Google: Paying the price for maintaining Geek image

Here is an interesting write-up about Google:

In June 2011 Google bid for auction of over 6000 patents and patent applications held by Nortel.

In a hard-fought battle, Google bid confusing amounts like $1,902,160,540, $2,614,972,128 and $3.14159 billion - all mathematical constants (Brun's constant, Meissel-Mertens constant and Pi respectively). 

While Google may have retained its geek credibility, it lost the patents to a consortium made up of arch-competitors Apple, Microsoft and RIM among others who bid $4.5 billion. All while it had nearly $40 billion in cash on its balance sheet. 

"I have worked in the tech sector for over two decades. Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other's throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what's going on" said David Drummond, Google's legal head in a blog post after losing the auction. Alreadt the company with the fewest patients with which to defend against attacks, Google was forced to scramble after the loss. To compensate, it acquired 1000 patients from IBM the very next month.

Google acquired many more patents over the last two years but all of them are considered less critical, and hence less valuable, for mobile communication.

Article in Forbes magazine (August 2011)


More about Nortel patents deal here:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/apple-and-microsoft-beat-google-for-nortel-patents/

Update: Only days after this article was published Google acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion to make a strong entry in the handset market.(http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html)

I differ...

What is the main reason Anna Hazare has started his agitation against the Government?

If you read various news reports or talk to people, you will get different answers.

1. Personal agenda or Social Cause: Government ignored the draft of Lokpal Bill put forward by the Civil Society Team led by Anna Hazare (Government created an illusion of working with the Civil Society Team but tabled its own version in the Parliament)
2. Ego and hogging limelight: Do Anna and his colleagues want a truly stronger Lokpal Bill (which actually serves the purpose it is intended to) or do they want their own version to go through and get accepted as The Bill. Are they getting carried away by the over-enthusiastic support of the masses and getting caught in the facade of ‘Second Freedom Struggle’
3. Demeaning Parliamentary System, setting wrong precedence: Isn’t Anna challenging the basis of Parliamentary System and trying to set a wrong precedence, by holding Government at ransom? Will it not set wrong precedence if Anna finally has his way?

I feel that it was a matter of prestige for the Civil Society Team members to have got opportunity to work directly with the Government. Finally Government ditched their version, which was a major blow to the Team. Was it the real reason why Anna Hazare decided to take on the Government? Is Lokpal Bill becoming his personal agenda?

There is another reason why I feel that Ego could be a factor. In all the glorious and high-pitched support that Anna is getting, not many have thought if Anna’s version of Lokpal Bill is the best draft on the matter. General sentiment is that everybody wants a “strong” Lokpal Bill (which will actually create fear in the mind of corrupt people), and that Government’s Bill is not strong enough to achieve this (mainly because they don’t want such bill).

But does this mean that Anna’s version is the best? (It could be better than the Government’s version, but not necessarily the best).

Aruna Roy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aruna_Roy) is a former civil servant and now an Indian political and social activist. She is also known as senior colleague/ mentor of Arwind Kejriwal  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Kejriwal) who is a key member of The Civil Society team led by Anna Hazare. (Aruna Roy and Arvind Kejriwal together won Policy Change Agent of the Year 2010 award).

Very few people would know that Aruna Roy has also come up with her own version of Lokpal Bill and some well-informed and respectable people on this matter mentioned on national television (in one of the panel discussion) that Aruna Roy’s version of Lokpal Bill is better than that of Team Anna’s.

Aruna herself has said that Lok Pal Bill needs wider consultation (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-07/jaipur/29391716_1_grievance-redressal-lok-pal-bill-consultation); meaning that it is a matter of exerts to debate and refine the bill, and not just a bunch of people claiming themselves to be representatives of ‘Civil Society’ at large.

Then why Team Anna is intentionally ignoring the reference to ‘need for a stronger bill after a wider consensus’ and is shouting over the top only about ‘their bill not getting accepted’? Nobody seems to care…

Today (17th Aug 2011), L K Advani made an important point in the Lok Sabha which (as expected) could not make any headline (since it was beyond the public euphoria).

