case not merely in
terms of information, knowledge, and skills-based forms of asymmetry across
the organizational hierarchy; but, more fundamentally, in terms of the
individual’s knowledge of his own self as demonstrated through cognitive tools
such as the Johari window. The meta-psychological implications of such tools
however has not percolated into a general theory of human subjectivity as such,
but are only used as an occasional tool for diagnosing and training in managerial
development programs. So both at the level of what constitutes the basic or
individual ‘unit of meaning’ at the level of a theory of subjectivity, and in
applying it to how individuals act in organizations, we find that there is a
fundamental split between what individuals are in terms of their acts and
behavior, and how much of that goes into constituting their own theory of the
self.
The Operative Fantasy
This is often the case with how organizations behave as well. So, just as
individuals can be analyzed in terms of an operative fantasy which they may or
not be consciously aware of, so can organizations. Psychoanalysis can be used to
study not only individual dynamics within organizations, but organizations
themselves can be understood as the basic units of cognition within an analytic
frame. Then, the operative fantasy which motivates specific forms of behavior in
organizations can be delineated. A common fantasy that structures
organizational behavior and even relations between organizations, for instance,
is the matrix of the geopolitical. Organizations can be observed to behave both in
terms of their domestic and foreign policies as though they were countries and
the relationship between organizations then takes on or replicates the
geopolitical turbulence which affects the countries on which they are modeled.
This may initially begin as symbolic forms of signaling, but takes on an
independent momentum. At this point, the operative fantasy which demands
that the organization identify with a specific nation-state because of an analogy
in the state of affairs between the organization and a given country at a particular
point in time becomes a deterministic relationship such that both the
organization or the sub-unit of an organization and the country that it is modeled
upon develop a new relationship, and begin to take cues from what each of them
is up to as individual communities. Here the country that signals an organization
4

5. is not merely a geopolitical representation of the inherent conflicts and dynamics
in an organization, but also a model for future behavior. This is the point at
which the relationship between psychoanalysis and management becomes
important since a crucial question that psychoanalysts ask of their patients is
related to the role of identification (conscious or unconscious) in determining the
range of options that is available to the organization as both a community and as
an institution. This geopolitical fantasy and the implications such fantasies have
not only in the symbolic domain, but in the everyday life of the organization is a
simple instance of what I mean by the operative fantasy to which an organization
is susceptible when it identifies with a country.
Organizational and Transferential Dynamics
In psychoanalysis, the fantasies attached to the different levels of identification
that constitute an individual’s psyche are absolutely important because it is the
multiplicity of identifications over a period of time that causes the problem of
symbolic ‘over-determination’ in the psyche (Freud, 1895). So what begins, for
instance, as a harmless signal-based symbolic relationship between organizations
and countries initially, becomes, in course of time, an unconscious matrix of
subjectivity that determines what an organization will or will not do as such; it
will determine its policy options for better or worse. This is a simple instance of a
fantasy structure that psychoanalysis is able to deconstruct. What is important
here is not merely the understanding of the process of identifications, but the set
of processes that lead to fundamental transformations in individuals and
organizations when such identifications are deeply in place. The transferential
and counter-transferential dynamics that mediates the relationship between the
organization that seeks an identification and the country that offers to sustain
this identification is worthy of a psychoanalytic investigation. These forms of
identification then gradually evolve into a form of ‘co-creative’ dynamics
between different stakeholders (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010). In such
situations, the organization and the country make sure that their respective
moves will not affect their common, mutual, or specific interests. While there are
both advantages and disadvantages to such relationships which are
transferentially mediated, it is important that decision-makers in such situations
consciously understand what is going on failing which they will act out an
identification rather than add value through an identification. Such transferential
relationships based on conscious and unconscious forms of identification are
commonplace throughout the world. This is a specific instance then of how the
relationship between psychoanalysis and management can throw light on
organizational behavior and dynamics, but it is also possible to create an entire
discourse around the area of organizational dynamics (Arnauld, 2002).
5

