I have to admit upfront that I like this man Aniljeet Daman. He wears glasses that see in black and white. Now he wants to find people with similar vision to work with and build his company, Taffet India. How much more defined can one get about life, business and the company one wants to keep? But Aniljeet and Taffet India have a grave problem — not much of the known world looks at life in black and white. Aniljeet is going to lack agreeable company. On a visit to Israel to set up a partnership with a technology company, I came across a stunning variation of what Aniljeet is trying to do to build his business empire. The CEO of the Israeli technology company, which was crafting a Web-based inter-operable instant messaging solution, was an insomniac. He worked 18 hours a day, all without a single cup of coffee. He made an awesome role model in an age when the dominant business mantra is speed-to-market. His HR team had a clear mandate to give preference to insomniacs when it came to hiring. The company, which had about 80 employees, had not met with much recruitment success on its insomniacs-first policy, but they did have a couple of medically certified insomniacs on rolls, who gave the rest of the company sleepless nights. The CEO — let us call him Abijah — had a sharp sense of reality. He often told his colleagues, "I can't keep these waking and working hours alone; I need company. It is another matter that insomniacs work without complaining and can be more productive." Not everyone believed him. They thought he wanted more work extracted from everyone. And who knows, perhaps that was Abijah's cunning goal. But as CEO he was careful to repeatedly emphasise that he had other, if not perfectly justifiable, reasons. Abijah once told me that this repetition of purpose before the rest of the company was necessary: "It emphasises the kind of person I am, and it also emphasises the culture I want built around me with people who do not mind working non-stop. Well, not everyone has to be an insomniac, as long as they work hard!"It is difficult to not marvel at this approach. But Aniljeet is not in Abijah's category. Abijah wants work done; Aniljeet wants work done in a way not easily subscribed to by everyone. Aniljeet's sensitive and intelligent departing HR head, Kapil Shankar, complains to him about the sale of Taffet India's home appliances business, in a bid to give an example of unethical business behaviour at the company. Aniljeet, however, responds without remorse saying, "Yes, I remember my dear man. You wanted me to sell it (the home appliances business) as is, whereas I needed to prepare it to present it. You thought I was dressing it up; I think I was getting it ready to be presentable. In business nobody buys a bad looking product!" There is truth in Aniljeet's observation that there is no point spending time, money and effort on packaging products that could have been sold in a brown wrapper. But it certainly makes him sound like an aggressive huckster. Most other CEOs would have astutely chosen refined words to say the same thing.The point is this: leaders today must be careful of what they say as well as how they say it. It does not matter if it is being said to an employee who has put in her papers, an employee who is just joining, a vendor who has been struck off the provider list or a partner in business. Why is this so? And how can Aniljeet stand to gain from appearing caring, perceptive and responsive to Kapil? How can he benefit if he wins Kapil over, not to his way of life or to his seemingly dubious value system, but to standing by Taffet India? The answer is simple. As Jeffrey Gitomer, the author of The New York Times bestseller The Little Red Book of Selling, says, "Getting your way is the gateway to getting what you want."Aniljeet is on a hurried quest to creating wealth. We are not debating the merits or the ethical and moral nature of his pursuit. All we need to understand is that effectively communicating what he wants is the key to getting what he wants. People, cultures, environments, dreams and desires differ between people. No leader can hope to blend every single employee into what today are largely manufactured corporate cultures (is HR listening?) that employees anyway view with a jaundiced eye. It is, however, important for leaders to communicate with employees in a way they would want employees to communicate with them. Honesty will beget honesty. Dishonesty will beget dishonesty. You will reap as you sow — this does not really need much reminding. At the bottom of all communication, as in life, is courage. To courageously communicate what is necessary is half the battle won. Generals have used courage to lead entire armies to improbable victories. They have practiced what is their dharma as true leaders: to observe and exercise courage in everything they do and in everything they say.Arun Katiyar is a content and communication consultant with a focus on technology companies(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 12-09-2011)
Read More
Kapil Shankar watched as the 52-inch television screen went orange with the flames on Reeves Corner, Croydon. London was burning for the fourth night in a row. Only five days ago, thousands of Syrians had staged a protest march; the military had rolled out tanks into the streets of Hama to put off a four-month-long uprising. It was the anger of the people versus the anger of the rulers. Only days before that, 5,000 people had converged on Cairo's Tahrir Square to protest against their regime's slow pace of change. Yemen's uprising was against unemployment, economic conditions and corruption; Tunisia's Revolution in January 2011 was also protesting unemployment, food prices and corruption. Libya, too, had an angry uprising. As did Algeria over poor housing; and Bahrain over human rights and greater political freedom... Iraq protested in February over national security, demanding an investigation of federal corruption cases, and fairness in public services. In Israel, Palestinians initiated a revolution on Facebook and when 350,000 ‘Likes' were posted. Facebook, fearing it could be culpable of encouraging violence, tore down the page.Funnily, thought Kapil, in most cases, the ruler had amassed huge personal wealth while the people languished under a mountain of rising prices, unemployment, poor or no health care and in some cases extended emergency rule, and oppression.But these West Asian rebels were seeking to overturn corrupt tyrants. What was London's story? London? Its story was not even about democratic governance that the West Asia protestors demanded, but there were similarities that lay under the surface of angry definitions — resentment of the affluent and a hatred of the law enforcers, the cops. Kapil could not help but call to mind India's own uprising led by Anna Hazare, who voiced the people's angst over cascading corruption among the ruling class while farmers committed suicide. And uniquely, the government was looking surprised as it said, "All these things take time... you cannot just ask for all this..." Organisations too were guilty of feeding this disease, thought Kapil. So many like Taffet chased wealth accumulation feeding their people wrong values, driving them to work longer and longer hours, uncaring of the social impact of such excess. Does Anil realise he is feeding the demon? (Aniljeet Daman was Kapil's boss and Taffet's chairman.)This morning, his wife Radhika had read out a line to him from the Gita, "They are social criminals who feed themselves upon social wealth, arrogating it and hoarding the same, for selfish enjoyment regardless of the privations and poverty of the unfortunate in the community or country. It is said that such hoarders of wealth eat but sin.""What about those who watch all this but are unable to do anything, Radhika?" asked Kapil. She was startled. "What is the matter, Kapil?" she asked, not sure of what ailed her husband.Kapil had been disturbed over the recklessness at Taffet India where he was the HR head. Worse, he had been Anil's right hand for over six years. The relationship with Taffet and Anil began extremely well, and, in fact, continued to be so as a relationship. But Kapil's mind had begun to detach. In the past 4-5 years, he had come to sense and see for himself the rampant breach of respect for employees, systems, law and ethics. Now it had reached a stage where Anil even thumbed his nose at his dissenters in his quest for money and even more money.Kapil had believed that he should, would and could change Anil's heart and mind. But in the past four months, he had kicked himself and declared that he was being utterly foolish to even imagine all this. break-page-breakThe sum total of my 6-7 years has left me with a deep sense of exhaustion. As a champion of people development, respect for the human resource, etc., I do not subscribe to his world view. His haphazard way of working, flouting rules, quest for profits over process and product, complete lack of commitment to institution building... I know the relationship must end now. I cannot be in a situation where my whole purpose is in the control of another. It is not good for him or for me....HR was a religion for Kapil. He knew the value of an exit interview and always ensured managers openly chatted with him before leaving. For him, feedback was a valuable tool for organisational evolution. Convinced that he needed to talk, Kapil fixed a time for lunch with Anil to speak his mind on the issues that were not going well at Taffet and the prime drivers that had made this decision to quit imperative. When they met at