He said that in his last 5 decades of political journey government had formed many ‘All-party’ parliamentary committees to address various issues. This is the first time ever that government has completely sidelines all political parties (except the ruling party) and taken matter outside the boundary of Parliament, formed an agreement with a few people from so-called civil society (chosen on some unknown criteria). To this Kapil Sibbal replied: ‘Yes, but we have set a new precedence. And it’s not unconstitutional’

Advani had a valid point. Anna and Government both have insulted the constitutional framework by entering into a mutual pact (no matter for how good or noble cause). This must not become a trend. In last 10 years or so, the Candle March by the educated middle class, social activism through electronic media (Facebook, Twitter etc) has become a rage. Similarly such a step by Anna would just set a wrong precedence – that anything can be achieved (without proper discussion/ debate) if you create herds of people, manipulate notion of public opinion though surveys, petitions and if nothing works, can fast unto death (that too in all public glory) and have your own way!

Mahatma Gandhi tried this in 2 ways - many times against the British Raj, and towards the end f his life, against his own government. The public opinion changed dramatically between the two ways: He got tremendous support during his fasts against the British Raj; but the support dwindled when he tried the same against his own people (to give away agreed amount of money to Pakistan). In fact it turned into hatred in no time. It was perceived that Gandhi was black mailing the government for his own demands.

The same could be said about Anna Hazare (maybe later, if not now), if he has his own way, and that sets a wrong precedence.

Another observation related to this is – Gandhi always carried out his fasts/ protests from where he was based; be it Ashrams at Vardha or Sabarmati, or from his stay in Mumbai, Delhi etc. He did not travel all the way to Delhi and proceeded with his Satyagraha, fast in public glare and attention.

Anna (or Ramdev Baba et al) appears to be an exhibitionist and attention-seeker rather than sincere activist.

I am all for a strong Lokpal Bill, but not supporting Anna Hazare.

On Corruption - from an Economist's perspective... - Part 1

I just finished Economics module and had read some interesting concepts and theories from various Economics books; and wanted to think loud on some of the concepts that I found thought provoking...one of which is - Corruption.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economists realize that corruption in public life is not just a matter of criminal temperament but of opportunity. 


The economist and a prominent authority on the subject of corruption, Robert Klitgaard, proposed a formula for bribery. 

Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion - Accountability.

His theory is that corruption flourishes in a system of governance where there is a high degree of monopoly and discretion with a low demand for accountability. He holds that corruption succeeds where citizens have not yet begun to demand public services as their entitlements and still look upon them as favours dispensed from above.

With respect to India, as monopoly in many systems of governance in the country is inevitable (whether it is state-owned monopoly or state-backed monopoly), the key is to reduce the level of discretion available with babus and increase their degree of accountability for their actions.


Klitgaard felt that corruption is a crime of calculation; and predicted that many people would drift into becoming corrupt if they see that the risks are low, penalties are mild and rewards great. Drawing from these insights, he also suggested that the broad solution that anti-corruption movements can offer is to make the calculation risky for the corrupt - they will move out if the system is tightened.


All our recent activities in India (fasts of Anna Hazare or Ram Dev Baba or other Right To Information movements in last few years) focus only on increasing Accountability, but no one is bothered about Monopoly and Discretion.


And tackling Monopoly and Discretion is a real challenge! 


Accountability issue is easy to perceive and hence it is easy to seek support from the masses. And that's why so many people start supporting anything aimed at increasing Accountability.


But it is difficult for a layman to understand negative impact of Monopoly and Discretion. And hence there is hardly any mass movement on this front.

Public-choice theory suggests that a small group with much to gain from a policy will tend to prevail against a large group who stand each to lose a small amount. The small group knows the stakes and is better organized - which is why we have trade tariffs, which help a small number of people while imposing poorly understood costs of a diffuse majority.


Accountability issue may be addressed through genuine movements or through publicity stunts like fasts, strikes etc. which easily catch the imagination of masses. The same means will not work with issues of Monopoly and Discretion. The intelligent people who benefit from Monopoly and Discretion and the intelligent people who oppose it, both know that the public-at-large is not of much use in this battle. Still in a democracy like India, both the parties have to win over masses. Those who favor Monopoly and Discretion try to do so by confusing people and those who oppose Monopoly and Discretion try it by educating people and increasing awareness.