6. The Geopolitical Transference
I have given an instance of macro-transferences between fairly large units such as
organizations and countries and the role of the geopolitics in place to understand
how individual actors or decision-makers act upon such specific situations. Once
this fantasy structure that is mediated through the geopolitical transference is
recognized, decision makers can decide on the level of strategic imitation that is
permissible in such situations without compromising on the positive elements in
the relationship and by minimizing the negative elements of the relationship. So
while the original focus in the psychoanalysis of organizations was to account for
the behavior of individuals and the relationship of the organization with similar
organizations, it is now possible to map macro-transferences to prevent acting
out by decision-makers who may not have the freedom to take individualized
decisions once the geo-political analogy is firmly in place in terms of how an
organization is perceived by its respective stakeholders. While the trajectory of
geopolitical transferences in determining policy options must be examined at
length, the main focus so far in the intersection between psychoanalysis and
management has however been on organizational behavior and theories of
leadership. These are the two main theoretical objects of concern. What both
these objects have in common is that they are susceptible to irrational behavior
and forms of acting out (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967, 1988).
Acting-Out
The notion of acting out is understood here to be the enactment of an
unconscious conflict in the psyche of the decision-maker or the organization in a
decision-making situation such that the temporary psychic relief that the
decision-maker attains through impulsive decision making is thought to be more
important than the over-all good of the organization. This phase in the
development of psychoanalysis and management, in a sense, uses the space of
organizations and the styles of leadership as the main object of theoretical
analysis. The onus of these theoretical studies is to show that it is important to
understand the behavior of organizations and leaders because they affect the fate
and fortunes of a large number of innocent people whose lives and livelihoods
may be at stake. It is therefore the fond hope of theorists working in this area that
the insights of psychoanalysis as a discourse can be incorporated into the
training programs in place or those which are underway for the next generation
of executives and managers in order to make the world a safer place by making it
possible ‘to manage in a psychoanalytically informed manner’ in both the private
and public sectors (Carr, 2002; Gabriel and Carr, 2002), and, increasingly, in the
context of public administration as well (McSwite, 1997). While it may appear
that all these managerial development programs use a similar set of
methodologies that is not the case when the range of teaching approaches in
6

7. these programs is examined carefully. In fact, within the behavioral sciences,
there are a number of important methodological differences both in terms of
what is considered to be the appropriate set of developmental goals and the
ways in which these goals can be attained in managerial development programs
and executive and leadership training workshops. The challenge as ever is to
prevent such forms of training from becoming routine pedagogical transactions
and move them whenever possible to the transformational plane (Kets de Vries
and Korotov, 2006a; Kets de Vries, 2007a; Kets de Vries, 2009a).
Organizations on the Couch
The term ‘couch’ is used often by theorists who are working on designing better
organizations and training leaders to be more effective since the couch is the site
of analysis in the analytic situation. Most of the pioneering work in this area of
putting organizations and leaders on the couch was done by Manfred Kets de
Vries at INSEAD and by those who work in the area called the ‘psychoanalysis of
organizations’ (Coutu, 2004; Kets de Vries, 2004a; Kets de Vries, 2006b). The
achievement of Kets de Vries, for instance, is related to his ability to develop
powerful leadership development programs that sensitize global leaders not
only to the presence of unconscious forces in the human mind, but to the
systematic interference of the unconscious in the process of decision-making. He
is also fond of alerting executives to the transferential dynamics that governs the
relationship between leaders and followers, employers and employees, and on
the role of introjective and projective mechanisms that constitute and distort their
transferential relationships (Kets de Vries, 2007b). What above all Kets de Vries
alerts leaders to is the propensity to act out counter-transferential conflicts with
employees and subordinates within the organization and not necessarily with
the leaders with whom they happen to be competing. The instances discussed
here are but brief samples of the theoretical possibilities that govern the
relationship between psychoanalysis and management. But this is just the
beginning of what must be done to understand how the everyday life of
individuals, employees, customers, and leaders in organizations is much more
complicated than we are willing to acknowledge and are governed by
unconscious conflicts and processes (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1984a; Kets de
Vries and Miller, 1984b; Van de Loo, 2000; Kets de Vries, 2009b).
So whether it is susceptibility to the sense of grandeur involved in invoking
geopolitical fantasies on the part of leaders and organizations, understanding
why we like or dislike some people, or coming to terms with the challenges of
putting together effective teams, psychoanalysis has a lot to contribute to our
understanding of the everyday life of organizations (Kets de Vries, 2004b; Kets
de Vries, 2005). The intellectual achievements of Kets de Vries revolve around his
ability to also incorporate the insights of psychoanalysis within academic
7

