Of sports and sportspersons

I read this from Prem Panickers blog and it set me thinking...The link is about Agassis new book etc., but it is also about Agassi and how he was pushed by his dad (pushed being an understatement - you might want to read either the link or the book) in the formative years.

This will probably be a multi part post as I try to wrestle with my thought process. But one of the first questions that comes to my mind - can anyone reach the pinnacle of sport without being super focussed? Think Abhinav Bindra who trains at his own private range for hours. Think Saina Nehwal who trains so hard she has no friends. And the Abhinavs and the Agassis are the survival bias candidates - the guys who made it big. Many others dont...

Here are some of the questions, I am wrestling with...

Can someone become a top class sportsperson without spending all those hours and sacrifices? (clearly no).
How much of this becoming a top class sportsperson is about self motivation and how much of it is about being pushed (by someone - coach, parent)
At what point does the pushing become self motivation and vice versa?
How self motivated can you be at age 7 or 10 or 13? Is that self motivation? Really? Or is it something else being explained as self motivation?

I remember my better half saying, how in her school days, the poor guys always ran the best. They, in many cases, were running away from their "hard life". This was their potential passport to success or to put it in a different way, training helped them get their mind away from their daily hardships.

(I recall reading something similar about Rajyavardhan Rathores army background in an interview where somebody asked him about stress or something. Does someone have a link to that?)

Initial thoughts I hope to sort better over the next few days...

What an MBA does not teach you...

There is an old Tamil saying which roughly translated states, "What you have been taught and the food you have packed will only last so much when you are out on a journey..."

Obviously, there is no course in the world that teaches you everything you need to know. And yet, there is nothing in the world that cannot be learnt. On that note, we will see what a typical MBA may not cover...

Typically, every MBA course covers the syllabus, the subjects and the groundings in most of the subjects. Add a few seminars, papers, presentations, internships, competitions in the mix and you have the mix of things you will be doing through the course.

Now there are a few things that cannot be taught. And of course, there are a few things that are typically not taught. We will walk a tightrope between these two distinctions.

For one, a course is not real life. Case studies are case studies. They don't make you responsible. Here's what I mean. It is very easy to suggest a radical approach for a company in trouble in a case study. To get it past the screaming board (or others baying for your blood) is an entire story in itself. Which is when, it gets whittled down, beaten, mangled to the final sorry thing that it becomes. And if you have to get it past in the way that you conceived it, it pretty much means putting your neck on line. Of course, this is impossible to teach, but you get a hang of it if you try to go against the grain in any group assignment. Add pressure to this volatile mix. Can a course simulate pressure? Over a long drawn out timeframe?

From then on, it does not teach you either how to set up a business, grow and run a business without compromising your values. As I said above, writing a case study and starting an actual business are completely different things. But if you wish, use your MBA to set one up. If it succeeds, great, if not, you have the learning.

How do you handle non-performers? Face it. Teams are like trains. There are one or two engines, a motorman, a backup, a guard and lots of passengers and luggage. Will you dump the luggage? Or the ballast? Or the passengers? Or will you chose to be politically correct? I don't have an answer, but there are two things people usually do. One is to suffer silently - the engine is seeing us through in any case. The second is to be politically correct - keeping everybody happy. If, and this is a big if, you manage to create engines out of your "passenger coaches", you can do it anywhere and everywhere. If you avoided this problem, don't. This is a big component of real life. And you will realize that even in the highest offices with values set in stone, handling non performers is tricky, often devious and usually very clumsy. Does the MBA teach you about people? Of course it does. It may not be a course, but teach you it does. However most of us miss the course and the lesson.

Selling is an important art to learn. Before you decide to skip this paragraph thinking it is for the marketers, remember, it is important for all specializations. Which is a pity, because most often people look the other way when it comes to lessons in selling - including marketers - because selling is what the little guys do, right? Cut the jargon - selling or marketing - not too different in a organization. Ultimately, you need a buy in. Coming up with an idea or an initiative (especially one that is 'different') is difficult. But compared to getting the organizations buy-in, it is a cakewalk. And how do you get people to buy-in? Sell. Knowing when to sell, how to sell, who to sell, undersell or oversell is an untrainable skill that you gain by experience or mentoring. Messages need to be customized, 'whats in it for me' is more important than 'this will ensure my promotion'. Think that's the only place? No. Every report you bring out, every feasibility study you create, every requirement document, every proposal needs to be sold. Try getting your class to be in half an hour early for every single day of the course. If you have managed to sell it, tell us about it.