the Chambers, Anil had laughed, "So is this about that exit interview then? What is supposed to happen, hahaha..."Kapil: C'mon Anil, I have made you sit through so many exits, but this time let me tell you what is the soul behind an exit; good for you to know the text book version. It is a confidential process where an independent and an unbiased individual listens to the feedback of an exiting employee in a structured manner and yet maintains and gives space so that, as far as possible, truth is spoken so that it can be used for improving the organisation so that perpetuity can benefit. It also helps in building bridges with an exiting employee so that he or she feels respected and has the potential to be a good ambassador for the organisation. Anil: Interesting… And we do this for all people who leave?Kapil (surprised): Yes, Anil. You cannot forget your exit with Navneet Kalra on product design. Anil: Oh, the fellow who complained that I was ‘copying'?Kapil: He meant much more…Anil: He was free to tell me how terrible I am. I was aware he would not discuss my virtues.Kapil: Anil, let us pass that for now. This meeting is about you and me. And unlike most of our other conversations, this one will be formal. And we will openly debate so that the organisation benefits. Although I have asked to leave, it is out of self-preservation, not hatred; dislike and discomfort, yes, but not enmity or antagonism... my feelings for the organisation cannot change as, having nurtured it for 6-7 years, I can't stop caring for it. I know every nook and cranny of this organisation. "You are an owner; it is difficult for me to fathom what ownership of assets and business is. As a professional, I own the tenets of organisation growth in the context of people resources. Therefore, protecting that and preserving that is akin to my nature."I came to Taffet despite my mentors then telling me that this was not the place for me. They said nothing will change. But I was determined that I would be able to do for the organisation all that was good for it. I know we have built a big business and a big opportunity, but I see that fundamentally, not much has changed."Anil: You surprise me. We have changed everything. I am very open and supportive of processes and policies, you know that...Kapil: I agree, Anil. But do our subsequent actions point to that? Do people at large feel that? I don't... Sometimes when I look at the state of things, I feel I have done nothing. If a sound HR professional were to audit the adherences of holy cow HR tenets here at Taffet, he will find serious breaches. For example, can business profile, size, penetration and depth change without change in our attitude to the resources that enable that? Like mass retrenchments and replacements? Your abrupt decision to shut down a core business because you got a good buyer... without warning people that you were likely to. Is that fair? Is there any attempt at inclusivity? At enabling learning and growth? Anil: It is natural to feel like that. When business grows at the pace we do, the dynamics do boggle the mind. I don't need to tell you this... Yes, we have to keep business going. Sometimes there are situations. But I don't see conflicts, as long as my actions are intended to serve the larger purpose. So, if I have to ask some people to go, it is because I am protecting so many other jobs. Is that not good?Kapil: How can that decision be made in isolation? Then again, whose conflicts don't you see, Anil? Your own? That is good and points to a steadfastness of purpose. But do you see the conflicts of the people? Both with regard to what they feel about the organisation's ethos evolving as well as about their functional finesse? As a leader you are expected to have that third eye to see all that. What ‘purpose' do you talk of? Business purpose? Your individual entrepreneurial purpose? Or your inner purpose, to which employees may not have subscribed? I do not recall you ever sharing your purpose with the people... do you know if all the members of the top team feel like you do? Do we have a shared understanding of that? Did you make an attempt to do that? I asked you this many times. But you didn't find time....Anil: I am surprised this is becoming an issue now. Sure, but you know how we were all working to build the business. Shared understanding and all that, Kapil... these are theoretic, please! I know the great HR masters write copiously about all this, but the pace does not allow time for that, you know that! What do you want me to do? Stop the business for a day and share understanding and purpose? And please remember that if we don't have business, we cannot have employment.Kapil: That is the point. While we can all justify that we genuinely didn't have time, you also know that if there is something we value very much, we always find time. Face it Anil....A deep and thick silence followed. Anil understood what Kapil was saying, yet he felt either the man was labouring a non-existent point or he himself was missing it. He said, "At one level, I wish to understand your angst. I do wish to see what is it, which, if I had done differently, you would have stayed. But I am not sure if I understand your issues. What is the core issue, Kapil?"Kapil: The issues of letter and spirit. Anil: What do you mean? Am I doing things illegally?Kapil: Please don't get me wrong. Many a times we can respect law in letter, but forget the spirit behind it. Many things are done by humans in trust. Even in difficult times, we should remember that and reciprocate not only in letter, but also in spirit. We should have accommodated some of the issues that arose on account of ‘spirit' even if they had some cost to it...Anil: Like?Kapil: Like helping people attrite when we wished to downsize and did too. We should have accommodated some costs. Given people time... These are costs of doing business. And to me it makes business sense too, because people who leave will have no ill-feelings. Like customers, even people are our ambassadors.Anil: Aren't you speaking like a trade union leader? You are a professional and in business. The business of business is business. Where is the place for emotion? Ill-feelings, etc., are not germane to business! Business requires a tough heart, Kapil. It is not with ‘feeling' that I have raised such an empire!Kapil: I agree with you. But business is also about people, customers, society... the stakeholders who bring soul to business. We draw all our resources from society's people and we need to have meaningful conversations. I ask you, Anil, did you even have a conversation?Anil: I am the chairman and I take the decisions I have to in the larger interest of people. I know HR is all about people, their feelings, happiness, etc. That is why you are there. You have to do all this. I cannot get my hands into all this. People can ask potentially difficult questions, and then how do I field them? That is why you are the filter! Instead you are doing vakaalat for them! And sorry... there is no time for all this, please think like a business head, not like an HR man.Kapil: I can see your frustration, but having felt it, now deal with it. Because what you have to do, you have to do. It may be a pain, it may be time-consuming, but it is the soft investments that you make in your business. You say, ‘that is what you are here for'... Exactly. And because I am here, I have been telling you what you need to be doing! What do you think is going on in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia... and in India? Does that send out a message about why people are important? You don't deal with people because they are important. You deal with them because finally you are here for the people. Anil, the whole world is in trouble for exactly this reason... because a few people made use of the rest of mankind to amass wealth; a few people ignored and disrespected the needs of most people... and now your beloved England too! It is not about sophistication, it is about duty.When we ask people to go, we should do it with respect and compassion. We should not take abrupt decisions and also make people feel as if they are not wanted from tomorrow. Exit is a process we need to manage extremely well, and with the attitude to help them re-settle. It is inhuman to hand over envelopes on a 31st with a note inside that says, here are your dues, do not come from tomorrow... I told you, don't do this. But you went ahead and did it through the line management — it was heartbreaking. This is what I mean about spirit...Anil: So tell me more about your letter and spirit protest. Open it for me. That is something that is intriguing… Leave out the business of people, inclusion, etc. What else?Kapil: The law asks us to appoint a board of directors. What are we using them for? So, the spirit... how do we leverage them? Do we involve them in open discussions on real issues, and openly too, and thus use their expertise? Or do we just call them for meetings, serve them Lipton chai and Marie biscuits and write minutes?break-page-breakNext, how are we developing people for taking on new roles? There is a succession plan that I developed for you... but when will you allow it to be implemented? What about issues of work-life balance? Do we ever celebrate successes? Do we ever have fun with all people as family?Anil: This point I buy. I do want us to involve and have a very robust board participation. But we must retire them all and get a new set in for that. The current set actually comes for the hamper only! So this is something I endorse. Also people as family... haanh, karna chahiye. But yaar Kapil, these