When patience is not a virtue

Patience is a virtue. Indiscriminate application of patience is not.

When waiting for an egg to hatch, patience is our friend. Trying to get the chicken (or the lizard) out early isn't going to avail us much. On the other hand, watching a customer service agent go through our case in slow motion is definitely not a fit case for patience.

As processes and personal risk-avoidance become dominant, poor service and undue delays have become an epidemic not only in the government but also in the private sector. References to “process poison” and “process anesthesia” are not exceptions any more. Process-designers, instead of focusing on the service quality or timely outcome, quite often seem to emphasize due diligence and checks-and-balances, much to the delight of the auditors instead of customers.

People and their attitudes are important too. Having a stake in the outcome helps. Well-motivated individuals can delight customers despite process hurdles. Those who don't care, routinely take shelter in inane provisions despite well-designed processes.

That brings up two questions:

What if we teach discretion and application of thought to our children? That'll make them ask tough, uncomfortable questions. It would still be worth the trouble in the long run.

What if we reject patience as a virtue? It will need some discretion. It will be harder to do when we have something to lose; or when we need to get on with other things, but it will make a huge difference. Even the simple act of letting someone know that their behaviour is not acceptable will trigger a natural human behavioural change. Not everyone has a vested interest in tormenting us; those people will surely change for the better.

But then, can we overcome the other virtue we are taught alongside patience, such as unquestioning obedience?

Government outsourcing ailments in IT

Governments outsource IT / IT-related projects for three broad reasons:

1. Risk taking ability, work ethic, ability to deliver results
2. Superior technical skills
3. Work needs more people than the government has

It is surprising then, that having set out to outsource, the government procurement processes are tuned to kill two of the three reasons for outsourcing. Here is how:

• By laying down stringent (often one-sided) conditions, penalties and an overall attitude of "we don't trust you or your work ethic"; the bidders are often scared stiff into risk aversion.
• By insisting that they work to government procedures and work-style - convert the vendor's employees to government work ethic
• By insisting that vendor's technical work be reviewed and evaluated by internal / NIC people (see #2 above!)
• By weighing most projects towards the lowest-bidder. Even where QCBS is touted as the method, pseudo experts and lame duck consultants water it down to elaborate tabulations in the name of objectivity.
• By causing project delays with interminable paper work, refusing to accept responsibility for the delays and needlessly harassing vendors for payments.

The private sector, over the years seems to have adapted well. Effectively killing their own competencies. 

• Bid management teams are nearly exclusively focused on "winning the deal" - at any cost. Often this requires convenient interpretations of the requirements and taking short cuts that can "later be rationalized". As a result, #1 is left out in the lurch. Project outcomes are sacrificed at the altar of "win the bid first". 
• Blame the government and its procedures for all their compromises. Surely the government isn't innocent. But then, what about business ethics?
• Experts cost money. Good tools, technologies and methods cost money. Money that wasn't included in the bid. 

All this leaves only one reason to outsource. Not work ethic. Not result orientation. Not technical competencies. "#3: Work needs more people than the government has". Situation has deteriorated so much that it is not easy to recover from this downward spiral.

To get out of this quagmire, perhaps we could try:

Private sector reform its bid management approach. Bid to compete as much on quality as on price. 
Government stop trivializing technical evaluation. Hire experts and find ways to give weight to their opinion.

One last point for emphasis. Hundreds of technical evaluation criteria achieve only one thing. Unsurprisingly, that is not "best technical bid". They ensure that bids with glaring weaknesses in several areas can still get through - as long as they bid "some standard stuff". One would think that such an obvious possibility would've been apparent to all.

I would like to hear from you all - on what you think is wrong; and how you think they can be fixed.

Maruthi's move to Gujarat: Cause? Effect?

Any reaction to news paper reports has a high likely hood of being superficial; yet, something must be said about the causes and effects of Maruthi Suzuki's plans to setup a third manufacturing plant in Gujarat. Especially if it is a knee-jerk reaction to what happened in Manesar.

First: What does Maruthi expect to change - from Manesar to wherever-in-Gujarat? More docile / servile workers? Or an eager-to-please Government that will put down any unrest with an iron hand? If these two reasons are anywhere at the top, then they aren't exactly setting a stellar example of leadership. Sooner than later, workers will fight to solve their problems. Governments will need to address the causes and not just appease the industrialists.

Second: While the initiative to develop home-state cannot be faulted per se, when a leader aspires to elevate himself to the national level, what message does he send by propping Gujarat up at the expense of any other state? Why should people from other states trust him to not sell them out after he arrives in Delhi?

