Office: Office – Decision making

It is the only thing that decides the culture of your organization, irrespective of what brand managers, HR, or employees have to say. Touted as a key managerial trait, its absence is pronounced among the manager community. The more senior the person, the better his decision making abilities, one would assume. That isn't always the case, secretaries will tell you. In my limited experience, I have seen five types of decision makers.

1.       The slasher – This person hates accumulating things – in his inbox or on his table. He takes the clean desk/ desktop policy to the next level – clean decision making. Remember the Japanese Manga series where the guy with the sword, goes "Khachak! Khachak!" slicing through people like watermelons? This category of manager does the same with approvals.  By the end of the day, he likes to keep his mail box devoid of any requests for approval.

2.       The pig – This type of manager loves to hoard and not respond to any requests – be it an expense claim or the budget for the next quarter's plan. The most you can get from him/her is a breezy "Hi. How are things?" before vanishing into his/her cabinet. Upon confronting this person, you can expect one of two responses "I haven't received that email" or "I will look into it." And the cycle will go on until either you or the manager quits. By the way, the odds of quitting favor you.

3.       The cat – This variety cares only for himself/herself. Obviously only those decisions that are important to him/her would be made. Everything else can rot in the mail box, including something as petty as your career. The only way to motivate this animal is by showing him a mirror and telling him how he can like a lion. And of course, he will decide what type of mirror he wants to seem himself in.

4.       The Lion – This one takes pride in delegating decision making. He takes few decisions, but those would be the ones he would truly be valued for. While he may not bother with your mobile phone bill reimbursement, he will decide on you promotion. He may not care about what tie you wear to work, but will chide you when you don't turn up for meetings on time. Nothing puts him off more than realizing he has been forced into making a penny's worth of decision.

5.       The teenager – Loves freedom but wants no responsibility. This type of decision maker is the first to clear his name from any potential repercussions of decision making. He will refute any claims made previously and will avoid leaving a trace of any decision making. If your performance manager is like this, you will receive a new performance rating every second day until the deadline ends. Whatever was the rating last saved, would be the one awarded to you. If you question him on it, he'll say "The system only saved that version. Next time, I promise to save it earlier".

So what type of a decision maker are you?

Office-Office : Leadership

Even as I hear some virtual sniggers, I am not going to be discouraged. Leadership is the one thing everyone expects in a potential hire knowing fully well that they don’t have what it takes. Yet, it is the singular most popular catch phrase used by recruiters to lure unsuspecting candidates to run of the mill jobs. Add the ‘L’ word and everything turns rosy with the added illusion of a palanquin with four beefed up guys carrying your not-so-deserving self. Of course those illusions are dismissed the day you see your desk and talk to your ‘team mates’. No knowledge transfer or transition, no proper job scope, no separate bathroom, no views from the desk (well, it’s a cubicle really) and an unending trail of e-mess waiting for your attention. That, is pretty much enough to get the leader out of anyone.

(Image Courtesy: Dilbert.com)


So, are you a leader? (of course, you are! I just asked the question again to see if you were paying attention to the post.) I have known four types of leaders in my professional experience.

a) The Superstar: This leader likes to believe the world revolves around him/her and they can’t think beyond “I”. This type hates the word “We” and chances are he/she will crush the rise of any other ‘leader’ or quit trying. More megalomaniac and less leader, the way into his good books is through ego massage. Think life size corporate standees, the company logo replaced with his initials/ signature, movie style presentations where he is the only speaker, and of course ‘unprecendented’ media coverage (even if you paid for it).

b) I am my team: Literally. This leader cannot work without his team. He mentally segregates his team into two – The professional assistants and the personal assistants. Everything from his chai to his business plan is outsourced. So what does he do himself, you ask? Well, he keeps his junta suitably enthusiastic without realizing they are actually working for him and not for the company. What rubbish! You cannot fool all of the people all of the time! That is why he always poaches his people by making them offers they cannot refuse (doubling of salaries for starters). Danny Ocean is living proof.

c) I like ‘leader’ in my designation, whether I am one or not: This is fast becoming the new norm thanks to social networking. Everyone wants to be friends with a leader, not a loser. And so, the distinction is clear – you either have ‘leader’ in your designation or you don’t. Isn’t that fooling people? Of course. But then who’s looking for reality? Would you really want to be friends with a leader if you knew what they were doing in reality?

d) The invisible leader: If you haven’t seen one yet, then you have something to look forward to. You never see this leader, only his work. You hear about his magnanimity with praise and his restraint with criticism. You see the respect and gratitude that his team has for him. Nah! It’s too good to be true. Yeah, because it takes efforts to do real work and motivate people the right way. If such a leader was everywhere, everyone would be a top performer. Even the office boy.

