Crossing the t's and dotting the i's

The aspect of "managing perceptions in human interaction" was something that I never really thought of, in the past, as a key attribute to good leadership. This changed when I listened to a discourse by Swami Sukabodhananda. His discourses are of a specialized form in that they are mostly related to management, leadership and human interactions. Before I go any further, a statutory disclaimer – I am not affiliated to him or any company of his, in any capacity, nor am I paid to write about him!

SS, as I'll refer to him henceforth, is very widely traveled and has interacted with management institutions worldwide in various forms. Uncle N of mine introduced me to a lecture of his – on Stress Management, I think, about 10 years ago. In one of the chapters on the CD, he talks about an incident that occurred during a regular classroom session he had with management folks from around the world. He had noticed that a lady in the back row looked tired and was finding it difficult to concentrate. He requested her to move up to occupy one of the empty front seats, and continued with his lecture. He noticed that the woman seemed very agitated since the earlier event, so after a while, he asked her if everything was OK. The woman was honest enough and said she was upset – she believed that the Swamiji (as many of his admirers/followers/disciples call him) had insulted her by picking her out in front of everyone else, and making her come up to the front. Right after she said this, the Swamiji asked if everyone in the room felt the same way as regards to the woman's reaction. A gentleman, who was seated on the other far side of the room raised his hand and said he would have felt privileged had he been picked instead to come up and occupy the front row. He hadn't noticed the woman being distracted and that she was therefore being called up to the front. He had felt that the Swamiji saw something in the person to "promote" her over the others in the room – to be seated right up front, in the thick of action!

Look at what perception does – it was a simple gesture by the speaker to encourage one of the distracted folk to be more involved, but two different individuals perceived the same event at two extremes. One looked at it as reward, while the other deemed it a punishment. Every word uttered, or every action performed, will look different when taken out of context or seen in a different light. An oft-repeated line conveys the same message – no two fingers of our hand are the same; which meant to say no two individuals are alike. This story goes beyond that – individuals react differently to the same event; so the onus is on the leader to convey the message in a form that ensures reception in the right spirit. The expectations are changing: leadership before was about conveying the right message; leadership now is to not just convey the right message but also ensure it is received right.

Keep in mind – the T and the I don't need crossing or dotting when written as capital letters!

Q to the editor

Media coverage of events across the world has grown manifold in the past decade or so. With the advent of newer forums that use the Web2.0 infrastructure – blogs, twitter, podcast, etc – there are more than enough avenues for folks to get their daily share of news from. The traditional print news media is caught blinded by this explosion of sorts. Not worrying about traditional competition anymore, they are just looking for ways and means to keep their current customer base in place and not lose market share to the new media outlets.

No matter what the level of news reach the online publication options provide, there's still bound to be a time and place for traditional print: be it on an airplane, be it fulfilling the morning ritual of a quick glance at the newspaper with a cup of coffee, or lying down by the pool side on a quiet Saturday afternoon with a newspaper in hand. So, as an editor to a leading news publication, the biggest challenge is to capture and retain the attention of the reader. Does one go the mass market way and provide a tabloid, or does one focus on providing enriched content that adds cerebral value to the reader? The answers to these questions determine the critical choice of whether to put certain events' coverage on page-1 or page-3 of the newspaper. If someone were to pick up a USA-Today and WallStreetJournal in Boston today, there's a marked difference in the Page-1 content between the newspapers. The same difference is obviously visible when one looks at TheHindu & TimesOfIndia in Bangalore, which is on the other side of the world. While these newspapers cover the same little urban village, that is the world, and the content is from the same events worldwide, there's a marked difference on what the focus of these newspapers is, especially when it comes to deciding what goes on Page-1!

As the executive editor, or whatever he or she is now called, what goes into them making these choices? Does their role move beyond just the coverage; do they owe something to the world at large i.e. the customers, by virtue of their bi-partisan positions? Is there a moral side to it? It must be hard to strike a balance between being a self-righteous moral police and being seen as enticing audience with sensationalism.

