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?

Extreme Project Management

This week, among other things, I was thinking about two projects I was involved while in Haryana.

1. The Commercial Taxes Project (Haryana Excise & Taxation Department).

After 2.5 years (perhaps more, before we came in) - we are still not done with writing documents and following procedure in this project. Not a single line of code has been written, nor a single computer / software function put in place.

2. The Integrated Finance Management Project (Haryana Treasuries / Finance Department).

Is it 1.5 years now? Or more? We are still reviewing (and approving) documents. Yes. DPRs, RFPs, As-Is and To-Be stuff. Even the selection of an implementation vendor is apparently years away!

What is wrong with us? Is any project so big that we spend years studying, planning, documenting, reviewing and approving? How long do we wait before we really do something that is directly material to the outcomes we are chasing? Are we even certain that the documents we reviewed and approved a year or more ago still apply?

Don't get me wrong. I fully understand the importance of documentation, prior-planning and so forth. What I don't understand is the total perversion in the name of planning and due-process. Where is our sense of proportion?

It appears that the IT Consulting industry has gone berserk. We (individual consultants) are also guilty of being drunk in best practice pretences and dinosaurian wisdom, ignoring the best interests of our clients.

So I have decided to revolt. Starting last week, I've resolved to take these steps:

• I will reject any plan that shows more than 24 weeks of planning and preparatory period (concept to bidder-selection). After that, implementation must begin.
• If a project is too big to achieve this, I will ask that the project be split into smaller parts and/or phased-implementation sequences.
• For projects that I am implementing directly, I will not review any documents. Even requirements documents. Period. Any documents created by my team are for their individual reference (personal notes) only. 
• I will only review direct work products (i.e., software artefacts that do stuff - not describe stuff). Requirements specifications will be approved in the form of partly-working screen prototypes - NOT documents. Interface specifications will exchanged as stub code in a central repository accessible to all team members.
• I know. Sign-offs are important to avoid scope creep (and customers changing their minds). I am therefore declaring that scope creep is not a crime in my projects. Especially when breaking new ground.
• So when we detect that there is a deviation from what is done and what we want, we will NOT focus on who is to blame. Instead, we will focus on correcting the deviation and managing "scope vs schedule". This is important. It will help the team shift their focus away from creating proof (read: signoffs) that they are not to blame!
• I will not go soft on any consultants (and consulting companies) who give me perverted proposals (such as 1.5 crore rupees of program management consulting to manage a 0.5 crore implementation project).

Will I be flamed and hated for this? So be it. It is high time we brought some semblance of balance in favor of the clients. Even Government clients.

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. :(

Dealing with unknowns

I am not sure what we are getting into. Let's not risk it!

We've all heard variations of this countless times. Yet, I'd think management pundits - nay practitioners, would've figured the best way to deal with the fear of the unknown. Yet, I find that this fear plagues management echelons in both the public and the private sector - in ever increasing proportions. 

Here is an example of how decisions with unknowns are taken routinely, based on "playing it safe".

Scenario #1: Data Confidentiality

A asks for some data that B has. B is not sure whether there are any provisions governing sharing of this data. Instead of finding out whether there are, he simply declines - quoting the contract governing the data. A, not knowing better, returns empty handed.

What happened later: 

A requests for a copy of the contract in question. Finds that the contract has not only expired 3 years ago, but never had any provisions of confidentiality at any time. When A shows this to B, he reacts defensively. "Well I never read the contract, but C told me that we had a contract. How can I be sure that I won't be sued for this? Who gave you the copy of the contract anyway?" 

Instead of saying "I don't know for sure, so let me play safe", B could've said "I don't know for sure; let me find out - and then I'll know whether I am doing the right thing".

Scenario #2: Decision on a new proposal

The board of company X is meeting. One of their executives E has presented to them a novel idea that needs an significant investment. One of the board member reacts "What about security? Have you considered that?". E explains to them how security is addressed in the new proposal. "But what about the market reaction? How will the competitors react? They are not going to sit tight you know?". E agrees that as with any new proposal, there are some unknowns. However, the best projections they have, show that success is the most likely outcome. After a few more interactions like this, it becomes clear. The board member does not have enough knowledge of the market - and would decide based on his fear of the unknown. 

