As I write this, I can't stop measuring how far I have come with regard to my new year agenda. Last day of January, a month wheezed past already, means that I am already done with a third of my 100 day plan period, which is supposed to change my life. Besides, one-twelfth of the year, if I must be reminded, is already over.
Reflecting back, I have reasons to be happy. I have achieved a big leap - a freedom from my sense of guilt, the overwhelming sense of responsibility that I felt at my work to get things done. Two reasons: First, I realized that what I am now putting together is the only sensible way to run the business, given the commitment levels of the investors. Second, I also noticed that I am being manipulated for my self-imposed sense of responsibility, a state of affairs I should not tolerate for much longer.
Besides, I felt a sense of commitment to my customers, individuals those who invested money on my bidding. One could possibly argue that it was a commercial decision on their part, but all sales is also personal, and I think salesmen will do better to assume some responsibility of what they do and say. I do think I am responsible, at least partially, to see that my customers achieve their desired objective, or at least do my bit to facilitate that objective. This list is now reasonably short and manageable, and except one partner, I think I have given everyone enough ways to set their business models right. The one which is still struggling has ethical issues - he uses his smartness rather wrongly and believes that he can control everything with his connections with political mafia, an oft-repeated mistake in India. And, by taking that path, he is increasingly freeing me up from my sense of responsibility, which is a good thing.
Apart from structuring my work, I am also made some progresses in structuring my life. After many false starts, it seems that the corporate consulting business that I thought of starting is finally good to go. I am trying to put together many diverse elements into one business - sales and induction training for BFSI sector, leadership training, business communications training, and training content development - and business modelling will be of great significance in getting this business going properly. For me, this business is a marriage between the current opportunities brought in by various partners and my ideas of creating a world class corporate training company within the context of the current business I run.
Because the plan for this new business is so closely aligned to what I have done earlier, and because it is so closely influenced by my own thinking, I had to stand back and think through the issues that I faced in running the business operations in India, and the reasons why the achievements were far less than what I aspired for. I did go through the usual arguments that some of my colleagues throw at me - wrong people, high cost, contracts difficult to enforce etc - and concluded the obvious, that none of this is actually true.
Instead, here is my list of things where we went wrong:
First, insufficient planning. I have seen this many SMEs that they don't plan at all. They actually have a disregard for planning, and believe in here-and-now business decisions. I have had conversations where my request for making a longer term plan was met with incredulity, and I was advised to focus on the next deal. I would guess this works in some businesses and in some situations, but this is definitely counterproductive in a complex business like training and especially if one is venturing out in a distant territory.
Second, the lack of planning invariably meant lack of commitment. I have come to realize how important burning the ships are when you start a business. One can not start a business and keep thinking whether this is the right business to do. You do the thinking beforehand, not while you are in the business. While you are in business, the only acceptable attitude is that you will do the business come what may. In fact, that is the basis of any successful endeavour. Unfortunately, the lack of planning does not help create that commitment.
Third, I was told that the two above factors did not matter because I was given the independence to do things as I like, and as long as I planned and I was committed, it did not matter. But, it did - because a business of scale, as training business in India needs to be, needs more than individual commitment. It needs a corporate commitment, money, technology, everything else. None of this is easy if a lone man is given freedom - as much freedom to eat his breakfast if he is paying for it - to run a business without money. This is possibly another SME disease, a disproportionate emphasis on individual enterprise and dis-ingenuity at the cost of the planning and proper infrastructural commitment. I am sure it works some of the time, and I have great regards for those entrepreneurs who pull things off against all odds. However, I think it was wrong to assume that this works all the time in all the places, and especially in the context of a complex business which makes money only at a scale of operation, this was suicidal.
I have been through this analysis earlier, and I did it now. The significance of this exercise is not just to point out the usual handicaps of a foreign company doing business in India [and, therefore, I did not highlight the factors like the lack of market understanding and consistent stereotyping etc], but to seek out the common factors that even an Indian company, including the one I set up, may face. The essential lessons are obviously that of intelligent planning, giving the business the required scale of operation to be successful, and mixing the need of individual creativity and enterprise with the common tools of management, like structures, responsibilities and processes.
Besides, I think, there is an overwhelming need of professionalism in businesses like this. And, frankly, I know that professionalism starts from the top. You can't expect your employees to be professional and committed if you are not professional and committed yourself. That's one of the basic functions of leadership which so many people fail to perform. I have seen managers who take it as their privilege to not to come in time to office, while expecting all staff members to turn up. I have seen senior managers behaving badly, while expecting the employees to maintain courtesy while dealing with customers and suppliers. I would think any such behaviour is a violation of a psychological contract an employer has with the employees, and the impact of such inconsistencies are as bad as the situations where employers do not think paying salaries is their responsibility, but expect the employees to work wholeheartedly.
Besides, I have a problem with the usual definition of professionalism. I would guess there is an inherent expectation that man as a professional person should be different from man as a person, and there should be two sets of behavioural patterns, one applicable in private life and the other in professional life. It is almost as if I as a Director of a company is somewhat superior to I as myself, and overriding personal values, like responsibility, commitment and consistency etc, do not have any place in the world of business and work. I am not sure whether one can really live watertight lives as a professional person and as a person, and I would believe that it would get much easier to do good work if we start shifting away from such dichotomy. Why not make a simple pledge to become a better person overall, respect others all the time, be empathic, be firm on principles, be disciplined, in all spheres of life. I would not believe someone can be hardworking at work while being lazy in their own lives, respectful at home while being abusive in office, vice versa. I remember one of my mentors from NIIT days always started her interviews asking about the candidate's typical day, an attempt to judge their private person first: This is possibly the most sensible interviewing style I have seen. With all the experience I have gathered, I have now started believing deeply in Chester Bernard's observation: You pay an employee for certain types of work they perform, but it is the whole person who comes to work.
So, I have some work at hand. To build a business from ground up, which is not trivial. Besides, I can only do this properly when I have left the current assignment completely, which will happen only around the end of March. But I know that I can't make any mistakes this time - I must build a professional business based on enduring values. My first pledge is that I must get a clear sign-off on some basic principles from all the employees and partners that I am going to hire - an absolutely non-negotiable commitment to professional behaviour, clear commitment to follow the laws of the land, no bribing, things like these. I have already been told that these are utopian principles and business may not be successful if I follow such things. However, as I said, I do not see the difference between one's business life and life in general that clearly, and believe that the business I run must adequately reflect the principles I should govern my life with.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
In our age, the only way to be politically correct is to be democratic. This is a post-70s affair - those days, still, some people had alternative ideologies in mind. Those alternate ideas are dead and gone, long discredited, and it seems that we have only one system which can make people happy, free and live longer. So, we have this huge export industry of democracy, and democracy's warriors, which the American security establishment has lately become. The democracy's businessmen, the bond traders, the media barons and the Hollywood types, are feted everywhere. The consensus is deafening and dumbing. It is indeed awkward to ask now - whether democracy is the right system for every society. It indeed should be. Collective wisdom is better than individual autocracy. In societies where democratic elections have been few and far between, the popular vote has demonstrated the extra-ordinary political savvy of the usually disinterested masses. Democracy has proved to be an excell
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.