Essentially, there's a simple answer to this seemingly complex conundrum and the solution is equally applicable to an individual or entity. The clues lie in answering one question: are you a false positive or a false negative? Stripping all the jargon around it, would you rather be seen as doing the right thing, or would you rather do the right thing and not care about the perception or the end results? What would you do??

The magic bullet

Yes, if you read through to the end of this article, I guarantee that you will have the remedy to almost every trouble, or the magic pill for nearly every problem, there is!

A recent study was conducted on the major league sports in North America which, to those in the know, is a highly competitive and much coveted arena for sportsmen. I did not know the exact probability statistics, but I could afford a logical guess that it took years and years of training hard to even become a contender, and not end up a pretender. Also, to go with the skill, it probably took the slight bit of luck which involved being in the right place at the right time as also to cash in at the slightest hint of visible opportunities. Now, this study looked at the stars of today and yore – unlike most media paparazzi (the kind that springs up magically the moment these stars get themselves a celebrity girlfriend!), this team of researchers did not cover stardom and beyond but rather went into the making of the stars, so to speak. Apparently, if you take ice hockey (which is a religion in itself in Canada and significant parts of the US) as an example: the players put in about 10000 hours on the ice before they made it to the major league level. An independent team delved into other major sports and came up with an equivalent number – nearly 10000 hours of practicing and doing what they did, to get to the level they are at! What's the magic of this number? Is that the number of hours of physical activity one needs to put in to get muscle memory at the sport to get to a level where they become the best (or the cream of the lot) at what they do? Read Malcolm Gladwell's latest book: "Outliers" to get more insights into this theory.

Someone who read these research findings came across Bill Gates at an event, and without providing any background to the aforementioned sports research, asked him about how many hours of programming he had done? Before I provide Gates' answer, let me remind you all that the common perception of Bill is that he was a lucky bloke who made it big in life, when he couldn't make it through high school! Bill Gates' answer to the programming question was – yes, 10000 hours!

I have not personally confirmed the veracity of these answers; neither do I have the 'contacts' to validate these answers with the individuals in question! But, let's assume for a moment that these answers were indeed true. What is the common theme to these folks – we can see that it took a lot of hard work; not to forget the ability to sustain one's focus over a significant period of time. All this, just to have the "chance" to be successful. I am, not for a moment, implying we all need to put in 10000 hours each in our own careers, far from it.

If this is what it takes confirmed successes to earn their livelihood, why aren't we putting up with something for even a fraction of this time before putting our hands up? Can we learn from these folks, who we and our kids regard as idols? Patience, as a virtue, is fast losing ground in this current day and age, where it is all about instant gratification. I remember, as a kid, seeing an instant noodles ad on television wherein the primary message was that it was "ready to serve" in 2 minutes. Figuratively speaking, are we now expanding this to every single avenue of our life? Traffic jams are a common and even expected way-of-life in major cities around the world today. Knowing and accepting it as reality is one thing, but being impatient on the road is another. Even driving for a couple of hours each day, assuming 250 such days on the road in a year, one would put in 500 hours of driving each year. Putting aside that the fact that one is accomplishing the objective of getting to / from the place of livelihood i.e. workplace, it would take a minimum of 20 years of driving at this rate, to rack up the same kind of hours that these professionals do to earn their chops. There might be arguments that these folks earn the high salaries they do, and it's compensating for their hard work, but that's beside the point. Also, being in a vehicle on the road isn't nearly in the same boat as these professionals, as far as effort involved is concerned. We should consider ourselves blessed for what we have, without having to go through the same rigor day in and day out for 15 consecutive years or more (which is what it takes the sportsmen to make a mark) and the sacrifices that go with it. I am just asking for everyone to exhibit that extra bit of patience in the time that one spends on the road.

To not come across as patronizing, I end this with a confession: I was probably the most impatient person I once ever knew, but I consciously worked on it. Coming back to our behavior on the streets, please take a moment (yes, just a moment!) to reflect on the profound and long lasting effects. I hope everyone can see that our message to the next generation, when we love teaching by example, isn't coming out as its intended to be. I just took the example of street behavior to illustrate my point of impatience profoundly increasing, but this is just as applicable to each and every aspect of our lives. If only we could all live by this quote: "Patience is bitter, but the fruits of it are sweet", the world will be that much better a place, and we would all have done our bit to make it so!