8. discourse, and thereby reinvent both organizational behavior and leadership
theory, and the role that they will play in the management curriculum. It is
likewise possible to incorporate psychoanalysis to understand almost all aspects
of human relations in organizations like many scholars in this area have tried to
do (Kakar, 1974; Kets de Vries 1995; Driver, 2003). Psychoanalysis can also be
used in human resource management where questions pertaining to employee
selection, employee fit, employee attrition, employee retention, and employee
development and training can be addressed using the psychoanalytic notion of
subjectivity, theories of identification, and techniques for handling the
transference. It is also possible, by extension, to use psychoanalysis as a cognitive
tool in talent management given the interest that psychoanalysts have evinced in
using psychoanalysis as an interpretative framework in a range of areas that
involve the challenge of understanding the different forms of human creativity.
Conclusion
Psychoanalysis is useful then not only for the insights that it has to offer in the
context of management, but also for the literary form in which it publishes these
insights – i.e., the case. There is no school of psychology that is as attached to the
case method as both a protocol of reporting scientific insights and as a modality
of learning as psychoanalysis. The case method, as envisaged by Freud’s early
work on hysteria, is haunted by the sheer sense of incredulity that the
unconscious insists on telling stories. Freud would therefore repeatedly tell his
readers that though he began as a doctor, as a man of science, he wound up
spending the better part of his clinical hours in listening endlessly to patients
narrate the stories of the pleasure-pain calculus that each of them had
encountered and suffered in their own way. His cases, Freud felt, did not seem to
be like the medical cases that he was trained to report when he began his work
on cerebral anatomy and histopathology, but were more like the short stories of
German literature (Forrester, 1990, 1991; Kets de Vries, 1995). While Freud might
have been apologetic for not writing cases that were more like scientific reports
and less like short stories, we now know that what Freud felt was a weakness is
actually a strength, and that the fate of the human subject is to construct an
enabling story to live by since the sublimation of the desire for salvation in
contemporary culture is necessarily mediated by not only what happens to us,
but, by what we tell ourselves about the meaning of life. This is even true for
Holocaust survivors (Frankl, 1988, 2006).
The short story then is not merely a device for reporting events - but more and
more in an age of diminishing attention spans - a fundamental unit of both
culture and human cognition. The goal of life, argued Freud, is to learn to work
and to love. What are cases after all? Are they not but stories, which, in a
professional context, we call cases (Forrester 1990, 1991; Forrester, 1996;
8

9. Forrester, 2007)? Are they not but instances and records of the people who have
tried to pursue these Freudian ideals, but who also encountered the underlying
turbulence of the unconscious in such attempts to do so? What seemed initially
to be the socio-cultural goals of the Freudian era are still around; we just call it
‘work-life balance’ now. We know that reaching this goal is easier said than
done, and most find some reason to abdicate on the difficulties inherent in this
task. But, whatever be the outcomes, it is important to give it a try since what the
case method as a form of cognition attunes us to in the fields of both
psychoanalysis and management is the primacy of method and process without
letting the uncertainty of outcomes discourage us. Why else is the CEO of the
case narrative compared to the hero of the quest narrative?
REFERENCES
Arnauld, Gilles (2002). ‘The Organization and the Symbolic: Organizational
Dynamics Viewed From a Lacanian Perspective’, Human Relations, 55:6, pp. 691-
716.
Arnauld, Gilles and Vanheule, Stijn (2007). ‘The Division of the Subject and the
Organization: A Lacanian Approach to Subjectivity at Work’, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 20:3, pp. 359-369, esp. p. 362.
Carr, Adrian (2002). ‘Managing in a Psychoanalytically Informed Manner’,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17:5, pp. 343-347.
Coutu, Diane L. (2004). ‘Executive on the Couch’, Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge available at:
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=3856&t=organizations
Dunand, Anne (1996). ‘Lacan and Levi-Strauss’, Reading Seminars I and II: Lacan’s
Return to Freud (Albany: SUNY Press), edited by Richard Feldstein et al, The Paris
Seminars in English, SUNY Series in Psychoanalysis and Culture, pp. 98-108.
Driver, Michaela (2003). ‘Nothing Clinical, Just Business? Reflections on
Psychoanalytically Grounded Organizational Diagnosis and Intervention’,
Human Relations, 56:1, pp. 39-59.
Evans, Dylan (1996). ‘Adaptation’, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian
Psychoanalysis (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 4-5.
Freud, Sigmund (1895). ‘The Psychopathology of Hysteria’, in Breuer, Josef and
Freud, Sigmund (1895). Studies on Hysteria, The Penguin Freud Library, 3
9