I have heard of other leaders too like the leader who promptly falls ill when a presentation is due in 30 minutes; or the leader who is constantly trying to jump ship when his shoddiness at work stands to be exposed; or the leader who simply prefers travelling to satisfy his wanderlust burning company money; or even the leader who prefers working from the connectivity–free zone.

So is being a leader a bad thing? Nah. How else can you get people to notice you?

IPL 6 shame gate – Do we need a cricket governance model with a bite?

The sixth edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL) has fizzled out as fast as Pepsi’s new drink Atom (apparently it tastes like a mix of Chyavanprash and Jal Jeera with a shot of cola), thanks to the spot fixing scandal that has engulfed many IPL franchisees. This is the second time the league has been caught in such activity, the first being in 2010 that led to the ouster of Lalit Modi, then chairperson of the league. But we don’t seem to learn from the past, do we? As a nation we are used to reacting with shock/ anger at such incidents followed by apathy and amnesia. Sports governing bodies in India are no different.

(Image Courtesy - CNN IBN)

Post IPL gate (that is what the 2010 scandals were collectively referred to in the media), few provisions have been made to prevent issues like match fixing, money laundering and betting. At best, franchisees were asked to indicate their sources of funding. Knowing well that there is no mechanism to validate the information provided, it makes no sense to disclose this information. Complaints on team funding were taken up by the governing body only after court cases were filed and not suo motu.

Players are allowed to use their discretion outside of the game and one practically has no guidelines on how to conduct their lives off the field. The minute a player starts playing in a major league/ match, he leaves no stone unturned to get himself to endorse any brand that can pay him. I would assume sportspersons would like to endorse brands associated with sports like playing gear, cosmetics, shoes, permitted food supplements, apparel etc. But No. A couple of years ago four leading cricketers including the Indian’s team’s captain endorsed an alcohol brand. Is there any association between sports and alcohol? Ceiling fans, chocolates, cameras, pens, cars, fairness creams, men’s fashion, are all endorsed by sportsmen.

This brings me to a fundamental question – Do players today play for money or the love of the game? Looking at former tainted players like Ajay Jadeja and Mohammed Azharuddin, one cannot help but notice that their lifestyles today are reflective of the riches garnered during their playing days. Little wonder then that players want to grab endorsements because the money earned lets them tide through poor performance and/or scandals. They can perhaps use this money to buy a place in the team to sustain the pipeline of endorsement deals so that they have enough money to last a lifetime.

The very fact that none of this has been discussed so far is an indication that cricket’s governing body wields no real control on ethics and principles. This needs to be fixed so the game restores the dignity with which it started out in India. I feel the following measures can help.

1) Curbing the value of endorsements – Players as well as those associated with the game in any capacity (umpiring, commentary, administration etc) need to have their endorsements curbed to not exceed 20 percent of the salaries they earn from the Board. This measure would be effective in preventing gold diggers to seek places on the team. Consider this – Players over the age of 22 earn a minimum of USD 50,000 (around Rs 25 Lakh) per IPL season. Winning teams earn as much as Rs 7.5 Crore on an average and players in these teams get a minimum of Rs 15 Lakh. Add to this perks from sponsors like cars, lifetime membership/ supply of certain goods, gold etc, in recognition of performance. Most cricketers are employed by private and public sector enterprises and earn a salary, no matter how insignificant compared to the lakhs made on the field. A salary of Rs 40-50 Lakhs a year for a few months of performance is adequate to live a reasonably luxurious life by Indian standards, what with most players stretching their playing years to ten. (Marketers define luxury as having a family income upwards of Rs 20 Lakh a year).