Two birds, no stone!

I recently got to attend a much sought after talk, wherein the speaker was a renowned expert in his own domain. His claim to fame was the application of best practices from the automotive and other age-old industries to the relatively newer era of technology management . He was adept with the likes of Lean Management, Agile development methodologies, Xtreme programming practices, etc and he spoke passionately about these, at length.I came out really excited, with some out-of-the-box thoughts to try out on a team that was willing to be the scapegoat for my experiments! A topic that he briefly touched on was something that, in hindsight, could easily be extended to beyond just software development. This topic of interest to me, was "Pair programming". I am sure those with exposure to 'extreme programming' paradigms know all about it, and more! But to those uninitiated in the jargons above, "pair programming" is just literally what it is – a pair involved in the programming i.e. rather than have just individuals working on their own programming problems, a pair of individuals are involved in putting their heads together to solving the same problem. The advantages he quotes are many – having someone to bounce thoughts off, a senior mentor to guide a junior engineer, equal peers having each other watch over so that defects are reduced, learning from each other's experience (read: mistakes), etc. The applicability of this practice or the success measure of this practice isn't really the point of write up. My thoughts are about scaling this, and looking beyond software or technology management. It is about extending this to corporate governance.

With the recent disclosures around Satyam's senior management (or the lack of it, considering none except one individual seemed to have any inkling of internal reality), it led me to think what if there were actually a pair involved in managing the affairs of a corporation. To lead on a possible modality, how would it be if every public listed company had a pair running the organization – one being the executive that's managing inside-out (this is the traditional CEO role as the public face of the company) and the second one in the "pair" being the external representative. He / She would be appointed by the majority stakeholders as their face or voice. There might be concerns as to the veracity of the second appointment, how a consensus is to be reached amongst the shareholders, etc. Of course, I don't have the answers to all these questions, but I am sure we cannot work out a magic formula that would work for every single organization out there. Each entity is as unique as it can get and it is in the best interests of each organization to determine the best way to select the second part of the "pair". This is crucial because this piece of the puzzle would need to work hand-in-glove with the 'traditional CEO' in making sure they are making decisions with the best interests of the company , both at heart, and in soul. The independent board of directors, unfortunately, don't make the cut any more for they are too independent to be involved. As the story goes, they want to be the chicken and not the pig! (non-committed vs. committed; for more background on this, Google "chicken, pig and Agile"!)

The need of the hour is a committed bunch (or two) – someone who doesn't have the same vested interests as the CEO, but at the same time has accountability to deliver, and is committed to this as a full time position. Of course, the much talked about CEO compensation would be back in focus, for there is now a 2x outflow. But I am confident that seeing the long term health of the company in good hands, and the shareholders' interests continuously and independently protected, is a fair enough price to pay for this model. As a parting thought, is there a hidden message in "pair" being a part of "repair"? The onus is on every Indian, with exposure to the West, to undo the damage that the Satyam saga has done worldwide, so that the questions surrounding corporate governance in India are put to rest once and for all!

The power of prime

What's the biggest prime number? Just kidding…this isn't an article about math!

This is about RW Emerson's quote: "Money often costs too much"; this is about the impact of the prime-lending rate (PLR) on the common man and its far-reaching consequences on the economic future of the country. To put it simply, this "prime" number is the interest rate that the central bank would charge for a loan that it lends to say, one of the banks.