emotional things are not my cup of tea. I cannot ho-ho-ho with employees... I admit I have this difficulty. Kapil: You only need to be yourself, no role playing is needed! Let me take you back to one instant which caused a lot of people a lot of grief. Last year, you decided to sell the home appliances business because you wanted to get into telecom. For 14 months you primed and preened and pruned the business, adding little bells and whistles and preparing it. I had a viewpoint on that, remember?Anil: Yes, I remember my dear man. You wanted me to sell it as is, whereas I needed to prepare it to present it. You thought I was dressing it up, I thought I was getting it ready to be presentable. In business, nobody buys a bad looking product! Kapil: And thus we will play with semantics, Anil, but artificially fluffing up sales, creating a market buzz at a phenomenal cost, when the other businesses were starved... what is that? And I am not even talking yet about the dressing up of the balance sheets and the profitability statements. But let that be. My biggest grouse was people. It was necessary and fair to let them know the business was being sold. The market for new jobs was already drying, they would need time to scout for a new job. We had a very amenable way to share the news with them such that the business would not suffer. I even said we will share with them a portion of the sale price in the form of bonus if they stay on to keep servicing the business till it was sold. But you chose silence, Anil. Not just me, even the Board felt it was necessary to take the top team into confidence. So we had a boiling conflict.How do leaders resolve conflict? By having a dialogue with the leadership team — a free-flowing and engaging dialogue. That is how alignment with values — or the lack of it — will surface. Then we have a means to resolve conflicts.Anil: Kapil, conflicts are resolved by leading teams to reach a common ground from which to view business. But when cultures are not understood, common ground can become elusive. In our case, you need to understand the culture of the company I have nurtured: it is based on hard work, smart decision-making, the ability to beat competition using native intelligence, watching my back, and the desire to keep growing. You see anything wrong with that? Anything unethical? I don't. I have my values — pretty firmly in place too — and I would like to work with those who are aligned with my values. Mind you, I don't want to change the world. As in I don't want to change you and the other people who disagree with my values. You are entitled to your values and ways. I want to find those who agree with my values and work with them.casestudymeera(at)gmail(dot)comClassroom DiscussionEvery employee's contribution triggers profits. What makes it impossible to recognise this?(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 12-09-2011)
Read More
News makes us feel bad, advertisements make us feel good. Why shouldn't news be more like advertising? This is the single question that Naini, Pragati and company are debating. They are in some ways echoing the sentiments of both news watchers and news channels in India today. Why must news be so depressing and why must it paint such a negative picture of the country, "a false image" of India as Navneet puts it — a country that is full of corruption and scams. Why can't it be like advertising, which represents the "real" India and captures the texture of its everyday life? What is most interesting about this discussion is that it seems so reasonable. It seems perfectly legitimate to ask if this is indeed the picture of India that we want to see and perhaps, more importantly, wish the rest of the world to see, why can't, as Pragati asks, news tell the consumer what he wants to hear? And yet, what is in effect being argued is that it is not information about the world that resides ‘out there' that is of primary importance, but the feeling it generates ‘in here' — in our hearts and minds. According to this view of the world, everything must conspire to make us feel good — about ourselves, our country, our glowing complexion and our lack of body odour. By this yardstick, news fails when it makes us feel bad and advertising succeeds because it shows us a soft focus-version of how life ought to be. As paying consumers, we have a right to feel good, and it is insensitive for some news channels to come and ruin the party.The analysis is simplistic on several counts. First, the characterisation of news as essentially bad and of advertising as essentially positive, is flawed. Of course, advertising does show us a highly romanticised view of our lives, but it does much more. It is a testament of desire, an honest account of who we are, what we dream about and what we secretly fear and loathe. And in the same way that Hindi cinema speaks to something very real with something very contrived, advertising, too, is as honest in its understanding of human motivations as it is manipulative in speaking to it. As a narrative, it is infantile in its construction, speaking to the child in us who still believes that he or she is at the centre of the universe. It is a staged theatre where even grown men and women hold up packets of detergent to the camera and attribute life-saving properties to it. Advertising uses material from real life, but the story it tell us is far from being real. It is also part of a larger system that converts our identity from something that is fixed and stable into one that is perpetually incomplete and forever in danger of slipping away from us. We buy things not because we ‘really' need them, but because they reflect who we are or wish to be. This involves both the positive affirmation of our existing way of life as well as the active fostering of dissatisfaction with ourselves. Just as ads show us the shiny happy world of our dreams, they also tell us how undesirable we are, how incomplete and how unspeakably pimpled. It magnifies all that is imperfect about us and gives us external benchmarks of evaluation, yardsticks that become ever more stringent. Ads contain both palliatives for our egos as well as violence for our souls. On the other hand, while news does tend to accord greater significance to what goes wrong rather than what is being done right, it is too simplistic to think of news as a pure product, detached from its consumers and doing its unpleasant duty even if it means being relentlessly negative. Bad news sells, just as good news sells, and we have seen examples in the past few years of how both get packaged and sold. The India Shining story was told breathlessly by the same news outlets that bring us scams today; at that time many stories were selectively framed to ensure that we heard only the good news. If anything, what we are seeing is a blurring of the distinction between news and advertising; both are already engaged in speaking to the consumers. If advertising tells us what we want to hear about ourselves, news increasingly does the same about the world outside. Both give us good news and bad, in different ways. Increasingly, what unites them is more important than what separates them. The really interesting aspect of this case is the ease with which we have redefined the real and the false. In Navneet's eyes, for instance, ads and India's World Cup victory are examples of the real, while scams and scandals are part of the world that is false. In a consumerist world, everything becomes a symbol, an intermediate sign that points elsewhere. The very idea of real is subverted; things exist because there is a constituency for them. Scandals connect with the aggravated sense of injured innocence of the middle class, and make them feel all righteous and angry and this sells just as well as does advertising. Same difference. Santosh Desai is managing director and CEO of Future Brands, a part of the Future Group (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 09-05-2011)
Read More
This conversation is presented almost like a Socratic dialogue between the impact of news and advertising. And like many such efforts, it winds up being one sided. Yet the range of the argument is interesting. Like a Socratic event, it begins with a simple event or question: ‘why is news alienating?' or ‘why do people prefer advertising?'