Bengaluru's Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw opts for metro travel over luxury car, accompanied by ‘Namma Metro friend'
Sharing her experience on the social media platform X, the Biocon Limited founder expressed surprise at the efficiency of the metro journey and praised the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation for providing a 'great ride.'
Shaw was accompanied by her friend Jennifer Erich, whom she referred to as the 'Iron Lady at Exxon Mobil.' Erich, according to her LinkedIn profile, holds the position of Geoscience Manager at Exxon Mobil's Bengaluru Technology Centre.
'Took the purple line from Whitefield to Vidhana with my Namma Metro friend Jennifer Erich, the Iron Lady of Exxon Mobil. Such a quick way to avoid traffic. Great ride. Thanks BMRCL,' Mazumdar-Shaw wrote on X.
Jennifer Erich responded to the post by saying she was happy to have introduced Namma Metro to Shaw.
'So happy to be your Metro Mentor!! Thanks so much for joining me at my office today,' she replied.
Online audiences expressed strong appreciation for Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw's humble and relatable gesture. 'Great to see famous personalities doing this and sharing - very important to have more people take public transport,' wrote one person. 'When the affluent, influential, and elite embrace public transport, it catalyzes systemic investment and inspires emulation among the masses, dismantling car-centric aspirations and heralding a shift toward sustainable urban mobility,' another said.
What is Namma Metro?
Namma Metro, commonly referred to as Bengaluru Metro, is the rapid transit network serving Bengaluru, the capital of Karnataka. The system is managed by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), a partnership between the Government of India and the Government of Karnataka.
Currently, Namma Metro operates two lines: the purple line and the green line.
Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw is not the first billionaire to opt for public transport. In 2023, real estate tycoon Niranjan Hiranandani took a Mumbai local train to 'save time and beat the traffic.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
LinkedIn User's Fake Harvard MBA Stunt Sparks Debate, Lawyer Sets Record Straight
A LinkedIn user faked a Harvard MBA on his profile "just for fun" and shared the experiment online, sparking widespread discussion. In the post, the user noted that the fake credential instantly boosted his credibility with recruiters and connections. However, his tongue-in-cheek experiment drew serious criticism from lawyer SMB Attorney, who warned against attempting similar deception. "Master's degrees are useless. I gave myself one on LinkedIn just for fun (there's no verification process). Since adding this to my profile, the DMs have been flowing in. Every other message mentions how 'impressive' my academic background is. So instead of spending $100K+ and wasting years of your life on a degree, just add it to your LinkedIn. No one checks. No one questions. Fake it till you make it has never been easier," the LinkedIn user wrote. Reacting to his post, SMB Attorney issued a stern warning against falsifying credentials. "Guys, do not do this. And, yes, this is legal advice," he wrote. See the post here: Guys, do not do this. And, yes, this is legal advice. — SMB Attorney (@SMB_Attorney) August 18, 2025 The post sparked controversy, with some users calling it career-damaging and foolish, while others were amused by the stunt. One user noted that thorough background checks can uncover credential falsification, warning that such lies can have serious consequences. Some users drew parallels with the TV show Suits, sharing stories of fictional characters facing consequences for similar deception. Others debated the legal implications, with one user arguing that lying on LinkedIn or a resume is not illegal, but creating fake credentials is. One user wrote, "Why did bro snitch on himself. That's like Mike Ross walking into the Prosecutor's office, turning on a loudspeaker and saying he successfully frauded his way to the top." Another said, "Masters are useless if you aren't seeking wisdom just for the sake of wisdom. If you want to make money, Masters and PhDs aren't where you start. But there are people seeking wisdom just for the sake of wisdom too. Masters aren't useless to them." A third noted, "As a person who has hired quite a few people, Background checking is a thing. Sterling will check every single credential and job in your history. Making a mistake by a month or two on a job timeline is one thing, but substantially lying about your credentials is foolish."
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Work is not your life': London entrepreneur urges employees to leave work on time; gives 12 reasons why ‘it's not good for health'
A London-based entrepreneur's simple LinkedIn post about the importance of leaving the office on time has struck a chord with professionals online. In his reflection, Dan Murray reminded readers that 'work is a never-ending process, and your time is valuable.' While acknowledging the importance of jobs, he stressed they should not become our sole identity, or come at the cost of health, happiness, and relationships. Murray pointed out that extra hours rarely equal extra productivity, and that research shows efficiency drops sharply after the eight-hour mark. Putting in long days may look like commitment in the short term, he argued, but it is neither sustainable nor healthy. What resonated most was his emphasis on boundaries. Leaving on time, he said, isn't shirking responsibility—it's about protecting energy, relationships, and balance. It creates space to recharge, pursue hobbies, and spend quality time with loved ones, ultimately leading to greater well-being. He closed with a reminder that self-care benefits everyone: 'When you care for yourself outside of work, you'll be a better contributor to your team overall. Don't sacrifice your well-being for work.' The post went viral and netizens reacted to the post. An agreeing individual wrote, 'Leaving on time isn't about working less, it's about living more. A well-rested you will always bring more value than an overworked one.' Another user wrote, 'I love this post! Thanks for the reminder that work is a marathon, not a sprint. Our health and happiness depend on it.' A third person said, 'Love this… long hours might look like commitment, but they often erode the very qualities that make work great. Boundaries, rest, and time for life outside the office are what keep people energised and creative.'