2) Guidelines for conducting oneself off the field during a season – A night of post match partying and debauchery is a distraction from the game. It takes double the effort from the support staff to prep a player post such sessions. Little wonder then that leading sports clubs in countries like UK (football clubs Manchester United and Manchester City) and US have strict guidelines of what players can and cannot do during a game season. The list of banned activities includes partying, drugs, one night stands, wives and girlfriends, car racing/ speeding, meeting/ talking to persons not approved by the management, cell phones, and, food from unauthorized eateries, among others. Anyone caught indulging in such activity is usually not allowed to play and can be banned from the team. This is helpful for younger players who often grapple with new found fame and attention.

3) Compulsory listing for franchisees – IPL franchisees should be listed on Indian stock exchanges and 50 per cent of share holding must be with retail investors. This will accomplish two things: force franchisees to declare their funding and toe the guidelines set forth by various legislations and be governed by SEBI; create a sense of loyalty / community ownership among the public who move from being mere viewers to part owners of the franchisee. Football clubs in the UK follow this model where franchisees are usually homegrown and hence enjoy loyalty from the communities. Considering IPL does not endorse that model, there is less loyalty between franchisees and the crowd. What complicates matters is that in many cases neither players not franchisee owners belong to the cities where these franchisees are based.

Cricket in India has long been a club of sorts run by patrons. The BCCI follows this archaic model where members are often heirs of the erstwhile patrons or political appointees, aspiring for control. But today the game has outgrown itself and taking strong measures can help run it professionally with dignity.

Office-Office: Resignation

It’s the panacea for all ills. At least for the office variety of ills that one puts up with for so long. Bad ass boss (the ‘darling do my work please but don’t expect anything in return’ type), no increments (because the bell curve has to be maintained and someone needs to be screwed and that someone is you), slog house environment (welcome to professional life) , reimbursements (from the finance team to your account) missing credit dates, PPTs peppered with mindless masala about what you can offer (never mind what you commit to), no free lunch, yawn, and no AC after official office hours (The ‘we like you to sweat and since we won’t let you go to the gym, isn’t this better?’ motto), and more such intellectual atyaachaar.

(Image courtesy: www.Dilbert.com)

Once you throw in the towel, you have pretty much said ENOUGH. Instead of congratulating you on this monumental effort at your sanity preservation, people grow hostile. Some with a vivid imagination propagate the grape vine that you are joining the competition, when all you are doing is realizing you will be penniless for the next three months (did you expect they would pay you a salary during your notice period? You need to be shot for your naiveté!).

Why do people do this? I have three theories.

1. They are jealous – Because you kicked the system in the gut and are supposedly moving on to a better place. They too want to move on to this better place but don’t have the gumption to repeat your act.

2. They are bored and need a career change but then, no one wants to hire them – Perhaps they want to become fiction writers. Of the torrid romance variety, replete with love, sex, dhoka and glycerin tears. They are just using your situation to see if the novel can be based on you. This is creative license, not malevolence, they will claim when confronted.

3. They are afraid – Surf’s out and you caught them without their pants. Your leaving spells doom because they would actually have to work now. No more forwarding your work as theirs, which means they need to know how to animate slides and how to change the font size and color and aligning textboxes and inserting pictures and providing the content for the deck as well. They don’t have a choice but to work fast towards getting your replacement. Imagine doing all that work themselves!.

4. They are angry – This is technically not an original theory but it could be an outcome of any of the three theories above. In a rare occasion this theory could prove to be original - when you may have, in drunken stupor or plain childish enthusiasm, agreed to a pact with some fellow co-workers saying “we’ll all quit together.” Now, you’ve quit and they haven’t. And they are coming at you with that beer bottle to fulfill their side of the deal.

Ok. Now what? Well, best to be armed with a good answer for every attempt the management makes to keep you on board (assuming they actually care for you). While serving notice period at least you can dream of walking in the greener pastures of the future. If you take back your resignation, you won’t have the time to dream.

The retro connection - Norah Ephron and our lives

Bangalore is hot these days. So hot that all you can enjoy doing is alternate between reading a book and sipping on water/juice in a cool corner at your home. With no such luck favoring me, I managed to read an eBook slumped across my desk at office when everyone else was taking two hour lunch breaks followed by an hour of smoke break. (I suspect they go home and rest in that cool corner). Of course, no one suspects me because I had my eyes on the computer screen all the time.