. The negative and positive poles are explicitly articulated. The conversation is between the lines and yet, it is as much a relation between said and unsaid, text and context. It is a brilliant study in rhetoric rather than sociology, an essay in the psychology of acceptance of two forms of communication. It has deep implications for how a middle-class constructs a democratic imagination. The key event is that news as constructed today demands attention. It is not news that people object to, but the way it constructs the idea of India. There is confusion between the idea of India and the nature of being Indian. Oddly, news is seen as real but not representative of the average Indian. News on television is bad news about the Indian. News creates a venal India, while the average Indian seeks to define himself as mobile, clean, normative and successful. Here the Indian seems more preoccupied with identity and image rather than the fact of politics. It is a tragedy of democracy when advertising seems more attractive than reportage.News is caught in a double bind. Unless it is disruptive or sensational, it is not seen as news. Yet bad news alienates. It is seen as too sociological, pathological and unrepresentative. It lacks the intelligence, laughter, humour and even grace that the average middle-class Indian seeks to identify with. What is really interesting is the way the rhetoric of news is constructed. Both news and advertising face the synecdochal challenge. Advertising creates a part that gives a sense of the whole. News offers a slice of life reflective of the whole. It is the psychological contrast that constitutes the power of the argument. Advertising creates an ideal, normative picture, which facilitates identification. News disrupts and alienates the average Indian. A wish list appears truer than an assortment of facts.Interestingly, advertising combines myth and everyday events; news combines history and journalism. The first absorbs contradictions. The second widens them. Yet, one must be sensitive to the rhetoric of construction. News is portrayed as phenotypical, advertising as genotypical. News is aggregated from simple elements. Advertising presents the essence of the whole. Yet the language of the argument is constructed in terms of the rhetoric of advertisement. If one had constructed the same as a sociological analysis playing out ideas and interests, it is advertisements that would sound hollow. There is an interesting polarity. Advertising is normative for it reaches for the ought. News is real, therefore, it creates anxiety. Advertising recognises the need for fantasy. News blud- geons and it is prone to hysteria. So, paradoxically, ads sound real and news hyperbolic.The psychological flaws make for the real difference. News as repetition forces alienation, advertising as gentle redundancy is reassuring. News is what you look at and skip. Denial is not at the level of fact but identity. The mnemonic values are different. Advertising is memorable. News demands attention but necessitates erasure. Advertising as myth can be repeated. News as history seems redundant. Proportion provides a key to the logic of acceptance. But it is like comparing apples and oranges.There is an interesting play of fact versus truth, objectivity versus subjectivity. News is homogenous and hyperbolic. Its psychological substrate is weak because the real sounds unreal. News as fact does not speak the truth of India, at least ideologically, while advertising understands the root of Indianness. The hyperbolic nature of news renders it subjective, while the reassuring nature of advertising appears more objective. Eventually, it becomes a choice of two myths. One which creates miniature sets of paradise and the other proclaims the fall of man. But here lies the confusion. One says life can be better, other insists it is getting worse. Advertisements see the ideal as real and deny the real as fact. News claims to be real but the redundancy of the real is alienating and, therefore, seen as untrue. It is this tragedy of slippages that makes the analysis both lethal and fascinating. It has a sense of two theologies of the Old and the New Testament, anchored on two psychologies, all in all a clever sense of differences in the rhetoric and content of presentation. There is, however, little sense of empirical sociology, but a shrewd sense of rhetoric and psychology. The narrative begins as a doubt that becomes self-reinforcing. A different framework beyond audience response might have yielded different conclusions. Shiv Visvanathan is a social scientist, and teaches at Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology, Ahmedabad (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 09-05-2011)
Read More
Each society needs to judge for itself how much it entrusts to the government — powers, duties, responsibilities. This evolves over time. Assessment of a system is always related to a point in time. What is relevant and good at a particular point of time may be irrelevant and even harmful at another. The relevance of some of our Vedic injunctions in the present day bring out this point. All the teachings have an intrinsic permanent value and a temporal component — the stamp of the milieu in which the teachings were made. The latter cannot remain frozen over time. When one considers how to improve the system, one has to operate within a framework of certain ‘givens'. Absolute honesty and integrity or absolute adherence to rules can exist only on paper. And no political setup can ensure total compliance. In any society, there is always a compromise to bring about a balance of varying objectives. For example, efficiency and social justice, growth and equity, etc. As Professor Sarkar says, we cannot rubbish the government's power to make rules. The attempt should be to make rules that are by and large acceptable to the people so that a reasonably high compliance can be expected. Also, the rules should not be addressed to the dishonest, thereby making it difficult for the honest to comply.There has to be a balance between total selfishness at the cost of the society or public interest and total compliance at the cost of hurting oneself. In the olden days, a balancing factor was provided by moral values, convictions and fear of unpleasant consequences. Slowly, this is getting decimated. This is part of the cultural shift now experienced, that Professor Sarkar speaks of. The emphasis has to be on imparting moral instruction at an impressionable age. And there should be a system of rewards, side by side with penalty and deterrence. There are areas where implementational problems can be overcome by suitable changes in policy. The older generation will remember the rule requiring registration of wireless sets in the post office by paying a small fee. The basic objective was to raise revenue for the Department of Communications. Very few complied with the rule. Then the policy was changed. By suitably adjusting the rate of excise duty, the government could raise the same amount of revenue. Distribution of the revenue between the two departments of Revenue and Communications was an internal matter. This at once relieved the burden on the public while safeguarding the government's revenue. This underscores the need for ingenuity and innovation among policy makers.Corruption is related to the value system adopted by the society, including all three wings of government — executive, legislature and judiciary. It is wrong to assume that better compensation alone would reduce corruption. It is public experience that there are a large number of well-meaning, honest, helpful individuals in bureaucracy, very poorly paid, whose actions cannot be swayed by the lure of money. There are areas where specific measures can be taken to reduce corruption. Technology has helped to some extent — railway and air ticketing, obtaining a passport, online payment of tax, etc.In the final analysis, whether one chooses to be honest or otherwise depends on the attitude, which one acquires from family, friends and workplace, as also from the training one undergoes. Of the three components of training — knowledge, skill and attitude — the last is most difficult to impart. Mostly it has to be by personal example. That is where, in JK's case, the action of the bank manager to get JK's signature forged would have impacted the attitude of the staff, not merely in the bank's dealings but in their dealings with the society at large.In Manas Modi's case, the villain or the tilting event was the failure of the system to bring into the open the hollowness and mischievous nature of the allegation when he objected to the payment for the computer before its full installation. What can be done to tweak the system so that such cases do not become a common occurrence? The system should have the mechanism to sift complaints to expose mala fide allegations. It is difficult to suggest a fit-all solution, as each institution has to make the best arrangement to get this result.One important aspect is to make sure that the conviction in the majority of the educated as well as the uneducated that nothing works without a mamool or hafta is taken away by projecting cases where things get done fast and in a routine manner. Undue publicity and excessive hype over cases of corruption to the total exclusion of good work done by different wings of the government is harming the system. There is a case, as Dasesh seems to hint, to curb the "over-performing" fourth estate in its trial by media, killing well-intentioned proposals, which is causing serious injury to the system.S. Venkatarama Iyer is a retired director general of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, and was special secretary to the government of India(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 15-08-2011)
Read More