So far "confusing people" has been extremely easy than "educating people"...and it will remain so (in India) for few more years to come.


In short - Corruption may reduce marginally if Accountability increases, but unless we address Monopoly and Discretion, corruption is here to stay...unfortunately.


More about corruption and black money soon...

Moving up the value chain, and revenue per employee hurdle

Last year there was a paper presentation competition at my previous organization to generate ideas to drive organization to the strategic goal - of becoming a billion dollar organization in 2012! (from 500 million in 2010)

I had submitted a write-up and argued that such a growth was not possible by the usual linear-growth model of IT services companies i.e. by adding more and more heads in the organization who are billed at a constant rate. The organization had to either adopt non-linear revenue model (mix of IT services and consultancy and products) to grow exponentially – or acquire a company. (Incidentally iGate had set similar target - of becoming a billion dollar organization, and they finally acquired Patni recently to achieve the goal - i.e through acquisition and not linear growth)

Now this paper was written more than 1 year ago, and since then I have been reading and following how typical businesses fair in terms of non-linear growth.

Infosys - already a 5 billion dollar company with over 100,000 employees - has already hit the block and is now experimenting with New Engagement Model (NEM - consisting of outcome-based pricing rather than per person billing), their so-called non-linear growth model consisting of mix of Services/ Consulting/ Products.

But where does such tweaked business model stand in comparison with the Consulting or Product business?

A good benchmark is Revenue per Employee (since all of them are people-intensive businesses, unlike – say manufacturing or retail). And you get some knowledge about how the respective business/ industry work when you look at the numbers:

Here are some observations:

Infosys’ Global Delivery Model or New Engagement Model, Cognizant’s Two-In-A-Box Model, other Indian IT services’ such models etc. are merely Operational or Pricing models. They help in achieving better profitability to some extent, but don’t transform the basic characteristics, the DNA of the type of industry.

If you compare the companies within the same industry, their Revenue per Employee falls in a certain band only. Some organizations do better than peers, because of operational efficiency, branding, or strategy etc. e.g. Accenture surpasses its peers by large margin, however Accenture falls well short of even E&Y – an organization with lowest Revenue per Employee in its category.

Same is the case with other categories. It’s interesting, there could be some overlap between the two and probably handful exceptions/ deviations too. But in general, this would hold true.

This also gives you some idea about how far an organization could go. If you look at Product based companies, their Revenue per Employee is significantly higher compared to the IT Services companies – mainly because they spend huge effort on R&D, launch best-selling products and then mint money for years! So there is no limit to the upside. On the other hand, an IT company operating with a particular Revenue per Employee trend would require umpteen people to achieve a Product-based company like revenue. E.g. for Infosys to achieve Microsoft’s revenue it would have to employ 1.24 million people!!! J

Indian IT services often talk about increasing profit margins and revenue by ‘moving up the value chain’, doing more of high-margin consultancy work rather than usual maintenance and support work (the bread and butter of IT business). I think this is a myth. The array of IT services that these companies talk about can at best be described as ‘economies of scale’ – offering application development, maintenance, BPO, KPO, limited technology consultancy, Infrastructure management etc. I don’t know what ‘value’ addition to the client they mean when they just move from IT services to so-called consulting.

Who devised this concept of ‘value chain’ and it becoming more lucrative as you ‘move up’?

Price is what you pay and Value is what you get (in terms of benefits). If the perceived benefits by customer exceed the price he pays, he would find ‘value’ in it. The reason businesses turned to outsourcing/ off-shoring is, they could get reasonably good quality of service at a fractional cost, by moving the non-core IT work to offshore. So that’s the value for them – customer used to get ‘value’ even with usual IT services word. So where does this notion of ‘moving up the value chain’ come from?

I guess it became popular because of companies attempt to differentiate from their peers in their branding, show that they do not provide just basic services but do some ‘high-quality’ work. Earlier the companies wanted to be ‘preferred vendors’, then the ‘strategic partners’ and now they want to be someone who ‘understand-customer’s-business-better-than-they-do-and-create-value-for-them’. It doesn’t make sense. If they were really able to move up the value chain, they would cross-over to and be at par with the Management Consulting industry-like Revenue per Employee. These are specialized firms that are very much centered around customers; and can thus charge price-premium. If you observe, these companies have very limited revenue range (less than $5-6 billion), but they achieve it with very less people i.e. high revenue per employee.

