You have the right to remain silent

I have always meant to blog about this, but circumstances, one way or another, have pushed this till now:

It is a common sight for people to celebrate or feel disappointed by their favorite sports team's victories/ losses, and equally common for folks to criticize on-screen players for poor performances.We criticize players' performances in a match,  and captains' tactics in a match without giving it much thought.

Along the same lines, we also criticize leadership of top companies on their ability to steer a company to the number 1 spot in a market, or for 'screwing up' a strategy or for being unable to steer a company successfully through a crisis situation.

My take on all this is purely this: Do we have the right to criticize them?

On the one hand, this is the job of these employees/ sports people and hence they better be damn good at it - heck some of them are even paid as well! On the other hand, by criticizing them, we are in-turn suggesting that we possibly can do their job better!

While I seriously doubt that we can do a job on-par, let alone a better job, it then becomes unfair to criticize someone in a domain/ stream with no experiential knowledge, practical experience, and past wisdom to draw upon. (theoretical knowledge of the subject/ person is assumed here!) On the other hand, because this is the profession these people have chosen (or been at the profession for 'x' years), they better have learnt something and be damn good at whatever they do - they do get paid for it after all!

For example, a recent fire at RCF in Mumbai meant loss of PPE as well as injuries. A lot of articles were written criticizing the plant manager for his (mis)management policies. Honestly, at that point I felt parents and children who have no idea on the practicalities of managing a factory were being arrogant and ignorant when offering their comments on the factory manager's (in)abilities!

My personal opinion is that one must be careful when criticizing without relevant experience. It is essential that we understand our own limitations before we offer our 2 cents...

The side of consulting they don't tell you about - part 2

The most prominent reasons for anyone to join a consulting firm are money, the exit options, and the variety of projects you get to work on. A confused soul right out of b-school or even otherwise can experience different projects in different industries across different functions

However, the flip side to this is as follows:
You do not have control over what projects are assigned to you. This means you could potentially be stuck in an industry you don't like, in a function you don't like. As you build up this experience, it then becomes difficult to switch out of this. In fact your demand within the firm increases because of this past experience.

Your exit options fast diminish as you rise up the ranks in a consulting firm. You don't learn how to manage sub ordinates, which is a critical skill required in corporate industry. If you haven't worked in your desired industry (either by chance or otherwise) during your consulting assignments, then your exit is limited only to a specific industry

As you rise up higher, the salary cut when you exit to industry gets bigger and bigger. This hit prevents a lot of options from being viable

As a case in point, one of my friends who has spent 5 years in consulting found his exit option only after 6 months of searching, and after many rejections.

I am not discouraging people from joining consulting, but bear these thoughts in mind when you do. I have been told by a few folks that 2 years is the ideal time to spend to exit properly, but I guess I am still learning all this myself...

The Key to Success

People have come up with various 'enablers' of success - hardwork, talent, luck, the list goes on. My views on luck are amply and widely known, therefore let me exclude it from the discussion here. I honestly feel that success boils down to just one over-arching statement: How well you can relate to the person sitting in front of you.
In the case of a sub-ordinate, noone will deny that being on good terms with your boss beyond just work definitely speeds up the promotion process. In the case of entrepreneur, his ability to relate to the PE or VC folks beyond just the text in the pitchbook helps establish that 'chemistry', (which is undefinable even today). In the case of the B2B, the manager's ability to conduct small talk with his customers aids him/ her in getting the foot in the door, as well as possibly the sale itself. Job opportunities open up because people like 'hanging out with each other' (a live example presents itself in IIM B). My views on this with regards to the spouse need not be emphasized again. The list goes on...
The caveat to this statement is this: How well you can relate to the person sitting in front of you (let us call this person A) means you know everything about A's business, you know everything about A's interests to carry on a conversation beyond the regular talk, you know your strengths inside out and weaknesses inside out to phrase it in appropriately in A's language . It means you get down the nitty-gritty engineering details if required, by your customer, you present a particular aspect more emphatically than others to the PE ,you find out if there any new developments in the manager's life (e.g. birth of a son/ daughter), you read up on a TV Series your spouse enjoys just so that you're conversational on it, and once again, the list goes on...
Most people understand the need for an excellent 'product' - be it themselves for the job interview, or a durable for the consumer. Very few people remember to put in a personal touch in the relationship. This key element is often forgotten and people wonder what happened then...

Guilty until proven Innocent... or vice versa?

Another interesting discussion prior to this post with someone VERY dear to me must be credited with these... thoughts... before I proceed - it would be unfair to say this was my wholly brain child (whether you agree or disagree with my POV is a different issue).
Every newspaper carries stories of murder, theft and rape. For rape cases, the name of victim is never mentioned, or identity is protected for many reasons (honor of the victim being one of them). The accused's names are however quite wildly splashed around the news paper. In the case of murder and theft as well, if the names can be identified, then the names of the 'suspects' are mentioned, almost as having been guilty, if not already identified as guilty.
I (and I believe the bobbies are too) contend that by mentioning the name of these accused you are violating the latin principle Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat or the presumption of innocence for the individual. Some opinion leaders offer that perhaps people can be on the lookout for these 'accused' people and be wary of them. My argument is this: If my friend X from Bombay commits a crime of some sort in the Northeastern part of India, who in great god's name is going to know who X is?
To really allow folks to be wary of the potentially guilty folks, a proper description should be published along with a sketch. f the individual is not guilty after the trial, then even if X is exonerated, the 'stigma' and suspicion remains (most notably in the case of the OJ Simpson trial).
No names should ever be mentioned for any of these cases until it has been established 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the individual is guilty. However, the opinion leaders do have a valid point about releasing the names (and potentially their descriptions) for the 'greater good' if you will, thus sacrificing what is a constitutional right in many countries (my home country included). And yet another case of individual versus collective good emerges...