At a minimum, I would ask these questions:
a) How is Gujarat setting an example of better "Land acquisition and rehabilitation" methods - so that we all understand what WB, UP and other states can learn?
b) How is Gujarat setting an example of promoting harmonious labor relations, that Haryana might learn?
c) What is the impact of Gujarat's industry-favorable policies on potential imbalances at the national level?
d) We are quick to assume that all this is good for Gujarat. Is it really in accordance with a sustainable growth plan, or is unplanned opportunism?

Before you get the wrong idea, time to clarify. I am all for progressive policies and speedy execution. Heavens know we are not exactly setting world records on these areas; so anything anyone (including Modi) does to kick our collective backsides is most heartily welcome.

Finally, one area for Haryana (the people and the Government) to introspect. It is clear that the state's image has taken a beating. How to balance the interests of all stakeholders, act promptly as well as justly and create the right image for the state - or at a minimum avoid a PR debacle? 

Are IAS officers special?

I have had the good fortune of knowing and working with several good IAS officers. I respect them, not because of their degree or position, but because they are good human beings, good administrators and intelligent people capable of stimulating conversations.

This post is not about them though. Quite the opposite.

There is a large aura (or is it a halo?) around most IAS officers. Most people are fearfully respectful of them. Awe, fear and sycophancy bordering on worship. Blown so far out of proportion, this has created such a gigantic cultural crater of immensely unproductive attitude and work culture - both within the cadre and in the people working with them (inside and outside governments).

Within the cadre, the emperor's new clothes are at their best, brightest and most intimidating display. So powerful is this fundamentally flawed portrayal that even fellow IAS officers display such blatantly sycophantic treatment to their superiors even if privately despising the person. This is so deeply ingrained now that it is routinely called "protocol"!

Most (non-IAS) people dealing with them do the same. Sadly, this applies to even otherwise intelligent people who work in culturally liberated environments. e.g., management consultants, IT consultants and academicians.

These two groups (insiders and outsiders) feed each others' behaviors quite powerfully - each strengthening the other. I suspect that the course design deliberately takes advantage of this effect and gets them to walk 6" above the ground right from the time they step out of their academy.

Objectively viewed, the Indian Administrative Service (the "course" or the "degree", not the cadre), is largely equivalent to an MBA in Public Administration - targeted for the Indian Governments. That's it. A targeted MBA. The cadre is created and sustained (largely) with these people.

Therefore, let us stop this illogically unproductive behavior. Let us treat them as people. No doubt, they are intelligent people selected through a rigorous process and then trained well to do their jobs.

Respect them as human beings, for sure. Pay attention to their views and ideas, but please don't elevate them to a pedestal so high that it diminishes their value by disconnecting their self image from reality. Do give them an opportunity to be true to themselves and stay human.

Deep-rooted malaise

The analysis beans are back in action. So I picked myself up from a temporary bout of despair and angst and went about doing some root cause analysis - of the current state of affairs in the government.

I had already written about the negative impact of certain work-culture issues - starting with "The many management maladies". It is relevant here - as a huge first-part of the analysis.

1. Process and Protocol: established leaders in causing non-performance

1.1 Process: Process (nay, procedure... if you want to be anal-ytical), is the first and last refuge to every government-servant. Anything can be road-blocked using this. Oddly enough, "process" is only very rarely used to accelerate results - though we'll find any number of self-congratulatory PPTs to the contrary - especially if we don't want to look deep.

1.2 Protocol-and-ego cocktail: This is worse than the worst Molotov Cocktail. Most often, ego is very closely linked to and confused with "protocol".

My first experience of protocol was with a Japanese delegation; in any meeting only the senior-most person present would speak. I wasn't impressed then. I am not now. No doubt, that the senior-most person most often has the best judgement (okay, there are exceptions, but they are only exceptions) and the best broad-field perception of all issues involved. However, lack of in-depth knowledge of the matter at hand; combined with an ego that prevents openly consulting juniors / specialists in front of others - makes an excellent recipe for decision-making disasters.

This feeds quite effectively to the vicious cycle:

• subordinates routinely push matters upwards for consideration, decision, approval, you-name-it; while actively diminishing their own contribution (often taking perverse pleasure in it)
• bosses routinely micromanage; encouraging the subordinates along the downward spiral of non-performance, even while cribbing non-stop about how they can't get good help these days

2. Micromanagement: a most compelling solution for most result-oriented Managers!

Yes, we touched upon it already - but it is such a huge factor that it deserves separate attention. It both feeds-into and feeds-off the eco-system. The effects are so well known, that no more needs saying. The irony is that it is managers who want to achieve something who adopt this most!

3. Effective weeding out of any initiative and performance

Quick and decisive punishments are a hallmark of all *good* officers. It puts the subordinates in place, elevates the self-image of the officers concerned and results in all-round approving nods. 