While it may be argued that E may have done a bad job of explaining / selling the idea; it is also clear that when facing the unknown, it is important to seek more information; specific information that puts the fear in perspective. 

It is quite like hesitating to enter a dark room. Rather than opt-out, it is much simpler to seek the switch to the light bulb and turn it on. The light thrown gives a name to the fear. It clarifies that you need not fear unknown ghosts but the object in the way that you might trip on. Similarly, seeking information and giving a name to the fear, throws light into the darkness - and reduces the tendency to adopt "default decisions". 

However, I see more and more decision makers taking the easy way out. This, I believe is influenced - apart from other factors - both by the work culture osmosis that I wrote about earlier; as well as the declining inherent knowledge levels and compensating lack of application of adequate logic - also written about in re-engineered by google.

Sadly, the consulting industry, who are supposed to help managers out in such circumstances are themselves impacted by these factors - further contributing to this scenario. 

I wonder whether there is a simple fix to this malady. Of course, I could, in all my ignorance, do the typical Indian thing and say: "I don't know, but hey, I am sure things will surely turn around" (hope, the big remedy) or even "C'mon, things are not as bad as you say" (deny the unknown!). 

Management maladies: Committees

In all my 20+ years in the private industry I've never seen a committee in the context of project. Two committees I was a part of, were both management committees addressing organization level matters - and both were utterly ineffective.

Quite interestingly, there is no dearth of committees in governments. It seems quite the normal way of doing things. The results are not surprising. Rather than naming specific committees and launching into the often-employed critical tone, let me explore the possibilities of where and when committees might be suitable.

In order to bring about some clarity, let me deliberately reclassify the roles (perhaps to the chagrin of management purists) of people.

Those who do things; and those who don't

In any project organization, there are some whose job it is, to do things. To my mind, all others can be clubbed under overheads.

As a general principle if we are to get anything done at all, the doers in any project must far outnumber the overheads.

Further, the facilitators must not get into the critical path of the doers - and at a minimum, allow the doers to do their job - though some might argue saying they should also monitor and facilitate.

Keeping these principles in mind, I would come up with the following broad guidelines:

1. There should be no committees of doers. Doers and groups/teams of doers must be focused on the deliverables. 
2. Decisions within a doer's domain must be taken by the doer, in his/her individual professional capacity. If a decision requires consultation, the doer can surely consult others and then decide. 
3. An individual overhead may take the responsibility of taking decisions for the doers/teams reporting to him/her. As in the earlier case, if a decision requires consultation, by all means he/she can consult others and then decide. 
4. Someone in an overhead's garb, unable to take a decision in their domain is unsuitable for that job -- and should be replaced. Resorting to a committee on this account (of inability to take / own-up a decision) is a big no-no, IMHO.
5. There should be no committees of the overheads either.
6. Where a project involved multiple independent stakeholders (such as multiple departments), a steering committee (perhaps the one and only committee justifiable) is necessary - if only to ensure the representation of each stakeholder's interest. Though they are clearly not doers, let us treat this committee as different from the overheads.
7. Since members of the steering committee are likely to be somewhat removed from the operational details of the project, they will need input from others (either overheads or doers). So each committee member should ensure that they have the necessary input from within the project, by deploying their own overheads / doers in appropriate roles in the project, without resorting to further lower-level committees.
8. A steering committee should not directly provide operational fixes. Instead, if an operational issue is escalated to this level - they must examine whether they have missed out filling a key role in the project team, especially at the overhead level. They must then proceed to fix that problem and then ask the correct person to do the operational fix.
9. Committees/sub-committees under a committee should be treated as compounding sins of the management kind.
   e.g., technical committees under the implementation committees that report to empowered committees. 
10. A committee in any other name should also be treated as a committee.

I don't know whether this is enough. But I guess it is a starting point. 

Now for the reality. 

As mentioned in my earlier blog (the many management maladies), competency in any government department tends to be concentrated at the top - generally at the secretary / principal secretary level. By virtue of their rank, they tend to be in the steering committee. This skewed competency concentration at the top means that nearly all decisions (operational or otherwise) tend to get pushed up all the way up. Thereafter, whether it is provision of some input or contention of a stakeholder interest -- (as often as not) tends to be an exercise in individual-wisdom, seniority and protocol - instead of competence and sanity.