Cost Benefit Analysis yet again

Given the recent attacks all over the world by various fundamental groups, Governments have put in stringent restrictions on various aspects of people's lives. The US Patriot Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States. Here in Ireland, in the case of a financial transaction involving any sum greater than 5000 Euros, the bank must be informed one day in advance to scrutinize the transaction. The most recent example of such restrictions include the Indian Government's demands of the decryption of the Blackberry Messenger (BBM).
Now while most of us would be indifferent to the government reading our texts on BBM (not like most of us have mind-boggling secrets), significant number of corporate executives purchase RIM products precisely for the BBM - the encryption ensures that there is some degree of protection for company sensitive information.
Should such sensitive information fall in the hands of the government, who is to stop the gubernatorial officials from selling this information to a competitor? In other words, there is no check in place to prevent the guardian from betraying the ones he's protecting. Furthermore, in the case of corrupt governments (and I don't find the dearth of any), corporates may choose not to operate in case of sensitive information transfer - potentially affecting the country's economy.
However, the flip side to this is that not having such information would mean lack of access to potentially important information to prevent the aforementioned fundamental attacks. This is a cost-benefit analysis that the government (and in the case of a democracy, the people) must weigh - I honestly do not know the answer to this question. Ideally speaking ,the access to information and the prevention about another 26/11 should be worth it all... right?

Concerning "suffixes"

In today's day, I have observed an inherent clash in what is believed by parents, and what is believed by the daughter-in-law. And this clash holds true in some more of the more 'feminist' nations of the world as well.
A conversation with one of my closest friends, currently in the US, sparked this debate. In his words I quote - "She will take my last name after marriage - just the way it's supposed to be".
Now while I consider myself regressively progressive and not fully progressive (a spectrum discussion to be held at another time), I find the concept of a wife being forced to take the husband's name very inconvenient.
The primal reason for this belief is that girls these days have studied and traveled far more extensively than their counterparts in ye olde age (to put it very crudely). It becomes extremely inconvenient to have one last name be the marriage name, and another last name imprinted on the degrees, passport etc. Imagine having to produce a change of name certificate everytime just to prove that you are indeed the right person referred to. Status quo, the documents required are enough of a hassle. Add to this hassle a bureaucratic nightmare such as India, and we well and truly have insanity in the making. This case also holds true in matriarchal societies where the guy changes his last name as opposed to the girl changing hers.
Should the guy / girl want to change his/ her last name (for whatever reason - respect, love, tradition - I am not here judge), I won't dissuade him / her, but I would like to point out that retaining the maiden name makes logical sense, not from a feminist (or chauvinist) POV, but just from a common sense POV...

The customer (significant other) is king / queen

With a little bit more free time now than before, I managed to have another (rather purposeful) conversation with someone very dear to me. THe following are quickly assembled thoughts before I rush off again...

He (my friend) was in the process of planning his departure and wanted a Euro debit card. The bank first informed him that he needed to have stayed in the country here for greater than 180 days in this fiscal year - turns out, this current fiscal year hasn't completed 180 days at all. The next condition imposed by the bank was that he should have stayed in the country for greater than 180 days in the last fiscal year as an Indian citizen - there was no mention of any form of PR status associated with it. My friend is a PR of Canada and that somehow diluted his Indian citizenship status (don't ask me how...). The banks then required him to show proof of his residence in the country as an Indian citizen for the past 5 years. The bank made a very big deal of his 'special situation' going by their rigid 'terms and conditions'. The story goes on before my friend decided it wasn't worth his time and effort to get the Euro debit card.

Given this special circumstances of my dear friend, the bank's "rule book" to deal with these special cirucmstances fell short miserably to say the least. What is the outcome of this little fiasco? He comes and complains to me; I, in turn, will inform all such folks of these problems associated with this particular bank, and this then becomes negative viral marketing for the concerned bank.

In a similar situation with me, I had called the Dominos store in Bangalore and asked to have 5 mexican wraps delivered costing ~400 INR. The manager of the store refused saying that a pizza must be ordered. I offered the manager a choice - either I will order one small pizza for INR 65 and one mexican wrap (~150 INR totally) or order the 5 wraps. His answer to me was shocking - he said "Sorry sir, our rules do not allow only wraps to be delivered." Needless to say, I hung up without ordering anything and the revenue for that night was non-existent!

In a day and age when customer is king / queen, how do companies lose focus and follow such rigid rule books? Why isn't there a check in place to ensure that flexibility in a direct POC with the customer?

Some may argue that the above cases are one-in-a-million cases. But what is the outcome of this? I will tell the story to whomever I can about this; in fact by merely posting this on my blog, 'n' number of people have already read it and formed an opinion about the inflexibility of Dominos.

Given that at this point of my life, I can reach 600 students at IIM Bangalore and given my penchant desire to eat food from outside, does this sort of behavior not cause more damage than desired to the company's reputation? It is necessary for the heads of organizations to ensure that the 'entpreneurial spirit' within the sales side of the organization is maintained. Why do organizations allow the 'customer is king' concept to get lost in rules and bureaucracy?

Those who know me best know that this isn't a random rant, but one with a purpose - and that purpose is this: If I was to equate this to a marriage, where does the 'spark' in the marriage die off (which can be equated to flexibility within an organization growing through its entrepreneurial stages to its formalization stage)? Why do couples not take care to ensure that the spark endures on, especially given today's hectic life style? Allthemore since people I speak to tell me there is a honeymoon phase, and then it dies off into routine and boredom... IF people are aware, then why aren't necessary steps taken I wonder...