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Management: Silence is a ticket to public irrelevance
In foreign policy and economics, the public sphere is still populated by heavyweight thinkers whose ideas shape how the world understands itself. Figures like Joseph Nye and Samantha Power, for example, have framed debates on diplomacy and moral leadership. Others like Thomas Friedman and Niall Ferguson translate complex realities into language that captures the public imagination, while economic interpreters like Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs bridge the worlds of academia, policy and common understanding. Together, they influence how citizens think, how leaders set priorities and how policy is formed. But try to name someone in the field of business management who holds the same kind of cross-border influence and the task becomes harder than it should be. In management, that tradition has long faded. The result is an intellectual vacuum and a leadership culture that risks losing its connection with society. Also Read: Business bestsellers survive but where did management gurus go? This is not about talent. Management has no shortage of brilliant thinkers who are also articulate. The difference lies in the structures around the discipline. In economics and policy, institutions such as think tanks, universities and multilateral bodies provide scholars with legitimacy, visibility and the time to refine ideas. The stakes are high and the media seeks interpreters who can explain complex developments. There is a long tradition of publishing big ideas and putting forth frameworks that enter the public consciousness. Management once had its own pantheon. From the late 1960s to the late 1990s, during the high tide of global corporate expansion, figures like Peter Drucker, Tom Peters, Gary Hamel, Michael Porter and Rosabeth Moss Kanter were more than researchers or consultants. They were idea originators who shaped the language of business with concepts like 'core competence,' 'competitive advantage' and 'management by objectives.' Drucker's take on the 'knowledge worker' was a social commentary that also offered a business insight. Peters' In Search of Excellence read like a manifesto for a new corporate ethos. They influenced not only companies, but work culture too. Also Read: When will business books focus more on corporate failures than successes? Today, that public voice has gone mute. Management largely operates in a closed circuit. The most valuable insights are often built on proprietary data or some sensitive strategy that cannot be shared openly. Leaders face relentless quarterly pressures that reward execution over reflection. Many of today's brightest minds choose the commercial route of consulting—monetizing their ideas behind closed doors for paying clients, rather than sharing them with the wider world. The publishing landscape has also changed. The golden era of sweeping management books has given way to microcontent: LinkedIn posts, gated newsletters and closed-door keynote speeches. In hyper-competitive markets, public commentary is sometimes seen as a risk to a firm's competitive advantage, rather than a contribution to collective understanding. This worsens the discipline's intellectual vacuum. Management thinking is abundant but scattered, locked in silos, behind paywalls or buried in client decks. Rarely does it break into the public sphere with sufficient force to spark a broad and enduring debate. That is a loss not just for business, but for society. Also Read: The best business books tend to be about music and sports Some might argue that this is fine. After all, management is a discipline best practised, not preached. Not so. Without public frameworks, we lose the shared vocabulary that helps organizations and industries align. Without public voices, management forfeits the chance to shape how business is understood in relation to society. Without business leaders willing to step into the public square, we risk producing executives who are operationally adept but not inspirational. When public intellectuals disappear from any field, the conversation contracts. The cross-pollination of ideas stops. In management, a discipline that draws from economics, sociology, psychology and technology, this narrowing is especially costly. It weakens our ability to place business thinking within the context of larger cultural and economic forces shaping our world. Also Read: Why Viktor Frankl is the father of the self-help genre Nostalgia for the 'guru era' won't help. Public engagement becoming a key aspect of leadership will. Senior executives could share frameworks and philosophies instead of just their quarterly wins. Consultants could release some of their thinking into the public domain, not only to market their services but also to strengthen the discipline. Academics could translate research into accessible language and join mainstream debates. The media could grant good management thinkers the same treatment they accord economists and policy experts when it comes to global issues. Public intellectuals don't just interpret the world, but turn private insights into a public good. Management must reclaim its place in the public sphere or risk leaving the stage to faux gurus selling 'masterclasses' online. Management will stop shaping the future and start following it. And a discipline that hides its best thinking deserves the irrelevance it suffers. The author is a marketing leader and member of the board of directors, Effie Lions Foundation.
