Modern workplaces demand multiple roles—visionary, enforcer, builder, supporter. But when one role dominates, imbalance leads to burnout. In a café in Bangalore, this truth came alive in the story of Arjun Mehta.

The air was thick with the rich aroma of filter coffee and the rhythmic patter of rain against the windows. Arjun hunched over his laptop at 29, a sharp software engineer, but the screen’s glow only highlighted his frustration—a stubborn bug in a line of code that refused to resolve, much like the promotion he’d been denied last week. His manager had cited “team fit” issues, but Arjun knew it stemmed from a clash where his ideas were dismissed in favor of quicker, riskier fixes. The rejection burned, amplifying his burnout—nights blurred into days of code, with little dignity or purpose left. He fiddled with the keyboard, deleting and retyping the same function, his fingers tense. Across the table sat Professor Krishna Rao, retired from IIT’s Mathematics department, a man whose lectures on the Vedas and Upanishads blended precision with profound insight. Prof. Rao noticed Arjun’s sigh and set down his cup, ready to untangle ancient wisdom for modern knots.

Arjun (sighs): “Prof. Rao, I’m deep in code and deadlines—still waiting on promotions, stuck in a team where egos clash more than code merges. I keep hearing about Dharma and this varna system—ancient stuff about social roles that all sounds tangled up with caste. But honestly, how could any of that possibly help me navigate the politics and pressure in my startup? What’s Dharma got to say about teamwork, fairness, and finding purpose in this modern tech grind?”

Professor Krishna Rao: “Arjun, it’s important to recognize that the original varna system described in scripture was about roles aligned to qualities and actions, meant to maintain balance and harmony. Unfortunately, over centuries—and especially under colonial rule—this flexible system hardened into rigid caste hierarchies, which caused immense suffering.”

“Some professors and scholars, without fully grappling with this complexity, have at times unfairly blamed one community for these distortions, which only deepens social divides. True Dharma research demands caution against such sweeping accusations.”

“Understanding varna in its original spirit helps us move beyond blame, toward healing and an inclusive vision where everyone’s dignity and role is honored. It’s through mature dialogue and mutual respect, not finger-pointing, that progress happens.”

Arjun paused, stirring his coffee slowly, the steam rising like unresolved thoughts. The professor’s words hung in the air, a gentle rebuke to hasty judgments, inviting deeper reflection.

Arjun: “I get that, Prof—history’s messy, and blame doesn’t fix bugs. But how does this ‘original spirit’ apply to my world? My team’s like a dysfunctional family: PMs dictating from on high, leaders pushing without listening, tech leads optimizing at our expense, and devs like me just holding it together. Where’s the harmony? Especially after that promotion slip—feels like my role has no real dignity.”

Professor Krishna Rao: “Precisely, Arjun—that disharmony, that sting of being overlooked, is what Dharma speaks to. Let’s set aside labels like ‘varna’ for a moment—they carry too much baggage. Think instead of universal archetypes: Timeless roles like the Visionary (Product Managers), the Protector (Management Leaders), the Producer (Technical Leads), and the Supporter (Developers). These emerge from ancient metaphors of a cosmic body, where each part works interdependently for the whole—fluid, based on qualities and actions, designed for balance and merit-driven growth. Colonial twists misinterpreted this as rigid divisions, but the intention? Harmony through specialized contributions. When I was your age, fresh in the academy, I doubted my own role—pushing papers while colleagues chased grants. It took reflecting on these ideas to find my footing. Start with the Visionary—from the ‘mouth,’ wisdom’s flow.”

Arjun leaned forward, his laptop screen dimming as he gave the conversation his full attention, a flicker of curiosity cutting through his skepticism.

Professor Krishna Rao: “The Visionary embodies clarity and ethical guidance. Custodians of knowledge, advising without execution. When I taught a bright but arrogant student once, I saw what happens when that clarity turns to ego: He hoarded ideas, alienated peers, and his brilliance fizzled. In tech? Product Managers. They articulate the product’s truth: Vision, user needs, ethical priorities like sustainable features. Not building, but aligning.”

Arjun: “My PM fits—she’s got the big picture, but last sprint, she prioritized a flashy update over fixing core issues we devs flagged. Felt dismissive, like my input didn’t matter—especially after that promotion feedback calling me ‘too detail-oriented.’ Stings, Prof. So, this archetype says… what? Guide without ego?”