Norah Ephron’s I feel bad about my neck and other thoughts on being a woman isn’t what I would call my ideal read. Hell no. After all, who wants to read about one’s obsession with one’s neck? So after parking this book for a week on my desktop, I finally managed to read it. For those who did not know (and that included me before I read the last page of the book), Norah Ephron wrote the screenplays for some of the films I like - When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle, and You’ve Got Mail.

What I discovered in her memoirs was profound.

The book details Norah’s experiences in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Forty years on, there is a strange sense of déjà vu as many of my friends seem to be experiencing life the way she did.

1. The obsession with foreign/ exotic cooking: Norah’s obsession (and probably that of other women in that era) with French cooking is reflective of India’s current obsession with cooking Italian food and baking. The rising number Nigella Lawson and Master Chef Australia fans, plus the rising TRPs of food shows is testament to this. I find some of my friends cooking seven course meals for friends “who just dropped by.” Seeing them I am tempted to throw in the towel right away and settle for the good old curd rice. Just like Norah settling with the Lee Bailey style of cooking – whatever one is comfortable with.

2. Maintenance woes: I am not talking about the money that we shell out every month to ensure that running water, power backed up electricity and clean corridors are a reality in our apartment complexes. I am talking about personal grooming and care (what most husbands will call “waste of time” or “Shoo-shah”). It makes me mad that I don’t look like the Fair n Lovely before and after images whenever I am done with whatever I do. Blame it on outsourcing, cheap prices, and plain laziness. I think our mothers did good with their use of homemade beauty products and no, they did not know about manicure.

In recent times the only youngish woman who I have seen with less than perfect hands is my domestic help (apart from me that is). Even my baby sitter has a 30 minute routine every Saturday morning for doing up her nails. I am dreading the day my two year old daughter asks me to do up hers. No, it’s not the money and time that will be spent on this. I just don’t know how to do them!

3. Renting houses: Norah rationalizes her whopping rental amount as “the price paid for one cappuccino every day for 10 years.” We do it by saying “it’s only half my salary and I need I decent place to live.” An acquaintance recently bought a 3300 sqft house from an upmarket builder for at least Rs 3 Crores. I don’t know what her rationale could have possibly been, but I don’t have the heart to tell her that she won’t be able to clean the house when the maid won’t show up. Perhaps it’s better to live amidst filth, especially if there is 3300 sqft of it. I will never know.

There are many other parallels one can draw from the book but this is not a book review. What amazes me is that our lives are no different from those of people a few decades ago, despite the whole lot of advancements that have come our way. It signifies that the human spirit is indomitable and irrespective of socio-economic-cultural statuses our desires are similar. 

Moving away from populist politics

Narendra Modi has faced considerable criticism of his leadership and vision (or the supposed lack of one), in recent times. (He is likely to contest for the Prime Minister’s post in the 2014 elections). While Justice Katju’s is the most vitriolic criticism of the lot, other critiques have predictably focused on issues such as education and health standards in the state and of course, the marginalization of muslims. Modi’s defenders have been quick to point fingers at the Congress lead UPA government’s misdeeds in its reign. Media has given ample space for this war of words and at times has even taken sides. In this melee, what no one seems to have highlighted is a fundamental shift in the way Indian politics is likely to play out in the near future - with possibly Modi at the forefront (Modi, because I have not heard of anyone else working on this model in their constituencies/states).


For a country whose political class has long survived in power doling out subsidies and freebies by the dozen, Modi’s transformation of Gujarat seems unbelievable and even threatening. For he has managed to match (and outgrow) most states on many parameters with little subsidy or freebies. Given our burgeoning fiscal deficit, India has little option but to stop giving freebies sooner or later. (If India were a company, it would be shut down even before it started doing business, is what one chartered accountant friend told me). But to do that, one needs to create a culture where people want to work towards their sustenance and freebies and other entitlements are looked upon as charity and not one’s birth right. How do you do that?

Through needs assessment. In marketing parlance, needs assessment refers to understanding customer aspirations. This can further be broken down into stated needs, real needs, unstated need, delight need, secret need etc. Let us apply this to the existing set of voter aspirations in a relatively under developed state. Assuming the voter is a man aged 30-35, these are roughly what his needs could be.