Shabad's had a normal day at office and university. Our everyday social milieu is rife with concern for the impoverishment of our ethical lives. Simultaneously we fret and thrash about with the moral catharsis that has a stranglehold on Indian public life. Occasionally, we do recognise the continuity between the latter public structural debates and our quotidian lived experiences. But our inability to galvanise our collective angst into a new secular intercultural ethical framework that establishes our baseline expectations of each other has prompted a serial bloodletting with no respite. Shabad's interlocutors help him traverse the social realms of the workplace, the university and our public institutions with keen insight. These vignettes illustrate and highlight the social complexity in which we are called to make ethical judgements. The intractable nature of the conversations in this case study suggests that our existing ethical frameworks are inadequate and invite us to transcend the limitations of our existing ethical imagination.JK finds himself dragged from the bank to the liquidator and then through the courts for 13 years. The bank officers glibly forge his signature on a loan document. JK does not deny that the document should have been signed by him in the ordinary course — he only laments the failure of the bank to observe protocols of due diligence. The liquidator is reluctant to initiate the liquidation process and would rather have this done by a collusive third party. JK has no doubt that the company should be liquidated, but is surprised by the convoluted process by which this is done.He concludes that both instances teach us that despite an adequate law and elaborate institutional practices to implement the law, the ‘people' who man the decks are irretrievably compromised, and pervert the functioning of the system. The dichotomy between systems and people is often put forth as the root cause of corruption. This dichotomy admits varied combinations: perfect systems, corrupt people; corrupt systems, corrupt people; corrupt systems, perfect people. JK proposes the first combination as the best explanation for the behaviour of the bank and the liquidator. Readers may not be convinced of this diagnosis and may prefer other combinations. In any event, JK is despondent that endemic corruption in the private and public sector condemns us to a land of no hope.The argument from culture that JK rehearses in this case tries to explain too much. We understand that the sub-cultures of our sub-continent have an elaborate vocabulary for liaison services: gift, baksheesh, mamool, hafta and so on. Our vernacular tongues give accounts of practices without the moral odium that may be attached to bribes and corruption. While there is no doubt that we need to draft culturally sensitive laws, it would be a mistake to assume that all local cultural practices are priori legitimate and hence should be sustained by laws. This confusion about the relationship between our laws and customs has hobbled our ability to envision a way out of our present corruption imbroglios.Shabad went to his college only to lose himself in the corridor conversations on the ‘supply-chain management' set up by Manas Modi, the head of the computer lab. Modi is right to insist that he operates on a micro-scale when one compares this with the goings on in Bellary in Karnataka. However, he concludes that ethical judgements are dependent on the scale of operations. His account illustrates why economic imperatives cannot substitute moral ones. If we are to sacrifice all our ethical values at the altar of economic efficiency or wealth maximisation, we loose our ability to build a civil society.Professor Sarkar oddly characterises this as an instance of prioritisation of individual needs over societal norms. It seems from Modi's explanation that his supply-chain management is essential to meet the multifarious needs of his family. By placing his family as the relevant unit in his moral calculus, the needs of the university or even society at large are rendered irrelevant in our everyday decisions. This privileging of family or the caste, kin and religious group as the relevant node at which we make ethical judgements is a significant aspect of how we reason ethically. But our social norms are not shared by the society at large — in other words, what is good for my family is good for me!It is the absence of an inter-cultural secular normativity that prevents us from agreeing upon shared ethical obligations. Unless we are able to make this connection between ethical transgressions and the absence of a secular inter-cultural ethical framework in our wider structural social inheritance, we are unable to correctly diagnose and understand our present condition. If we continue to explain away corruption — both petty and grand — as inextricably tied to our inefficient laws or our resistant cultural mores, we must brace for many decades of quiet desperation. Sudhir Krishnaswamy is a professor of law at Azim Premji University, Bangalore, where he co-ordinates a research initiative on law, governance and development(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 15-08-2011)
Read More
Shabad Kher lay on his bed shooting the soft, stuffed ball into a makeshift basket he had hung on the wall above the doorway. This was his way of contemplation every night when he lay there thinking between shots.Shabad was a final-year student at Arsha College of Business Studies, and was currently completing a four-week internship at Ably-T.The week before had seen an intense examination of Jaikishore Valia's (JK's) tryst with systems and regulations and the inability of people to implement systems. This morning, he said his goodbyes to everyone but lingered at JK's room. "We actually spend so much money on setting up committees and panels and what not, we develop very foolproof systems, yet we either do not implement them or we look the other way. I find it difficult to think that we are an innately corrupt, lazy, dishonest people, as Mr Mathur suggested last week. There has to be something to our culture, our history..."JK: I think we are essentially selfish. It may arise from many invasions and unsolicited occupation of our territory.Therefore, we are more prone to looking out for ourselves than others.Shabad: Looking out for ourselves... hmm... Yet, you did not look out for yourself, sir, when the system dragged your case for 13 years, 13 years of your prime time... why didn't you? ( see Malba, Mud Cakes ..)JK: It's our wiring. Some of us cannot and some can. Those who can, do it marvellously. They have an amazing set of justifications and rationalisations and reasons. It works for them. It does not work for other people.Shabad: So do you recommend it, or not?JK: There is nothing to recommend or not recommend. Finally, you will do what you will do. And I will do what I will do.Shabad: And education?JK: Education is just an ingredient. You can choose to not apply it. That also works for some people. This whole intensity of ‘oh! we must be value-driven, etc.', cannot be a dogma. You should not be ‘value driven' if you don't feel like it. If you want to go rob the system, you must go rob the system. Values have to come and rest in you. For that I believe the insides have to be expunged of desire to rob. Both cannot coexist. So go, finish it off!Suddenly they both looked at each other, and Shabad smiled, "That was a bit startling, ha ha, but I am getting your point slowly. I don't know if I have values and all that, but I am in no mood to rob anyone."JK nodded in a dancing sort of way as his whole body moved in rhythm and he said, "You don't have to overtly rob, Shabad. Often we do little things to rob, and then create fabulous rationalisations. Remember this company that Abhay Mathur, (JK's colleague now, earlier business partner) and I had to shut down? I had also mentioned that the bank had declined to receive the goods on which it had a lien, because they, in fact, did not have a procedure for receiving the goods and recovering the dues?"Okay, so then another curious thing happened. My bank had asked me to sign some papers — papers through which you sign away all assets to cover a loan. Since you are starved of money, you will sign any paper, which the bank retains. Now, as per banking rules, every year the person who has taken the loan has to confirm the balance amount outstanding, in writing, to the bank. My banker forgot to take these pre-dated letters, nor did I know about it. "Matter rested, for a few years we paid instalments, then crisis hit, we stopped repayments, I went bankrupt, and there was a default. There is a law of limitations that orders that if in a given year I do not confirm balance, then within three years the bank should move the court. The bank forgot to go to court when I defaulted and when they realised... it was five years. So what they did was pull out one of the blanks, signed for me (forged), and a date was created to show that I had confirmed the balance ‘within three years'. Unfortunately, the date that the bank put in there was a date when I was in the US! So when the bank chose to go to court against us, I pulled out proof, and said that it was a fraudulent document and you cannot go to court against me."Simultaneously, I asked that they please consider writing off a part of my loan as there were many precedences. But they refused. Finally, when I suggested they had committed fraud on me by forging my signature, an act that pulled the rug from under the very faith that the common man places on a bank, they relented."Having got that admission from them I said to my bank manager: ‘I had no intention to slap a suit on you; nor did I want you to write off any part of my loan. I have my education and I will repay, so allow me to pay in three years with post-dated cheques. Also, I the citizen have an ability to be honest which the banking system as a collective did not manifest.' I met the regional manager — I believe in feedback — and said to him, even if you prove there was no motive to defraud, it can be shown as negligence — and your guy will get caught for forging my signature on the document."Now, why am I telling you this? To show you how we train our subordinates through petty acts like this. He was not sorry or surprised. His response was ‘intention was to speed up process'. Now, it was not he who had ‘forged' my signature but his lowest clerk. This is of course the same ‘servant-the-menial' principle, which means ‘mean acts by menials and I remain untarnished therefore'. Oh no, he didn't think he was guilty of training his team in frauds."Shabad: He was looking out for himself...JK: You got it! You got