No matter how hard IT services companies try, they would never be able to replicate this model – because the basic DNA of the industry is different.

Does it mean that, an IT services company can never be a $100 billion dollar company?

Maybe it could – if it employs more than a million people! But it would never achieve the Revenue-per-employee like a Product-based company.

जीवन में एक सितारा था...

This poem is by Dr. Harivansh Rai Bachchan, from Madhushala.

I had heard this first time from Amitabh Bachchan when he was chief guest for a Marathi award function. Since then I was trying to get it somewhere. Finally got it from one of my friends!

Here is the poem:

जीवन में एक सितारा था
माना वह बेहद प्यारा था
वह डूब गया तो डूब गया
अंबर के आंगन को देखो
कितने इसके तारे टूटे
कितने इसके प्यारे छूटे
जो छूट गए फ़िर कहाँ मिले
पर बोलो टूटे तारों पर
कब अंबर शोक मनाता है
जो बीत गई सो बात गई

जीवन में वह था एक कुसुम
थे उस पर नित्य निछावर तुम
वह सूख गया तो सूख गया
मधुबन की छाती को देखो
सूखी कितनी इसकी कलियाँ
मुरझाईं कितनी वल्लरियाँ
जो मुरझाईं फ़िर कहाँ खिलीं
पर बोलो सूखे फूलों पर
कब मधुबन शोर मचाता है
जो बीत गई सो बात गई

जीवन में मधु का प्याला था
तुमने तन मन दे डाला था
वह टूट गया तो टूट गया
मदिरालय का आंगन देखो
कितने प्याले हिल जाते हैं
गिर मिट्टी में मिल जाते हैं
जो गिरते हैं कब उठते हैं
पर बोलो टूटे प्यालों पर
कब मदिरालय पछताता है
जो बीत गई सो बात गई

मृदु मिट्टी के बने हुए हैं
मधु घट फूटा ही करते हैं
लघु जीवन ले कर आए हैं
प्याले टूटा ही करते हैं
फ़िर भी मदिरालय के अन्दर
मधु के घट हैं,मधु प्याले हैं
जो मादकता के मारे हैं
वे मधु लूटा ही करते हैं
वह कच्चा पीने वाला है
जिसकी ममता घट प्यालों पर
जो सच्चे मधु से जला हुआ
कब रोता है चिल्लाता है
जो बीत गई सो बात गई

 

Understanding calendar...

Few years ago I was learning a programming language and was given an assignment to display calendar and tell day of date .

Instead of using library function I wrote the logic to come up with the day of that date. I had worked it out long back when I was in school - when I had read about Shakuntala Devi. I was fascinated by how to do mathematical calculation in head so quickly, or tell day of any past or future date. For mathematical calculations I read some books on Vedic Maths and learnt few things. As for date, I worked it out purely on my own. Don't know if that is how those people do it or some other way. But this method works fine. And its very easy to do, once you understand how calendar works.

Let me explain how.

First few basics about Calendar:

1. There are 365 days in a normal year and 366 in a Leap year.

2. If the year is divisible by 4 (but not by 100) then the year is a Leap year e.g. 1988, 1876, 2024 etc.

3. If the year is divisible by 100 and also by 400 then the year is a Leap year. e.g. 2000, 1600, 2400.

4. If the year is divisible by 100 but not by 400, then the year is NOT a Leap year. e.g. 1800, 1900, 1700, 2100 etc.

Now with these basics we can go ahead to discuss the logic:

Let's understand the concept of 'odd day'. 

The weekdays are Sunday through Saturday. And then the cycle repeats continuously. So if there are exactly 4 weeks then thee is no 'odd day' i.e. extra day. In a 30-day month there are 4 complete weeks and 2 'odd days' (i.e. extra days). In a 31-day month, there are In a leap month (February of a Leap year) there is one odd day.

So lets first see how many odd days are there in each month. (All you have to do is take modulus of 7 for each month...)