It is an effective cure to anyone who dares put a toe out of line -- either violating a protocol (nay, ego) or making an honest mistake while performing one's duty. No wonder, one IT Manager told me not so long ago 

"Sir, we don't want the responsibility of taking backups because if we fail to restore even a single backup, we will be suspended from duty". So the eco-system effectively ensured that no backups were taken. Ever!! 

Joseph, a friend of mine, said recently: "In the workplace, I should have the right to be wrong; if I am going to be [punished] for [making a mistake], then ... ". I fully agree with him.

But then, even this honest-to-goodness recipe can be poisoned by the next and the most vicious factor.

4. Generations of finely-tuned culture of apathy

The value system has eroded so significantly that in the last two decades I've heard ONLY ONCE, that "Public Service is an honor and a privilege".

So this is "culture"? Nay, it is a disease. 

"Get a government job. Life will be good". I've heard variations of this theme uncountable times. It is so shockingly and routinely doled out by our elders - no less. With all due respect for well-meaning elders and their concern for our well-being, we must accord this particular contribution (to the malaise) its due "credit". 

No, let us not pretend that their advice is given with good intent and it is we who misinterpret it. I am old enough to know that the good intent has been wiped out over the generations of repeating this advice. Today, it is dispensed openly to promote "don't work; take pay; do side-business while being a government employee" and such ideas. Not even to glibly disguise it as "work-life balance". 

This is one malaise that I will keep working against, all my life.

Fortunately, unlike some other problems (e.g., The legacy of Brahmin), there is still some hope in this particular case. 

What makes you tick?

My analysis beans are fried today. So you need to use your own beans here.

During the past several months, I've observed some behavioral patterns. I then wonder,
"what makes such people tick?"
"is there some way to cause fundamental work cultural change (from NO, to LET's TRY)?"

Read on, discuss, form your own conclusions and enlighten me.

<<something needs to be purchased; CEO approves the purchase; a note is sent to the person managing the budget>>
"no. we don't have budget for this particular thing"
"no. guidelines do not permit buying this"
<<note is returned; requester is left to figure out his options>>

<<hiring request is approved by CEO; note is sent to initiate the process (advertisement, etc)>>
"no. guidelines do not permit hiring at this level"
"we don't have any precedence of hiring such people; I can't make an ad for this"
<<hiring request is put on hold for months>>

<<vendor needs clarifications in a purchase order given>>
"no; I can't meet you unless you come with so-and-so person"
"don't just ask me verbally; send your questions to me in writing"
"you sent your questions, yes; but they are technical questions and I am not a technical person; I will send it to my superiors (who are, incidentally even less technical than this person!!) to address it; what is it? oh I didn't really read your letter that well, but anyway I still can't give those answers; it is not my area"
<<months later, the equipment is still not supplied>>

<<colleague wants some information to complete his work>>
"no; I can't give you that information (though it is a matter of public record, btw); you ask someone else!"
"no; I can't give it because it might not be the correct version; what if it has been revised since then? no; I won't give it to you even if you are willing to take that risk"
<<work remains incomplete for weeks>>

I see hundreds of such interactions every year. Sometimes I keep my cool; sometimes not. But I do wonder. Apart from getting just that piece of work done, is there someway to cause a lasting change - where people focus on getting the work done - instead of finding ways to block work. For example, in each case, the very same person could've suggested alternate ways of how the result might've been achieved.

In my own companies, I hire managers (even junior managers) for their ability to get work done; to achieve the results - not for the ability to road block. Surprisingly in all the above cases, the perpetrators are very senior people. :(

Give it to me in writing

Nothing drives me up the wall more than hearing this: "Give it to me in writing". Especially since it comes with that ever-so-stereotypical governmental attitude.

Most of us spend all our professional lives doing something or getting something done. To us, that one sentence is the epitome of the opposite. It is the starting point of "how I don't care whether anything is done or not".

I am sure you all have your own hilarious anecdotes of this nature. My point today is neither satire nor humor; rather, something more fundamental and of enormous consequence. Of how huge chunks public (our) money is being squandered - not under those ubiquitous account-heads such as corruption, misappropriation or fraud. Under something far more innocuous: Work culture osmosis.

By this, I mean how the private sector is rapidly absorbing this work culture of the governments; how this transformation is powered by the strength of the government employees' convictions and the lure of the government business.

If you are unsure of why or how this is happening, let us begin with this easy question: Why do governments outsource work to the private sector?

All your answers could simply be summed up under: "to leverage private sector competencies", a.k.a., to get things done quickly, efficiently, with higher-quality, by more competent people, etc.. Right?