it!When everyone looks out for himself, he also demolishes many other systems and processes. Recall the liquidator shirked his duty, looked out for himself, shied away from doing due diligence because it would add to his work! So he makes me do a silly thing like get my own friend and partner to sue me, so he could show ‘see they did not have the wherewithal to survive'. This was easier for him, to sit at his desk and write the order. But where then is his role as a liquidator, where he can make a judgement?break-page-breakThis is not to do with the system or the law but the constituents of the process — how they think and how they respond. And how they abuse the law to ‘look out for themselves'! See how this very ethos also injures the way we train our people. When I train you, I have to train you to not just be a good performer; good performance also includes your ability to respect that you are connected to million other people in terms of duties and rights. That you don't stand alone. That you are connected to everybody in the world and you owe a duty to them. The boss asking his subordinate to forge is training. The subordinate not hesitating is learning!Shabad: In that case, sir, we are doomed it seems. In every walk of life, there is now institutionalised corruption. My dad says these days a company that needs to get land registered or an order passed or a duty waived or a permission granted unconditionally, works through ‘consultants' who do all this for a price which the company pays as ‘consultancy fees'. Even product ratings are engineered through ‘consultants' who pay people for endorsing brands...JK: True. In short, nothing is real. Everything is engineered, ‘adjusted' for a price! Stylishly called jugaad.Shabad mulled over this as he shot more intense baskets. The next day, as he entered campus, students were talking about Manas Modi, the head of the computer lab — he had been asked to go. The students whispered, "Arre, I thought he was like us..."So when Barun Sarkar, their professor of behavioural studies, entered the class, the students pressed him for the truth."Hmm," said Sarkar. "Let us set aside ‘truth and lies'; let us look at cause and effect... yes?" For Sarkar knew more...Seven years ago, too, Modi was in charge of the computer section. That year he had ordered a computer for the college. When the huge computer arrived and was test run, it would not perform. So he held back the payment. While they fought over this, another director ordered that the payment be made but Modi objected saying that the machine is not fully installed, so why pay? Angry, the supplier alleged that Modi was angling for a bribe and told the college as much.So the college put Modi under surveillance, which meant no promotions or increments. Nor would it resolve the issue, but held him guilty of misdemeanour. Four years passed, nobody took up Modi's case. That was when Sarkar joined Arsha College. He said to the management, let us sack him, finish it off, then we do not have to either promote him or solve his case. Call it moral turpitude and close his case. But they did not!Having summarised it, Sarkar said, "They felt they had silenced him as a punishment. But the fellow is doing well. Has two cars and has booked a flat somewhere. He earns more from his suppliers who give him a lot of happy money."Sarkar's class gawked in confusion and shock when he said, "Okay, so I asked him why are you doing this and he said, ‘My children, who were 3 and 5 years old in 2004, are today 11 and 13. My wife, who was 27 then, is 35. Fees have gone up, we have to buy bottled water as the tap water is unclean; kids wanted a PS2, wife wanted a TVS, plus she has developed some health conditions... our monthly bill is crazy... who will pay? I know I did not do wrong in 2004. It is wrong to punish me, not just unfair. So I will now punish the company. I had to pay capitation for school admission for my little one, Rs 22,000; my older one was teased by his friends leading to behavioural disorder... 14 counselling sessions at Rs 1,200 per session. Who will pay?'"So he decided to take to kickbacks.... He says, ‘I am not doing Rs 500 crore and Rs 2,000 crore like some people. And you don't say anything to them... why are you grudging my Rs 3-4 lakhs?' So, a perfectly honest man, chose crime to survive. This is life's story!"A stunned silence fell and then a student asked, "Are we as a society ill-formed? Unformed? Deformed? Malformed?"Sarkar: Well... it's individual versus society. When we form societies we give up some autonomies to allow for society to govern us. An individual will instinctively assert his autonomy when the fabric of the society is not strong. When the society does not do much for you and you think you do much more for society, then you think it is okay for you to break the rules. Or if you think others have more autonomy and if they are able to get away with things, then why should you not be able to get away with things? The whole Indian thing about jugaad — or ‘manage kar lenge' type innovation to bypass systems — is about rationalising the breaking of rules by saying ‘Oh because the whole system is like this, we have to do this, if not, we would have done it differently.'Which is a reality, too, because the same people who surreptitiously spit on the street here, will not throw paper on the street in Singapore. Everybody justifies their autonomy and their need for it by saying everybody else has autonomy, everybody else breaks rules so why not me?Shabad: Sir, why would you say that Modi Sir's jugaad against a corrupt and unfair system, is wrong? In the end analysis, does it really matter where you provide for your family from? Sarkar: So I have black money because I don't think you are spending my taxes in a way I think is right, hence I will look out for myself and hoard my taxes and use them to provide myself conveniences? People quote Rajiv Gandhi and say, ‘only 0.1 per cent of the rupee reaches the poor.' But then isn't that how we got our BMWs with half cash payments?Shabad: So we keep on following the Ramdevs to say black money is outside the country, whereas most of the black money comes back into the economy as cash buying goods? Wow!Sarkar: True. Just as, if I want my child to celebrate his 21st birthday, I say alcohol to hona hi chahiye, but when somebody else's 20-year-old mows down six people in a drunken state, we complain the law is being flouted. So to answer your question, is society deformed... we form it by negotiating rules. Non-implementation is also negotiating.Chanakya: So Modi sir sought his own autonomy. Modi was only taking care of himself. And mind you, sir, he was working here for far less. He only took what they owed him anyway.Sarkar: We all try and get away with rules in our own ways. My generation has grown up with so many rules, we found the uselessness of rules as well. Most people in their 50s today have lived with rules that were senseless in the pre-1990s scenario. For example, I was in a school that wanted me to wear hair above my ears. It was pointless. I should have been allowed to wear my hair the way I wanted.break-page-breakMany people in the pre-1990s bought their first scooter by paying white money in black. Yes, that was how black became the new white. Most people bought their first properties paying cash. Most people bought their first CTV during the Asian Games (1982) paying a premium in black. Most people have watched blockbusters buying tickets in black. My first transistor was smuggled into this country because my mamaji did not pay duty for it! One has grown up with a disregard for rules.Shabad: Not very different for us, sir. We too are seeing a disregard for ethical governance. Most of our institutions are run on the premise that rules can be broken if the situation requires — from banking to judiciary to police to health all our institutional processes, there is no faith in rules. A minister after swallowing thousands of crores of taxpayer money says, ‘I did not even take as much as people before me did!' Chanakya: So we have a brand war there. One political party versus another. Like the Coke-Pepsi war, it is always initiated by the opposition which challenges and the ruling government has to defend. Then, there is an offensive followed by a counter defensive... But I ask, can you blame the government for not implementing rules? The government too has lack of faith in itself as much as the people have a lack of faith in the government. The people don't have faith in the governance. So where will you establish rules? Look at how the Lokpal Bill is being tossed around! Dasesh: It is quite messy, sir. The government's public behaviour, attitude to implementing the law, name calling... very embarrassing... how can you bring yourself to accept such a rulership? Or even their rules? Like this whole thing about raising the age for drinking... the media's power has sort of ‘frozen' the decision against the government. All this is paid for, I am sure. There are actors coming out vocally in print rubbishing the move to raise the age bar! I feel uneasy.Chanakya: I agree, sir! Paid endorsements of a product is easier today because the visual media delivers the verdict instantly. Then, there is so much money today! Paid media is quasi-legal.Sarkar: We may have so many reasons to dislike the government, but we cannot rubbish its power to make laws! When the government makes a law, and the media immediately rubbishes it, then a healthy verdict is lost. So what we see is, because you don't agree with me I will laugh at you, I will invite you on the chat show but will not let