10. (London: Penguin Books, 1991), pp. 335-393, especially p. 376, translated by
James and Alix Strachey, edited by Angela Richards.
Forrester, John (1990, 1991). ‘Contracting the Disease of Love: Authority and
Freedom in the Origins of Psychoanalysis’, The Seductions of Psychoanalysis: Freud,
Lacan, and Derrida (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 30-47.
Forrester, John (1996). ‘If p, Then What? Thinking in Cases’, History of the Human
Sciences, 9:1, pp. 1-25.
Forrester, John (2007). ‘On Kuhn’s Case: Psychoanalysis and the Paradigm’,
Critical Inquiry, summer, pp. 782-819.
Frankl, Viktor E. (1988, 2006). Man’s Search for Meaning (Boston: Beacon Press).
Gabriel, Yiannis and Carr, Adrian (2002). ‘Organizations, Management and
Psychoanalysis: An Overview’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17:5, pp. 348-365.
Goux, Jean-Joseph (1994). Oedipus, Philosopher, translated by Catherine Porter
(Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Hartmann, Heinz (1958). Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation (Madison,
CT: International Universities Press), passim.
Kakar, Sudhir (1974). Frederick Taylor: A Study in Personality and Innovation
(Cambridge: The MIT Press).
Kenny, Kate (2009). ‘Heeding the Stains: Lacan and Organizational Change’,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22:2, pp. 214-228.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R. and Miller, Danny (1984a). ‘Neurotic Style and
Organizational Pathology’, Strategic Management Journal, 5:1, Jan-March, pp. 35-
55.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R. and Miller, Danny (1984b). The Neurotic Organization:
Diagnosing and Changing Counterproductive Styles of Management (Hoboken, NJ:
Jossey Bass, A Wiley Imprint).
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R (1995). ‘Touched by the Shadow of Freud’, Personnel
Psychology, Summer, 48:2, pp. 471-474.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R. (2004a). ‘Coach or Couch, Anybody? The Zen of
Creating High-EQ Organizations’, INSEAD Working Papers Series 2004/03/ENT.
10

11. Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R. (2004b). ‘Spotlight: Cultural Approaches to
Management’, Management Decision, 42: 7/8, pp. 925-931
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R. (2005). ‘Leadership Group Coaching in Action: The
Zen of Creating High Performance Teams’, Academy of Management Executive,
19:1, pp. 61-76.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R. and Korotov, Konstanin (2006a). ‘Creating Identity
Laboratories to Enable Executive Change and Transformation’, INSEAD Working
Papers Series 2006/36/EFE.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R (2006b). The Leader on the Couch: A Clinical Approach to
Changing People and Organizations (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley).
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R (2007a). ‘Creating Transformational Executive
Education Programs’, INSEAD Working Papers Series 2007/38/EFE.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R (2007b). ‘Are You Feeling Mad, Bad, Sad or Glad?’
INSEAD Working Paper Series 2007/09/EFE.
Kets de Vries, Manfred F.R. (2009a). ‘The Many Colors of Success: What Do
Executives Want Out of Life?’ INSEAD Working Papers Series 2009/19/EFE/IGLC
Kets de Vries, Manfred F. R. (2009b). Reflections on Character and Leadership
(Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.).
Laplanche, Jean and Pontalis, Jean-Bertrand (1967-1988). ‘Acting Out’, The
Language of Psychoanalysis, translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, (London:
Karnac Books and the Institute of Psychoanalysis), pp. 4-6.
McSwite, O.C. (1997). ‘Jacques Lacan and the Theory of the Human Subject: How
Psychoanalysis Can Help Public Administration’, American Behavioral Scientist,
41:1, pp. 43-63.
Ragland-Sullivan, Ellie (Ed.) (1991). Lacan and the Subject of Language (New York
& London), passim.
Ramaswamy, Venkat and Gouillart, Francis (2010). The Power of Co-Creation:
Build it with them to Boost Growth, Productivity, and Profits (New York: The Free
Press), passim.
11

12. Van de Loo, Erik (2000). ‘The Clinical Paradigm: Manfred Kets de Vries’s
Reflections on Organizational Therapy’, The Academy of Management Executive,
14:1, pp. 49-51.
SHIVA KUMAR SRINIVASAN, IIM KOZHIKODE
12