Punctuality. The single biggest problem of the MBA would be solved if people treat it as an extension of work and not as an extension of college. Look at people saunter in ten minutes later into the lecture or presentation. Try doing that in the world of business - especially if you are meeting an American client. They won't. Meetings start sharp on time and typically end on time as well. And yes, nobody can teach you punctuality but yourself. And yes, many deadlines are non-negotiable. And many things will not get done in one all night session before the submission date. Ask those who slog for months trying to get one single project out of the door...

How to manage the boss? This is a skill that cannot be taught because bosses like subordinates come in a million combinations. If you have a boss that does not have to be managed, either your boss is good or you are lucky or badly wrong. But at some point in time, this will be your test. Can it be taught? Well, if you take the profs as your boss, especially if they are leading through an initiative, potentially yes. Put into a nutshell, a large majority of people skills are built over time and there is no single correct answer. You have to keep at it and learn as you go.

A corollary of this is "how to be the boss". A lot of people lose all memory of their people skills the moment they have a couple of people report up to them. And that is when they decide to behave like mini tyrants and dictators.

Does it teach you gratitude? Hopefully, this is one skill which does not need to be taught. Thanking people is like planting a seed. Sometimes, those seeds become trees at the hottest point of time in your journey.

These are some of the skills, an MBA may or may not teach. But when did that ever prevent you from learning these things while you are doing your MBA? Understand that many of the skills that are not taught, can be learnt. Often, all it requires is an open mind.
(This is a draft. A neatly edited version of this made it to print someplace. Will link it when I get the link...)

Choosing the MBA Specialization

Solve this puzzle. How to choose your specialization?

Heres your answer: Marketing is for those who can talk well. Finance is for those who are good with numbers. Operations are for those (who are good with numbers plus) with a manufacturing background. HR is for those who can handle the touchy feely stuff - or those who are bad at maths or non engineers, if you want to be politically incorrect. There is always MBA in IT that is available for those who came from an IT background or those who want to go to an IT company. End of puzzle.

That is the common street talk on the specializations on the MBA circuit. Add minors and majors to the mix and you can think of yourself as a person who has a major ability to talk well and a minor interest in IT, therefore you pick up a Marketing - IT combo. Now, if you can see for yourself how absurd this is, you will know what I am driving at.

What is important to remember is that none of the specializations are mutually exclusive in real life. Which is obvious, considering business is not meant to be mutually exclusive. Anything and everything in an organization and real life is interconnected.

Second, as a human being, who has cleared various tests and reached the doors of the MBA, your ability to learn and pick up any specialization is also a given. Which means, if it was about passing exams and gaining a specialization, you can clear an MBA with flying colours in any specialization. Don't agree. If could you could do so in graduation, why not in post grad?

And then, there are trends. Or call them fads. Organizations see demand going up or down for certain specializations depending on what state of the business cycle they are in, the economy (of their target market) is in. If you wish to cash in on that, don't. Trends will come and go, but both your passion and your qualification will remain.

So, how does one approach specializations?

Many years ago, at an interview for one of Indias most recognized automobile companies, was a line up of eager students, including me. One of us walked out post interview and as it happens, we were eager to know what did they ask him. He said, much to our surprise, 'they asked me about the fielding positions in cricket and I was able to do it instantly'. Instantly, one of the students in the room drew up a sheet of paper, grabbed a friend and having jotted down the positions, started memorizing the fielding positions in cricket. After all that appeared to be the trend. What he did not realize was that the company was basically looking for the level of passion of the engineer when they asked him what his favourite sport was. (Needless to say the guy who drew the cricket fielding positions made it.)

Very often we tend to approach specializations in the same way.

Heres one example. Let us say that you are a Chartered Accountant. So, your grounding in accounts is impeccable. From here, can you become an IT requirements consultant in Finance? Check. Can you move onto marketing financial services or working with potential overseas investors? Check. Can you handle operations in a BPO or a Bank with an added MBA degree? Check Or you are deeply passionate about HR? Check.

Replace CA with any other degree and you will find that it is almost impossible to justify why anybody with any qualification should or should not take up a particular specialization.

Heres a thumb rule. Remember, that the MBA is an addition to your 15 or 16 plus years of what you have already done. So, if you are an engineer or an economics student, the MBA is just the icing on the cake - the cake is what you already have - the sum total of your studies and your experience. Now take a second look at those specializations. And then take a long hard look at your interest and strengths. What do you like to do will answer the former while what you are good at will answer the latter. A combination of these three should ideally lead you to the specializations. If you are in doubt or in a fantasy about the nature of jobs after acquiring the said specialization, please meet a few people who are in the kind of job you long to do and ask them exactly what they do. Beyond jargon, beyond the gloss, beyond the job description, ask them what is the exact work that they do and if that interests you.