It beats me then, how governments first hire private sector companies mainly due to these differences; and then proceed to iron out those very differences by subjecting them to various forms of "this is how it is done in government; please learn these things when you work with us!"? With each such interaction the private sector employees are inexorably brainwashed, tutored, re-tuned and transformed into something else. So thoroughly, that soon it will be impossible to tell them apart from government employees, were it not for those telltale laptop bags and ties.

Here are two recent examples - deliberately taken from low-impact situations.

1. Here is an email from a govt. employee to an SI:
"Further, I of the view that MOM should be prepared in the pattern of Govt. style and not being send. ... Please make the MOM as per Govt. pattern".
True. The MOM (minutes of the meeting) and their style are of supreme importance. Far more so, than the issues discussed and solutions being sought. As it happens, after two weeks of "giving and taking it in writing", the MOM is not yet finalized.

This, is how the wondrous transformation begins.

Now let us go see the results.

2. Here is a phone call from a private sector employee:
"Sir, your team member wants a soft copy of our draft approach document."
"The one you showed us today?"
"Yes sir."
"I don't recall seeing anything confidential in that. You did intend to share it with us, didn't you?"
"Yes sir."
"So where is the problem?"
"I just wanted to take your approval sir!"

These are but a small sample of what I've been seeing everyday during the last 11 odd years. The virus has spread so deep, that I won't be surprised if some of you find these examples quite normal.

It is indeed a pity that Scott Adams (of the Dilbert fame) has never been exposed to our government.

The emperor's new clothes

We all know the story. We all admire the innocence and courage of the little boy. However, in his defense, I submit that the poor emperor was only partly responsible for what happened.

Here is how I faithfully traveled the emperor's path - with equally spectacular results. I write this in the hope that other emperors wake up before little boys speak up. To save your time, I'll begin the story half-way and embellish it only ever so slightly to make it a tad less boring.

Year 2006. I had just started my second company. As a startup company, I worked closely with everyone of my employees. They addressed me as "Sir". I found it awkward. I asked them to call me by name. When they didn't, I began calling each of them "Sir" (including the female employees), just to rub my message in.

The company grew. New employees came in. I was deeply engrossed in my product development and customer expectation management issues. I was only acquainted in passing, with my new receptionist and accounts manager. I was now getting used to being called "Sir" or "MD-Sir".

Apparently by this time, my driver had started asserting his "superior status" over other drivers in the parking lot. He would expect other cars and drivers to give way to him and "his" car - even when I wasn't around. On the positive side, he would dress himself in a manner "befitting his status", so he was always very well groomed.

By now, I have begun to be completely preoccupied with my "important" work, worthy of the attention of an MD. I no longer had the "luxury" of more than a quick nod when people greet me on my way to my sanctuary and hallowed-work-place-of-the-MD. I am still nice to the people around me, but start building layers around me so that my important work is not interrupted "needlessly".

People stand up when I enter a meeting room. Without conscious thought I always make way to the head of the table in a meeting. I feel compelled to take control of every meeting and discussion I am in. I think nothing of interrupting anyone mid-sentence and hand out impromptu solutions - clearly conveying my no-nonsense go-getter attitude. I smile smugly at the astonished expressions on their faces and know that I've impressed the heck out of them with my incisive analysis and deep insights.

I often admire the intelligent nay - brilliant and successful, "MD Sir" who smiles back at me from the mirror. On my birthday, though I am touched by my employees' gesture with a bouquet and an obligatory speech - in a small corner of my mind, I congratulate myself for having done an exemplary job. No doubt I am a great guy and deserve every bit of admiration I am getting.

I now feel a tinge of irritation when a person waiting in the reception doesn't stand up when I enter the office. I consciously tell myself that I am beyond such petty things and I don't have a bloated ego (so why was I irritated?) - and in my generosity, I forgive the person.

I feel restless when I have to listen to most people in any meeting. Why don't they understand that I am intelligent? I already know most of this (whatever that subject was); and what I don't know, I don't need to know!


Note to self: I need to review the hiring process and performance appraisals esp., for this Project Manager who thinks she has a better solution than what I gave - and almost argued(!!) with me in the meeting.

Let me not bore you with more. I most definitely was wearing my own "emperor's new clothes". 


So I end this with just one thought: 


Why didn't someone slap me in the face and bring me to my senses earlier? Why didn't someone stand up and tell me what a damn fool I was, to not even consider others' suggestions? What gave me the exclusive right to the correct opinion? How did it happen that I am the best and the rest of the world is ... erm... next-best?


I submit that though the first mistake was mine, the people around me are equally guilty of letting me get away with it for so long - just to humor me, or in their own self-interest (to get their job done somehow and move on).


Finally... who is that kid who spoke out of turn? Let us get him an ice cream, LOL.