Though the prime is an index measured in basis points, it's a metric decided upon by the powers that manage the central bank, and it is adjusted every once so often. Barring economic casualties that seem to arise often of late, as in the current times, there is a specific schedule to evaluating and adjusting this rate. There are various factors that go into how this rate is determined, and how it is altered, but that's beyond the scope of this short article. When looked at a consumer's perspective, the prime rate determines how the banks that deal with individuals (the ICICI's and SBI's of the country) go about lending money. For example, if a private bank is aggressive at handing out loans, these loans might be offered to the customer at prime rate or just above it, with a marginal profit. This is where it all gets interesting – the banks in India currently don't seem to distinguish between the individuals' ability to pay off the loans and their past history at doing so, when doling out loans. Of course, there is the lien that people need to provide and records of assets owned, etc to back up claims for loans at the higher housing levels, like those seen in the millions of rupees range. At certain lower levels like automobile loans or consumer purchases in the lower hundreds-of-thousands, there seems to be a near free-for-all eligibility to get hands on one of these loans. There's a very thin line that divides the consumers' desire to upgrade their lifestyles with borrowed money and, to put it simply, the greed to not be able to distinguish between wants and needs depending on affordability. The US economy, beginning with the sub-prime housing crisis, and now extending to credit difficulties caused by very poor liquidity should be an important lesson for India. As the saying goes, it is best to learn from the mistakes of others, and not repeat it oneself. The law makers need to encourage good, responsible behavior while at the same time make it difficult for people to stretch their economic freedom to levels where they can no longer sustain it. I am sure there are conflicting opinions between achieving rapid economic growth vs. sustained growth at slightly lower levels, but this balance might be important to ensure the long-term health of the economy. This is where utilizing the "power of the prime" to ensure adequate liquidity levels becomes very important.

Unlike some of the developed Western economies, India doesn't (yet) have a centrally reported "credit score" for every individual. To establish such a system, there needs to be a central database that pretty much tracks the "credit history" of every individual. This would mean tracking all transactions wherein there is not cash or an instant money transfer (debit purchases) involved. In other words, transactions that require borrowing of money would need to be reported by all the banks that offer credit cards or loans, to the central reporting / monitoring agency. This bipartisan agency would then come up with a 'score' for every single individual based on his / her past record with loans and promptness in paying off debt. I hope this system is included as part of the e-governance transformation the country is undergoing. Given a transparent setup that everyone has access to, the lending institutions wouldn't fall over one another in doling out sub-prime loans (and then have people head over heels in paying off these loans), and banks would really understand the risks behind each loan made. This results in accountability getting built into the system at all levels. More importantly, it is never too late to reward good behavior!

Yes we can...

This quote is, without-doubt, attributable to the new President of the United States. Ever since I heard him say it with passion for the very first time early in '08, I have been enamored. Why? Read on…

There've been many factors quoted by the experts for Barack Obama's popularity around the world, the least of which is not the historic factors surrounding his origins. That aside, the ability to intellectually connect and therefore favorably polarize people isn't being quoted (at least publicly) as the principal factors for his worldwide acceptance. If looked closely, there's a lot of similarity between his position in the American ecosystem (and the demographic engulfed within) and India's current position in the economic world order:

Rising from a position of adversity, where the only way is up, it is possible to talk on the same terms what India's economic growth has done to the world's perception as has Obama's win done to America's (and indirectly the world's) perception of race. Not for a moment am I indicating that this is a win of any sorts for any non-political reasons, but let's take a magnanimous look at the impact of "faith, belief" and "hope" in the end result.

India, as it's been since 1947 until the technology-driven economic boom of the 21^st century, has been at some level continuously driven by the "hope" that the hard work of the people will bear fruit eventually. We are not the new world order, yet, economically or strategically, but India is the new kid on the block that the neighbors stand up to take notice. If I were to express all of this change or transformation in one key word or phrase, it would arguably be the "HOPE" or the "yes we can" attitude. That we didn't definitively come out and say as much explicitly reflects on the confidence that initial success gives you to make that bold statement. To draw a parallel again, note that this wasn't Obama's message from the get go, but rather the initial primary wins over Hillary that gave him the confidence to put his confident foot forward and issue the war cry of "yes we can".

The message to the new "leaders" (I prefer this to "politician" for its long been misused and therefore tarnished) that govern India should be: Drive Change at all levels, for it is change that gives rise to new possibilities; use hope to power this transformation, and the beliefs from past successes to achieve this change.

Signing off, I hope (yes I do too) it is time to expand on the original quote:"Yes we can, and we should!"…

What's in a name?