January - 3

February - 0 

February in a Leap year - 1

March - 3

April - 2

May - 3

June - 2

July - 3

August - 3 

September - 2

October - 3

November - 2 

December - 3

In a normal year there are 365 days i.e. 52 weeks and 1 odd day. In case of a Leap year there are 2 odd days.

So now we are good to find day of any date. But before that, to make life easy we need a a reference day (it's not mandatory but beneficial).

1st January 1900 was Monday

1st January 2000 was Saturday

Note: For any day in 20th and 21st century these 2 reference days respectively are enough)

------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets work out some examples:

Example 1. 15th Aug 1947 (India's Independence Day) 

Reference Date: 1st January 1900 was Monday i.e. Day ZERO

Step 1: 46 completed years since 1900. i.e. 46 odd days (1 odd day per year, not counting leap years). This is further equivalent to 7 weeks and 4 odd days

Step 2: There were 11 Leap years between 1900 and 1946 (i.e. 1946-1900 MOD 7). So 11 more odd days. i.e 1 week and 4 odd days

Step 3: Odd days for Year 1947 (till July 1947) are 16 (3+0+3+2+3+2+3) i.e. 2 weeks and 2 odd days

Step 4: As on Aug 15, there was 1 odd day

Adding odd day for Steps 1 through 4 we get 4+4+2+1 = 11 odd days i.e. further equal to 4 odd days.

Since reference day 1st January 1900 was Monday, counting 4 days from that day we get Friday.

So 15th August 1947 was Friday!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2. 11th September 2001 (World Trade Center Attack)

Reference: 1st January 2000 was Saturday

Step 1: 0 completed year since 2000. So 0 odd days

Step 2: 1 Leap year since 2000. So 1 odd days

Step 3: Odd days till August 2001 (3+0+3+2+3+2+3+3) are 19 i.e. 2 weeks and 5 odd days

Step 4: As on September 11, there were 4 odd days

Adding odd day for Steps 1 through 4 we get 0+1+5+4 = 10 i.e. 3 odd days.

Since reference day 1st January 2000 was Saturday, counting 3 days from that day we get Tuesday.

So 11th September 2001 was Tuesday!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 3. 26th November 2008 (Mumbai Attack)

Reference: 1st January 2000 was Saturday

Step 1: 7 completed years since 2000. i.e. 7 days. So 0 odd days

Step 2: 2 Leap years since 2000. So 2 odd days

Step 3: Odd days till October 2001 (3+1+3+2+3+2+3+3+2+3) are 25 i.e. 3 weeks and 4 odd days

Step 4: As on November 26, there were 5 odd days

Adding odd day for Steps 1 through 4 we get 0+2+4+5 = 11 i.e. 4 odd days.

Since reference day 1st January 2000 was Saturday, counting 4 days from that day we get Wednesday.

So 11th September 2001 was Wednesday!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 4: 25th June 1983 (India's World Cup Cricket Win)

Reference Date: 1st January 1900 was Monday i.e. Day ZERO

Step 1: 82 completed years since 1900. i.e. 82 odd days --> 5 odd days

Step 2: There were 20 Leap years between 1900 and 1982. So 20 more odd days. i.e 2 week and 6 odd days

Step 3: Odd days for Year 1983 (till May 1983) are 11 (3+0+3+2+3) i.e. 4 odd days

Step 4: As on June 25, there were 4 odd days

Adding odd day for Steps 1 through 4 we get 5+6+4+4 = 19 odd days i.e. further equal to 5 odd days.

Since reference day 1st January 1900 was Monday, counting 5 days from that day we get Saturday.

So 15th August 1947 was Saturday!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example 5: Today i.e. 13th February 2010

Reference: 1st January 2000 was Saturday

Step 1: 10 completed years since 2000. i.e. 10 days. So 3 odd days

Step 2: 3 Leap years since 2000. So 3 odd days

Step 3: Odd days till January 2010 are 3 i.e. 3 odd days

Step 4: As on February 13, there were 6 odd days

Adding odd day for Steps 1 through 4 we get 3+3+3+6 = 15 i.e. 1 odd day.

Since reference day 1st January 2000 was Saturday, counting 1 day from that day we get Sunday.

Yes, today is Sunday! :)

Comparing Apples with Red Chillies...because both are red!