you talk!There is a WHO report on alcoholism. How many journalists have run stories about that? How many young people have read this report? And this report came out in 2011!India is the largest manufacturer of alcohol in the world and is growing at a very high rate. The documented and the non-documented use of alcohol have registered huge increases. Women are drinking more. Earlier, women drank less than men, and they drank wine only. Now there are numbers to say that women drink as much as men and binge on the same number of drinks.In 10 years, the cost of healthcare because of alcohol is going to rise by a few billion dollars. Who will foot the bill? These models and actors who are taking money to endorse drinking? Shabad: Sir, but grown-ups are already drinking, how will curbing the young change that? Sarkar: It is about a huge lifestyle change. A cultural change that is being brought about, as a result of that: unsafe sex, accidents, violence, road rage, abuse, all these are symbols of it. It is not one generation cribbing against another; it is a cultural shift that we are experiencing. The number of rapes you hear about is a function of passions fuelled in a state of lack of control.Drinking is about relinquishing the use of your intellect. It appears to soften your inhibitions and lets you do what you would not ordinarily do, conning you into a wrong sense of freedom. There is deep danger in that. Youth is the time when you have the spirit to struggle and climb tough mountains. Comfort with drinking leads to loss of perseverance. What kind of nation building is possible, and who will build it?In the past 60 years, we have not spent time, energy and money in building institutions; we have relied upon families to provide support and care. But the family as an institution is failing sadly! The family is only training to look after itself, not the society. When there is no collective Indian pride, what do you call that? Shabad: Looking out for oneself only, sir!Classroom DiscussionHas the speed of the new money led to a governance of innovative jugaad at all levels, everywhere?casestudymeera (at) gmail (dot) com(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 15-08-2011)
Read More
Kapil Shankar greeted the security guard with a warm namaste and a smile as the blue uniformed man in a peaked cap clicked his heels and swished a fabulous salute, and as briskly dropping his hand, he marched away gloriously. As Kapil smiled at his receding form, his 19-year-old son Naman let out a low cry, "Wow dad, that is primitive!" Kapil grinned folding his newspaper and said, "I like it."Naman was home for the summer and on the past many days, both father and son came down to the building grounds for a brisk jog after which they sat on the park bench reading. "It is a law enforcer's nature to want to greet you correctly, just as it is in the nature of our family pandit to greet us with a Jai Ramji ki," said Kapil.But Naman would not agree. "Times have changed, dad. The whole idea of having watchmen and servants and maids... I think is feudal!"Kapil: The security guard is a social necessity since we have a fabulous crime rate. My point is different: behaving correctly in accordance with your profession. I just like the salute, especially when it is done so marvellously. Everything has a manner in which it has to be done.Naman (laughing): That chap even recognises that you love it, because he clicks his heels harder and his salute is like a whiplash! But what do you mean ‘in accordance with your profession'? Is this some caste system thingy?Kapil opened the supplement to his newspaper and pointed to a headline that a certain actress had made: ‘Ramdev is hot, I would like to marry him'. Then Kapil said, "Both the actress and the newspaper have not, in my opinion, acted correctly." Naman: How is it the newspaper's error? She said it...Kapil: The world knows he has a title that goes with his calling — ‘Baba'. India knows we respect saffron. The Baba losing favour during the Lokpal drama was a matter of opinion, not crime. I don't see how the political media gets a licence to rubbish him. Naman: Does it not mean then that the leadership has to behave appropriately, dad? Kapil pondered awhile. The leadership did have a responsibility to behave according to its function, role and appointment. Therefore, thought Kapil, I have to think seriously about that exit interview. "Kapil was the HR head for Taffet India, a fast-growing electronics manufacturer in the market place. Six years ago, Kapil had joined Aniljeet Daman, owner of the Taffet Group. After six years of closely relating to the Damans, the business, the market, the brand building, the strategy and the products, which he had seen grow in front of him, Kapil was quitting.That itself had taken him four months to do. Kapil had struggled and suffered with the residual feelings of the proposed idea. He liked Aniljeet despite everything, and he wished it to be known that he was quitting after deep thought, not just as a reaction to any situationThat was two weeks ago. In his lunch meeting with Kapil, Aniljeet had said, "You know I was kind of expecting something like this to happen. It won't be easy for me to accept your envelope, so we need to get to the heart of why and why not. Your time begins now, haha!"Kapil explained in precise words, "I am going through a kind of a soul searching and I need to exit active working to be with myself, Anil. I know this may sound a bit madcap, but at 48, after working like a donkey for 25 years, I am surprisingly burning out — unlike my dad who worked for 37 years and could not have enough!"Anil: Take my plane and get away to the Bahamas for a month. Good beaches, good food, silence and great weather...Kapil: Anil, I have just come back from a very happy vacation with my family. I got all the break I wanted. It's not that. As long as I have my fingers on the keyboard and the mobile stuck to my ears, I will never dialogue with myself.Aniljeet was getting ready for a meeting with his bankers and had to leave, so he had said, "My dear chap, you get the pieces together in your head and let us keep meeting..."break-page-breakKapil remained deeply thoughtful. He had spoken the dreadful words, no doubt... but was he going to ask for an exit interview according to practice? Anil laughed it off saying, "You keep all those processes for the employees. I don't believe in ritual. We will meet, we will talk and you can tell me how terrible I am, that will be good!"Watching his receding figure, Kapil wondered how could he bring himself to tell Anil that he was beginning to worry about the way the general air at Taffet was all about cutting corners to gain market share? About Taffet hiring and firing for the short term? About Taffet dressing up books of account for the bankers and financial institutions to lead them to believe what was not true about Taffet? That he was tired of working a 19-hour day and often all night? That he did not think that employees should work on Sundays and that as an advocate of a work-life balance he was the most imbalanced? That he was unable to see eye-to-eye with the owner-chairman, Aniljeet Daman, on the business outlook and intent that Anil was suffocating the system with?That noon, Kapil had written to his son, "I quit today. Feel so renewed and good finally!" Naman read more into his father's words. Calling his mother Radhika, he asked "How's dad been, mom? Has he been overworking again?" Radhika: ‘Again'? When had he ever stopped? He has been like the chokra boy of the Damans since we moved here! He always lets the driver off at 7 pm saying ‘Somesh should have a work-life balance.' But his own? When you come home we will have a heart-to-heart chat with dad. It's time beta. He is not doing too well, is all I will say.Naman called his older sister Maansi in Cambodia where she worked with a Global Concerns project, and asked her what she thought. Maansi said, "Dad is tired in spirit. He does not enjoy working at all. He finds it all a huge strain. No no, not physically, but emotionally... I don't know the right word but inside, deep in there, he feels all wrong. He works all the time. They are on the phone to him at 3 am, at 12 midnight; he takes his mobile into the shower; he is BlackBerrying during a movie; he has three mobile phones; he has to battle a lot...Naman: Wow... I find this really thick. Dad tells me how to lead life, how to assess humans, how to this and how to that, but seemingly he is pretty messed up himself!Kapil stood atop Maslow's pyramid with not a road sign that pointed to any road ahead. He enjoyed his work, especially the one to do with building people. But as he was now seeing, building people on an edifice that was weak to begin with was not to be had. Then again, building people when you had a top team with a drive and a drift that was far removed from ethical business purpose, was again not possible.But Kapil's angst was different. Entrepreneurs like the Damans were skilled, good and moneyed. What they lacked was a larger vision. If only they would subscribe to a bigger cause, and align the business and their people towards that, it would be win-win for all. Money was an outcome, a by-product, he felt. The success stories the world talked about were of people with vision and conviction in their ability to reap greater good; they also made money, but incidentally.But at Taffet, Daman's focus was on only making money; purpose was incidental. Which was why the purpose was not even discernible. People had long ago disengaged from purpose and were intensely aligned to making more money.Kapil