I was recently left pondering over this very question, when a coworker asked me to explain the significance of our choice for our little one. I am sure most Indians who have had any exposure to the West have had to clarify something related to their names - be it the way its pronounced, or explaining the significance of it!

I still have a few unanswered questions at the end of my rhetoric investigations: is it that the names are complex in English pronunciation because they were not designed for the language in the first place, a.k.a lost in translation? Do all the Anglican names translate fairly easily over to other languages? Having spent the last couple of years in a predominantly francophone community, I can see how Michael became Michel, Mark became Marc, or Stephen became Stephane when it passed the Anglo-Franco transformation and also suit the needs of the local language, as also to gel well with the syllables.
As the world becomes one small village, as the cliche goes, are we faced with having to come up with an equivalent Indian-Western name transformation?

To visit the other side of the story, I'm sure there's a reason why we have the names we do. At the cost of generalizing, let me take the South Indian Hindu names for e.g: most have some sort of relationship to a Hindu God/Goddess. The most logical conclusion I can make is that the grand parents and parents wished to chant these religious names as often as they could, resulting in the names being what they are! It served the dual purpose of being religiously inclined, while at the same time giving identity to the culture and religion. So, while there's the argument to translate into the Anglican form to give it more identity to the local land, there's also the cultural identity. I guess its the ultimate choice - local identity or cultural roots' identity that governs the answer to "what's in a name?"

To end on a lighter note, I have an anecdote from summer of '02: one of my unofficial roles, when being assigned to cover the initial foray of an Indian outsourcing services provider in the NorthEast US, was to help the newer arrivals from India settle down. I had one such engineer (who was to become a close friend later) land in Boston and during the first week, I took him to the Social Security office to get a SSN (Social Security Number, to those in the know!). We apparently set a record then for his middle and last names (coming from a typical Tiruchirappalli tradition of having the village name be part of it) exceeded the space allocated for names in the SSN system. To those curious minds, all's well that ends well - he ended up giving a shortened name, which then became his name for the rest of his life in the US!

The "scar" in scarcity

As someone who grew up in India in the '80's, I've first hand experienced a social phenomenon which I am sure a lot of Indians from the same era can relate to: I am referring to the scenario which occurred at pretty much every public place where there was a need to form a line or queue.
Be it a bus station where one needed to get a taxicab, board a train, or entering the stadias gates for catching a game, there would always be attempts to override the queue and rush to the front if not for policing by either the public themselves or by specifically assigned folks to ensure people "literally"stayed in line. I am, by no means whatsoever, demeaning the population or referring to this as only happening in particular regions of the world. I am merely attempting to delve deeper into the psychological aspects of this particular human behavior.
I did have to wait for long to get some out-of-the-box thoughts and insights into this - when it finally did come, it was from a coworker of my dad, a German national who was living in India then. His reasoning for this behavior was that people were afraid of being left out i.e. if they weren't at the front of the line, they would miss out on getting it eventually, for there as a possibility of it running out by the time their turn came around! A simple enough argument, but it made the most logical sense to me. Was scarcity the answer to people really behaving the way they were?
I do not have the credentials to provide any expert opinions on the human mind, but let's take this to be the case for a moment: would fear of not having a bus come by the same route for an hour afterwards force people to do what it takes to get in? Oh, yes. Would, in spite of holding a paid-for ticket, not guarantee a good view of the game? Yes, because, they aren't reserved seats! These examples I've taken could easily be argued upon as being the same in any other developed nation, but these are what they are - just examples! I could, in a moment's notice, come up with umpteen more cases but that's not the point. My case is that such a behavior could stay with an individual and be a part of him/her without even a conscious feeling of doing so. I have seen some Indians exhibit the same behavior when visiting a doctor's office in the US - the doctor isn't going away, but they are concerned anyway; so they want to be the first in line when the doctor's office opens and the secretary is taking in registrations.
For those that read this far, I am sure the title of this post is now self explanatory - it is the scar caused by the scarcity (or fear of it) that I hope is diminishing in the new India. With all the growth and prosperity the nation has experienced materialistically, I hope we can be richer psychologically as well. For, after all, this will be our true gift to the next generation of Indians!