The recenly concluded IPL-4 actions was another first for the IPL. It was the first time that the 2-day long auction process was televised LIVE on TV. And many, including myself, watched at least part of it.

 

In general, I don't like reality TV (barring a few exceptions), but this Real TV show was different. It's always good to witness change, as it happens! So while the LIVE auction would become a routine in coming years, and participants would 'prepare' themselves for future events (afterall most of them belong to show business in some ways), this was a first for them too. And hence it was more spontaneous/ impromptu (unless they had rehearsed it secretly before in a mock-auction!).

 

After watching the event I was waiting for the reactions/ interpretations by the media and by the readers. And I stumbled upon this Economic Times article - IPL-4 auction: Clash of billionaire egos and a bit of business - and liked it. I was about to write a blog on this auction myself, until I read the following comment on this article.

 

"S.Baskaran Singapore 11/01/2011 at 07:48 AM

What a difference in approach to life between two rich men from the city - Azim Premzi and Mallya both inherited wealth from their parents, of course premzi less. I want some psychology experts take this as case study for MBA course. Let them take such indian cases in stead of wall street money maniacs(who have brought the world to such a mess)."

 

Now this enthused me to write this blog on a completely different topic - not IPL, but how people tend to compare different individuals, genres, concepts, based on their principles and assumptions.

 

It's a bit difficult to compare and contrast (as the person has suggested in his comment) two individuals as diverse as Vijay Mallya and Azim Premji just because - a. they belong to same city (Bangalore), b. they come from similar background (both inherited businesses in different proportions) or c. they both belong to the same fraternity - the businessmen.

 

It's like comparing Shah Rukh Khan with Naseeruddin Shah, just because they both are actors...

What matters in both cases is not to judge them with one single set of rules (there cannot be a common minimum set, that would do justice to both diverse personalities) but analyze and appraise them on set of standards fitting their types, and comparing them with their 'category peers'. E.g. it is more appropriate to compare Vijay Mallya with a Richard Branson (can't think of any Indian name) and Azim Premji with a Rahul Bajaj (both inherited a small legacy and turned it into an enormous entity). 

Or in the latter analogy, Shah Rukh Khan with Amitabh Bachchan (both came from non-film background and are not trained actors) and Naseer with Om Puri or Anupam Kher (trained actors and worked in main-stream commercial as well as off-beat films).

Now coming back to the original comparison, if we judge them by set of parameters relevant for their catagories, I think, both stand out in their own ways. 

 

Vijay Mallya should be judged based on flmboyance, showmanship, ability to make bold and risky business deals (sometimes titlting more towards gambling), and using Saam-Daam-Dand-Bhed to his benefit.

Azim Premji should be judged based on integrity, fairness, media-shy tough decision-making, vision and wisdom and so on.

 

One can discuss and debate the basic parameters and what matters more, or what one regards very highly (and most people in India tend to regard highly the Azim Premji-like qualities, and scoff at Vijay Mayya-like qualities...something very inherent and faulty in Indian psyche/ culture). But it's in vain to compare these two people with the same yardstick...you are bound to do injustice to one and favor the other (depending on what basis you choose for comparison). But maybe it's not an India-specific trait. I remember my Strategy Professor at a British University shuddered when I used Richard Branson as an example in one of the classroom discussions. He was so irritated at the very mention of Branson's name that he refused to discuss my point further :)

 

I have seen such case studies during my MBA and also such discussions/ debates in general that start with wrong premise - by comparing Apples with Red Chillies (not even Oranges)...because both are red - and such debates lead nowhere, or often end up with a preconceived end result (by idolizing one and dismissing the other).

 

How can people compare and rank Lata Mangeshkar and Kishori Amonkar (just because they both are singers)? Or compare Sachin Tendulkar with Vishwanathan Anand (just because they are sportsmen)? You see an example of an Ambani spending millions on his house and immediately you start a discussion about A Narayana Murthy living simple life...but why?

 

You tend to like one over the other because you identify yourself with or you find a connect with characters/ qualities or the nature of that person.

 

So for me, writing or discussing a case study on Vijay Mallya and Azim Premji is an unproductive exercise...doesn't make much sense.