• Stated need – More income (possibly to buy TV/ fridge/ car and other items)

• Real need – Better/ additional opportunities for employment and wealth creation

• Unstated need – A steady source of income that helps beat inflation to some extent and allows him to save money

• Delight need – Infrastructure provided by the government to support him in achieving this objective. Eg: assuring public safety, better transportation, emergency healthcare support, skills up-gradation through subsidized programmes and courses etc.

• Secret need - To be respected by his family/ community as a successful/ prosperous individual who has not employed dubious means for growth.

I am aware that it is not that simple to segregate voters and their needs, but that is what political think tanks and governments should be doing. A poor man cares less for religion and politics and more for his next meal. But what he will respect a political leader/ state for is providing him a with a means to earn that meal. This is perhaps the reason why Nitish Kumar has been more successful than most other Chief Ministers of Bihar.

An economy that grows through job creation is less volatile than one that runs on freebies. Such an economy is also able to ensure relatively equitable distribution of wealth among its people over time. Developed countries around the world follow this principle of limited subsidy and reservation, allowing them to bounce back from adverse economic conditions. The US offered dole money of $1000 a month for upto 18 months to citizens who had lost jobs during the recession. After 18 months, not a penny more was offered and those who lived off the money without looking for jobs had to fend for themselves in the job market. In Europe, everyone earning an income (irrespective of the income level, age, religion or community) is taxed and in return many facilities such as healthcare and education are subsidized heavily. Technically, you still have to contribute something to become eligible for a range of government provided subsidies.

Narendra Modi is subtly trying to encourage such a model to enable growth. Perhaps we should give this model a chance. After all, Robinhood economics has not benefittted the country in the last 60 years that it has been subtly practiced.

Is private-public-partnership in income taxation the way to development?

Recently I wrote a an article criticizing the Indian media’s shallow coverage of the Maha Kumbh Mela, where the event was reduced to yet another congregation of weirdos. In contrast, blogs, pictures and videos put up by pilgrims and visitors provided a better perspective of what the mela is to different people. A popular reporter also said in her column that events like the Kumbh mela succeeded without much government supervision because pilgrims/ visitors shared similar emotional sentiments (of piety, devotion and spiritualism) and felt responsible to ensure that nothing unpleasant happened.


(Image Courtesy: www.newsleaks.in)

My friend’s brother wrote an article on police apathy and how policing can be improved through private-public partnership. This was in the background of the recent unfortunate incident in Delhi and subsequent protests by people that highlighted the police attitude towards victims (particularly women) and their unwillingness to register an FIR. The article spoke about how greater private sector participation can improve things.

Both articles indicate the decreasing clout the government is likely to enjoy in the coming years as the public starts expecting results. The primary reason the public depends on the government is for its low prices of goods and services, followed by law and order. But as the taxpaying public is increasingly witnessing, the government is unable to deliver on basic needs like water, infrastructure, health care and education for them and their families.

Taxpayer money today is mostly spent giving out subsidies to the poor without encouraging them to move towards self-sustenance. This would have been relatively understandable if tax payers were extended special privileges such as immediate issue of ration card (irrespective of the number of years of domicile), faster processing of documents at government offices, preference in allotment of land etc. This was indeed the process followed in the days of Kings so as to ensure that the rich did not rebel and the poor aspired to grow out of poverty. (I am discounting the ills and prejudices brought upon the poor due to the caste system here, just to keep the argument theoretically focused.)

Considering the government is unlikely to extend any such privileges nor improve the way it delivers on basic amenities, would it help if one split the income tax paid between the government and private parties who can bring in the much needed efficiency to deliver the goods?

Consider this example. If residents of a particular street/ area took special interest in maintaining that street/ area well and paid the larger portion of their income tax to a community based entity that could help them maintain the street well, would the model work? At least people would have the satisfaction of knowing that their money was used for visible results. Imagine if the same situation was extended to various spheres such as healthcare, education etc. The costs could be kept low by clubbing 1-2 areas to have a hospital or school. Because the community has a sense of responsibility (not unjustified entitlement as is the case today with some segments of society), they would also have low tolerance to corruption, theft and other social ills. Also depending on the improvements necessary, the income tax collected from people could vary each year, similar to what happens in a private housing society that manages the property by charging a fixed maintenance fee to all owners for efficient functioning.

In such a scenario the government’s role would be reduced to that of a facilitator and for that the public can pay it a small share of the income tax. That way the government too gets encouraged to keep its overheads low.