However, if we start shedding committees, there might be hope still.

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.

The many management maladies

Today I spent a lot of time thinking about why there is so much apathy and incapability built into (and breeding in) the government system? We can all analyze it to death and perhaps not agree at all.. but one perspective is perhaps worth considering. So here goes.

I have been working with senior Government officers for over 10 years now. I often hear (and see) that it is very difficult for IAS officers to delegate and get quality work done satisfactorily. True. In most cases, they are indeed the most competent people in their departments - with the next level people lagging miles behind. This has led to, among other things,

• Many IAS officers bulldoze their staff, treating them with scant respect; either by words or by actions - often both. 
• Most staff get used to it (attributing it to the "bhav" of the officers) and quickly iron out any initiative or risk-taking elements from their blood.
• Sincere IAS officers (who want to get work done) are always overworked and frustrated with the system.
• Over a period of time, they sincerely believe that indeed the (IAS) cadre is so good, that no one else is worthy of even polishing their shoes.
• More subtle is the tendency of even good officers falling into the trap of not listening even when they should; because they lost the habit of listening and because people around them are always happy to take orders and not contradict them.

Well, this problem exists not only in the Government - but also in the private sector. Egos are less exaggerated, so it is just a bit more understated - but it does exist and not in an insignificant way. If you are in the private sector, think.  Have you often been dissatisfied with the juniors' work? Have you often found that your manager overrides you with hardly any consideration to your views? Have you found it hard to fill positions because "good people are hard to get!"? Then there is something for you to think about.

In the IT consulting area, I have often heard how the top (senior) consultants work their back sides off to meet deadlines because their juniors' work is simply not up to scratch. It may be true, but the remedy is not to centralize work / authority. Pyramidal work flows rarely scale... they introduce bottle necks (yea, in a bottle the neck is always at the top).

Whenever a mistake is made, authority/delegation is take off, the person is given a good dressing down, review mechanisms (preventing the poor person from ever taking a deep breath without someone looking over his shoulder) are put in place, policies and approval procedures are fine-tuned, etc... In short, the manager, formally or informally takes more power towards the top, alters processes to reduce capacity, kills initiative and enters a vicious cycle that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy ("it is so hard to get good help these days").

I think it is time to pause and think. It is not easy, but there are ways to get out of this rut.

Give your team a chance to commit their own mistakes. Support them, correct them, coach them, guide them. In time you will find that you don't have to carry all the load yourself. It takes time to do this. Initial output will probably suffer and you may need to compensate in some ways to avoid losing clients - but the pains are worth it.

I give below, three of the many wise things said to me over many years - that have helped me do the right things. One by an adversary in a bitter fight, to hurt me; one by a friend, in jest; and the last, by a vendor counterpart.


"Do you think you are the only one who wants to work, Sastry? "

Hard hitting, but a truly good point. While it doesn't mean I tolerate willful negligence or incompetence or downright apathy, the increased understanding does offer some insights on how the situation might be remedied; in about 20% of the cases, in my case.

Definitely, there are a lot of people who also want to work; want to do good work, in fact. Of course, there are a good many who don't care. Therefore before screaming (erm... I don't mean literally) at people for lack of results, it helps me to figure out which category of people are causing the problems, and deal with them accordingly.

"Nobody is perfect. Not even you, Sastry! "

Delivered with a touch of sarcasm by a close friend, this helps me in two ways. One, when I mess up it helps me overcome my ego/diffidence - so that I can admit my mistake and offer to correct it. Two, when others mess up, it helps me see things in the proper perspective.

"Take the emotions out of any argument / conflict. It helps focus on the issue and find resolution quicker"

Most people, especially successful people have enough ego to often blind them to the issue at hand. I have come across situations where the reaction is something like "who the hell is he to tell me how I should do my work?"Well, if we can take the ego out, we might find that in the same situation, "Is that right? Could I have done it better?" leads to self-improvement - as opposed to a fight with whoever told us how to improve (albeit in a tactless way). 

It also helps guide juniors better when they mess up. Instead of taking the "Who gave you the authority?" or "You should've taken my approval first!!" approach (which only kills all initiative henceforth), we could take the "What was wrong with that decision?" and "What should you have considered before making that mistake?" approach to coaching them and keeping up the initiative levels.

I hope this helps others like it helped me.