 

I like both Vijay Mallya and Azim Premji, although I value the principles and virtues embodied by Azim Premji a lot more! Vijay Mallya is not my type or nature...but he is good in his 'category'

To quote Abraham Lincoln: "For people who like that kind of book, that is the kind of book they will like." 

 

Similarly, those who like living life Kingsize would like Mallya - and there is a lot of Facebook-smitten young crowd out there...

 

On a lighter note, many would like to maintain a public image like Premji and live private life like Mallya :)

 

An interesting example of Organizational Culture...

An interesting example of Organizational Culture...

Organizational Behavior module at my MBA studies was something I liked a lot! Especially the Organizantional Structure and Organizational Culture part, because I could relate to my work-experience directly. It's difficult to make out Culture since its is subtle and intangible in nature. But the Culture often shows up in certain ways.

Recently iGate a relatively small US-based IT services firm (run by ex-Infosys executive Phaneesh Murthy) bought Patni Computer Services, a mid-sized IT services firm for close to $1.22 billion. Patni is more than double the size of iGate and iGate could buy Patni only with the help of financing from a consortium (i.e. through debt). 

I was reading an interview of Phaneesh Murthy when this Culture aspect caught my attention. Here's an excerpt:

Though this is a huge buy and you will take a while digesting it, are you looking at other companies with a "for sale" sign?
Not at all. I am basically a conservative, middle-class south Indian Brahmin. As it is, we don't like debt, and I am very uncomfortable with a $700 million (around Rs. 3,180 crore) debt.

Now the highlight here is, even though iGate is a US-based IT commpany and is supposed to be Global, the CEO of that organization owes his Business decisions to his roots - he being a middle-class Brahmin. And then it drives the organization's future and thus the Culture. So when a newly appointed executives talks of bringing about a change in the culture what he means is, to borrow from his background, experience and nature and apply that to the organization. So is there something called as Organizational Culture or is it a mere reflection of the Top executive? The answer is Yes and No.

In case of smaller organizations, the culture is dictated by the executives or top leadership. An organization with 100-odd employees (or a few thosand in case of IT companies, because that is 'small' for the industry) gets a new CEO, and since he is a conservative Brahmin who doesn't like debt would not go for more acquisitions. Had he been a Marwadi, or a Punjabi or a Gujrathi the organization's future course could have been different.

But in larger organizations (and not just size but how long the company has been in the business), a new CEO would not be able to make a dent in organization's culture. Think of IBM or a Unilever. Or a Tata group company or ONGC in Indian context. Leadership style may vary, few processes would change, but it's unlikely that there is a paradigm shift in organization's Culture.

 Another aspect of looking at Murthy's comment is: the impact of your previous organization, especially when you have spent significant time with it. In this case Phaneesh Murthy would not name Infosys, his previous organization where he served 10 years, helped grow it phenomenally and where he was finally asked to resign because of a sexual harassment litigation against him. Murthy glinks his conservative, risk-averse Business mind to his Brahmin roots, which is true, but what is also true is that his previous organization, Infosys has a huge contribution in it too.

Infosys, India's second largest IT-services company is and has been debt-free all along. Analysts often criticize Infosys for not growing inorganically though acquisitions, because Infosys leadership too doesn't 'like to borrow'. Again that could in turn be linked with the founders' brahmin roots... 

But what is also true is, when you are part of an organization for significant time(in senior capacity, of course), you not only are influenced by the Culture but you can also influence or shape up the Culture. L&T's chairman Naik started his career with L&T as a fresher and has been there for 46 years!!! If he starts-up his own venture its obvious that the culture of his start-up would resemble that of L&T's .

Hey, but in the same interview Murthy talked of 'kicking butt' in the marketplace post acquisition - the kind of language that does not go with his middle-class Brahmin background nor resemble the mellowed and always-politically-correct language at his previous organization Infosys. Maybe Phaneesh has a mixed parentage :) (Don't call me Racist, I was refering to his organization's US-based culture and his long tenure in the US!)

Come to think of it...Organizational Culture is to an Organization what Religion is to a Society. The only difference is, you can move to different Organizations if you don't like Culture; but that's not the  case with Religion :( And the worse part is - you don't get to choose the Religion...

Happy New Year 2011...

Hello World!


Happy New Year 2011...