This model can be extended to corporations also who can support the development of their respective regions thereby avoiding skewed growth patterns across the country.

Knowing the politicians and bureaucrats who have grown fat and powerful ruling this country on public money, they would never allow something like this. But who said one is not allowed some wishful thinking?

What are your views on such a model?

Keeping up with the 6:30 pm deadline

It is not the best way to start a new year with such a post. But perhaps I should feel good knowing that my grey cells don’t seem to have degenerated and I still have a perspective on life. So here goes.

Recently, I received two guidance emails from our administration team pertaining to women’s safety. One of them contained a presentation about how women can defend themselves when faced with potentially dangerous situations, and the other provided a list of phone numbers and other measures (details on cabs, escorts etc) provided by the company to ensure women’s safety.

While I appreciated the content of these emails (although partially plagiarized and in poor English, the information was useful), I was apprehensive about the seriousness of their intent. I have three fundamental issues-

1. Why single out women? – While acknowledging that crime against women has risen in the last decade thanks to poor conviction rates for the accused, one also needs to look at the big picture. Among various urban crime, incidence of rape (as a percentage of crime) features significantly lower that other crimes under the IPC such as theft, murder, burglary, kidnapping, robbery and trade of counterfeit/ illegal (Source: National Crime Records Bureau). At the very least, it indicates that men are perhaps as susceptible to crime as women, and perhaps more ill equipped to deal with it. If that is the case, why not extend these facilities for safe travel and tips on self defense to men as well? Why should anyone stay in office after 6:30 pm, if human life (male and female) can be at risk?

If circumstances warrant that employees have to work odd hours (such as in BPO), companies must provide alternate options for work to continue, besides providing a secure commute and work place environment in case they wish to work from office. I know offices where coffee machines and air conditioning are switched off after 6:00 pm and choices for dinner are restricted to Maggi noodles and Kurkure.

2. Is there a choice? – A friend facing a personal emergency had to wait for one week before she was approved to work from home. It took two more days for her to get the necessary devices for connectivity. I have also heard of male friends complaining about putting in extra time on projects because women on the team leave by 6:30 pm, and have no means to connect to the project from home because clients don’t approve such requests fearing rise in project costs. While that seems a lot like baloney, it most likely is true. Most organisations don’t provide alternatives for women (or men) to work odd hours because it is much simpler that way (for the organization).

However, by doing so, they wrongly position safety as an exclusive privilege for women, and find other ways to penalize them for their limited absence from work. Their names do not figure in any appreciation emails, nor do they get salary hikes and promotions on par with someone who was present post 6:30 pm. “It is unfair to the person who has stayed beyond 6:30”, was what an HR professional told me.

How about tweaking the performance evaluation system in a way that does not place emphasis on physical presence? Further, why not educate the client that working remotely would not impact the project cost or quality?

As a mother of a toddler I often ask myself this question – Will working from home a few days in a month impact my career progression? I don’t have a clear answer but I usually tend to go with a mental “Yes” and pack my bags to leave for office.

3. How reliable are these measures? – About a year ago, I heard of an incident where a female employee was dragged by strangers in her office parking lot as she approached her car, about 300 m from the main building. She managed to shout, and get the attention of the security guard, and eventually escaped an attempt on her life and dignity. This organization had drafted safety measures for women employees, owing to a recent spate in rapes against working women in that city. Unfortunately their efforts seemed stuck there– in the draft stage. The parking lot was ill lit and when she requested the security to walk her some distance to the car, he apparently asked her “Are you sure? Why?”. That left her with little choice but to make the journey herself. A year on, I heard that this organization has floated similar guidelines owing to the recent Delhi rape case. Only upon testing some of those frameworks can one know how effective they are.

Most offices are no different. They provide hotlines with recorded messages, give mobile numbers that people cannot reach, and do not conduct mock drills or sensitize employees (male and female) to the risks they can face. In most cases the women’s safety initiative is the responsibility of the general administration team, who are already burdened with various other routine work. Can we expect them to be reasonably equipped to deal with any distress calls? Little wonder then that many employees rarely read these safety measures before trashing them from their inbox.

It is important that companies take cognizance of recent developments in the country and take relevant action. But these actions, if taken for cosmetic purposes, will not yield long term results and create a positive work environment.