had joined Taffet six years ago, hungry for a driven management and Aniljeet had painted a glorious picture of national pride and so forth. Which was true, but Anil's routes were getting questionable. Not that unethical people frightened Kapil. In fact, they caused him to watch them more deeply. He had known that men pursuing business often changed track and pursued money instead. But before he knew it, Kapil found himself getting sucked into the family's situations; their dependence on him had been growing, while his disengagement with them was increasing — because he couldn't find purpose, any meaning. ‘This is not what I came here to do,' became the constant irritant in his head. Anil had started off well, or so it had seemed six years ago. "I want to do what Dhirubhai did, bring an advanced generation product for the common man." Enriching their lives, adding value, enabling product development — this is what Kapil was passionate about too. But soon Anil became a different person: the original intention was blurred, his vision had changed...Nothing wrong with wanting to make money, reasoned Kapil, but can that be your mission? But it was Anil's mission. Gradually the entire organisation had become ‘short-termed' in approach. Businesses were taken up — almost as if attacked, then quick monies were made and businesses were sold. The overall management philosophy, too, had evolved to putting off fires, not preventing them. Kapil had slowly begun to get thoughtful. A blurring of events was quickly affecting his own judgement at times. Every so often he would engage Anil to draw him away from a path that was destructive. Once he said, "Animals survive, we have to thrive. The difference between animals and us is we have an intellect. Animals are programmed to react; we are designed to reason, discriminate. Know fair from unfair, leading from misleading, correct from incorrect. Dreams one should have, but we can only project what is immediately realistic and achievable based on current infrastructure and ability." Anil: This is the difference between a middle-class person and me. You can't be adventurous!Kapil didn't take that to heart; his closeness to Anil had earned the latter the licence to say so... yet he cautioned himself in time. He was alert to his growing annoyance, but he (Kapil) never allowed that to flower into indiscriminate anger. How much money does man need? Yes, money is important, maybe he needs $5 billion, $10 billion; good. After that? But alongside we must build a long-lasting organisation, create value by offering products of long-lasting value; build an organisation that people feel proud to be a part of... If we keep that kind of goal post, then people, too, will stretch their potential to attain your goal! But when you place before them goals like ‘just earn money for me, no matter what you do', they will use all kinds of means to earn it for you.That was how Kapil had decided to take a break from everything. But now, over the exit interview, he said to Inder, Taffet's ex-director of production, and now a close friend, "How do you speak to a man who believes that everyone is replaceable, dispensable, etc.? What is the value of telling him ‘I chose to quit because I find your short-termism contrary to sound business ethical conduct'?"Kapil and Anil had deep respect for each other — Anil thought Kapil unadventurous; Kapil thought Anil reckless. Kapil had once told Naman, "He is the kind of person you can watch for a long time and be engrossed. He is like a story in process. There will be a lot you will dislike, but there is an unmistakable dynamism." break-page-breakNaman: Then why are you quitting, dad? Inder had asked the same question and to both he had explained thus: "Because I am so deeply involved in transacting with him as his shadow, I have my feelings involved too. But if it was not me there, or say, if I stand outside the relationship and just watch him, he is very interesting. His understanding of people, markets, money, of everything, is deep and fascinating. He is a self-made man. You can watch him ‘buy' people, he has that Mario Puzo like construct of a Godfather. "For example, I brought in a guy — good chap, good pedigree, good B-school, good track record... and now, within two years, he is doing anything and everything to stay on the right side of the boss, espousing his own cause to get raises and bonuses, becoming a yes man, short circuiting the processes, etc. Now, others want to do the same. And if you make this kind of offer to someone at 32-35, chances are you have bought his soul than his value."Inder: I guess as the HR head, it is a bigger burden on you, no?Kapil: I don't think so. For any functional head, the burden is huge. The marketing head has a promise to deliver to consumers. The head of production is responsible for ensuring the assured quality. But the means you use to achieve it can vary, and when that can be varied by the man at the top with an eye on profit and not promise, you don't really question yourself!The other day, a production chap told me: "I am being compelled to buy this raw material and I know its behaviour in high temperatures. I know that in markets like Delhi, etc., this product will have immense problems. I am pointing it out to them, but nobody is listening... the brand will be dragged down."To make things worse, he goes and shares it with a colleague in marketing. That guy went and quit right in the middle of the product launch stage! He said he would not put his neck on the block. Now, as HR, I have to be witness as well as the accused! What do I do? My struggle with myself is: what is my professional role? I have some ideological issues linked to my profession that I wish to stand by. If I am not able to espouse that beyond a point of influence, then a stage comes when I will abandon my philosophy, my ideology, and do whatever is required to make money. Or I must stick to what I believe in at all costs.So, should I ask ‘what is my professional role'? Or do I ask what is my duty? Which comes first? Point is, both lead to the same answer, because profession will also force you to address, ‘what is my duty'? Say, professional duty replies ‘to meet the goals of my organisation', the next question will be ‘by what means?' By any means. Hence maalik bhagawan hai. Or is it that, supreme to all this is the organisation's goal and means do not matter?That is my process of struggle. To be ever at their beck and call... ethically too..A few weeks ago, Anil asked for a five-year projection. The unit figures had come only on Friday night and to have them ready for Sunday 8 pm, Kapil had to ask Alex Rego, his management accountant, to work on the weekend along with him. Later, when Kapil found out that Sunday had been Rego's little boy's birthday, he felt a certain something that he could not define. Something snapped, broke, crumbled, perished. "Yes, yes, wives go into labour and children have birthdays and elders fall ill. I know that, but I also know that an employer, a senior, needs to have the sensitivity to know a Sunday from a Monday, office time from family time," he said to Radhika as she asked, "Did Alex say anything?"Kapil: What will he say, Radhika? There is a certain middle manager mentality, which is ‘boss bhagwan hai'. My team, my colleagues have never said no to me. Not once. They see me working like a donkey so they feel they should work at least half as much! Unfortunately, I have staff who are so decent, so well-mannered that they will not say ‘no' to me because they know I am under pressure too."The next time he had to submit something in a tearing hurry Kapil said he could ensure this by Wednesday as he could not call people to come to work on a Sunday. Anil's eyebrows shot up. "If I can call you, you cannot call them?" he asked. Kapil recalled looking at a swinging pendulum kind of stress buster on Anil's table, and thinking, what am I perpetuating? Yes, it is pressure on me, but that is my responsibility. If I want to change all this, I have to take the heat and ensure this madness stops at me. That is my belief... but it is affecting me. Because I am resisting him, I am under pressure. My anxiety is I am forcing this culture upon my organisation...Inder: Is this at the heart of your entire angst?Kapil: My problem is that I am not getting a chance to stop the wheel I am on; it is being propelled by my own running and I don't know how to stop it. I don't think there is any way I can stop the wheel.Inder: Are you the custodian of virtues? Kapil: Then who is? Anil is the leader and owns the values of this organisation. But to run it in an ethical and value-based manner is my job! I am the custodian of virtuous conduct here!Suddenly looking up, Kapil asked Inder, "Who do you like? Who do you find likeable? Top of mind, top of mind…"Inder stared, then stammered and stuttered and said simply, "Katrina Kaif?"Kapil smiled and said, "See? We do not even have someone likeable. People in the past hung out with people they found likeable. We hang out with people from whom we earn, and mostly we do not care very much about them from the standpoint of our soul. They are colleagues and we are polite to them, and if they need medical assistance we are ready to admit them into a hospital. Full stop. But we don't have a person we like deeply because we do not have the time to examine all that is around us, with us!To be continuedClassroom DiscussionCan ethics create successful businesses? Can successful businesses espouse ethics?casestudymeera (at) gmail (dot) com(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 29-08-2011)
Read More