Professor Krishna Rao: “Yes—detachment in action. Misuse fractures teams; right inspires purpose. But applied? She channels truth through feedback. Reflect: Sharing your insights respectfully could bridge that gap, turning politics into partnership—much like I learned to collaborate in academia.”

Arjun: “Prof, isn’t this just philosophy talk? My boss won’t change overnight because I ‘reflect.’ It sounds nice, but in the grind, it’s survival.”

Professor Krishna Rao: “Fair doubt, Arjun—I questioned it too, until small shifts in my approach opened doors. Let’s see if the rest resonates. Now, the Protector—‘arms’ for strength, fiery energy. Leaders executing with courage.”

Arjun: “Management? My VP drives hard—metrics over morale. During our app relaunch, he demanded overtime, no thanks given. I stayed up nights refactoring, but it was just ‘expected.’ Feels exploitative, especially when it cost me that promotion—‘not leadership material,’ they said.”

Professor Krishna Rao: “I hear the weariness—like carrying unseen loads. I once pushed my students too hard in a project, ignoring their fatigue, and lost their trust—it humbled me. The Protector safeguards culture, rallies fairly. Greed tyrants teams; fairness builds loyalty. In crisis, uphold values as Ashoka did. Perhaps view his pressures—dialogue could reveal shared purpose, easing your path, as it did for me in rebuilding those bonds.”

Arjun exhaled, the café’s warmth seeping in as he imagined approaching his VP, the idea less daunting now, though doubt lingered.

Psychologists call these role imbalances ‘identity conflicts’ (see Frontiers in Psychology, 2022) 4 , while organizational theorists frame it as ‘structural misfit’ (see JSTOR, on temporal fit and misfit) 9 . Yet, as Professor Rao reminded Arjun, Indian philosophy anticipated these tensions centuries ago.

Professor Krishna Rao: “The Producer—‘thighs’ for productivity, creation sustaining all.”

Arjun: “Tech leads? Ours optimizes relentlessly, but overloads us. I proposed a scalable refactor; he shot it down for ‘time constraints.’ Feels like my creativity’s just fuel for his quotas—adds to the burnout, making me question if there’s dignity in being ‘just a dev.’”

Professor Krishna Rao: “The friction of creation—I remember a colleague who optimized lab efficiency at the cost of joy; it led to his own isolation. The Producer innovates for shared benefit, not exploitation. Inclusive: These archetypes allow mobility via merit, as stories like Vishwamitra show. In sensitivities today, it’s growth-oriented. Your idea? Persist thoughtfully—it could evolve your role, finding purpose in contribution, as I found in mentoring beyond math.”

Arjun’s eyes brightened, jotting a note on his phone, the bug suddenly seeming solvable.

Professor Krishna Rao: “The Supporter—‘feet,’ foundational service, stability.”

Arjun: “Devs like me—grounded, but often invisible. Why chase purpose if we’re just the base, especially after that feedback?”

Professor Krishna Rao: “Essential—without, collapse. I once undervalued my assistants’ support; it nearly derailed a key paper. Detached service, honored in interdependence. Undervalued? Imbalance to heal. Flexibility: Reflection shifts qualities. Reclaim dignity; your craft enables all—it’s where I found my true calling, beyond titles.”

Arjun: “This reframes everything—strengths in fluidity, less ego wars. Limitations with overlaps, histories… but seeing my role as vital? It lifts the fog, gives dignity back. These ‘archetypes’… they’re from that varna system, aren’t they? The one that got twisted?”

Professor Krishna Rao: “Yes, Arjun—the original design, before colonial and later reformist distortions froze it into caste hierarchy, it was a merit-based framework of qualities and actions—fluid, adaptive, intended for balance.”

Arjun closed his laptop, taking a final sip, the coffee’s bitterness now comforting. The rain had cleared to a drizzle, drops tracing paths down the window like code lines resolving. He watched one droplet merge with another, wondering if debugging his code—and himself—was the start of something harmonious, or if the office grind would pull him back. “Thanks, Prof. Time for purposeful debugging.” They shared a knowing smile, the café’s hum a backdrop to newfound clarity, with a hint of the journey ahead.

For Arjun, debugging code and debugging himself felt oddly parallel. For us, the lesson may be simpler: Organizations thrive when all four archetypes are honored, fluidly and with dignity.