So, once again, think about why are you in the race for an MBA. At the end of the MBA what would you want to become and why? It is important to like what you are into, regardless of what your friends are into. It is equally important to be good at your job. By no means does that mean that you can be ignorant of other specializations. And as you work in organizations, you will realize that many are.

So, if you are in for a regular specialization, it is self evident. (If it is not, talk to people you have worked with or know you well or with a professional counsellor - they will help you.) If you have the choice of two, use that choice wisely. Just taking the hottest two together may not be the best message you convey to a potential recruiter - it will not help you masquerade as "either". Think Icing, think Cake.

Now, for the second part of an often asked question. Does it matter?

The answer is a tough one, though I would take a stand here that does not really matter in the long run. Heres why.

Once you enter into a company, the only thing that matters is performance. So, if you a finance specialist, if you perform you get to move higher. If you don't, the person who does, gets to move higher. As you gain in the years, it is important that you broaden your perspective as you go along. And what that means, knowing how the different parts of the business interplay and ensure success. Strategy means holding the different levers like the reins in a chariot so that your business runs smoothly in the right direction. Is that possible for a one trick pony? No.

Heres an exercise. Take a look at a sample size of CEOs (or whatever else is your goal) across industries. Find out what their education/specializations are. Do you see a correlation? Then, into this mix, ensure that you include a mix of large corporates, SMEs, neighbourhood businesses, start-ups in it. See that data again.

My bet is that there will be no correlation (indeed there will not even be a correlation of basic qualification or MBA or anything else).

And if there is, you know which specialization to take...

(This is a draft. A neatly edited version of this made it to print someplace. Will link it when I get the link...)

Reality and Imagination

As usual one morning, me and the little one were busy making stuff with Lego bricks. I churned out model after model. He was noticeably slower. He observed us and commented, "Appa, you know why you make models faster and I make them slower?"

"No" I said, not wanting to congratulate myself and readying myself for a pat on my back for my advanced skills in building stuff with building blocks and my ability to find bricks faster and...(you get the picture)

"That is because", he reasoned, "your models are real and mine are from my imagination."

"Alright", I asked, slightly amused and at the answer and the perspicacity of the observation, "What do you mean?"

"See, what you make are things which are already there. House, vehicles - they are all already there no?" I nodded. "But the things which I make, like the Dinodon (yes, its a cross between a dinosaur and a vehicle) or the Rhinodon (you got it, am sure) are not already there, so I have think and make it ..."

Suitably chastened, I went back to re-imagining my models...

"Thats why it takes me more time..." he added with a flourish.

Everything I do

Someone else doesn't...I like this new ad campaign titled (?) iDont (or is the title "Droid does") that takes potshots at the iPhone...Any guesses on who the competitor is? Who else, but Google. I doubt if anybody so far has had the nerve to take on Apples iPhone with a direct campaign like this.

Of course both the phone and the app store (by far, the iPhones strength) have to live up to the ads - but that's for another day...

(Sandisk had attempted a similar campaign couple of years ago...)

Building glaciers

What would you do if your glaciers melted and there was no water? You could still deny global warming for one...

For all those in the plains saying there is no global warming, heres a place that's been facing real issues and heres how one person has been trying to stop it...by building glaciers, yes you read that right. (via Kottke)

The principles are the same as building rainwater ponds or checkdams, in case you ever decide to try it out...

But this is such a heartwarming (notwithstanding global warming) story and heres one for all those global warming sceptics...

Forest, Trees and Leaf

Apparently the Nissan Leaf will come to India in the near future. The report is a bit vague so I cant say if its more near or future. While I know Carlos Ghosn or Ratan Tata wont read this, whoever introduces a good electric car at a decent price will get some good market share in the cities.

But I could be wrong, couldn't I? The Reva has not made significant stries in the Indian market and the Leaf (or whichever electric car), whenever it is launched won't be cheap. And infrastructure will be a big big issue - what if your supercool-electric-car-that-needs-no-petrol stopped in a village with no electricity at all or, more likely, in a place which has a 12 hour load shedding? (Then, we get the bullocks out - ha, we have all the answers!)

Well, but that's because we are talking present. We are still away from any sort of tipping point for EVs. For all the work Reva has done in trying to create a market for EVs in India, it is still ploughing a lone furrow. But oil prices have only one way to go and that is up. And electric cars infrastructure have only one way to go, that is also in the direction of better...So, at some point this will happen...Question is who will be lucky?

And in the meantime, you will see small strides like the reported Swift petrol with plug in hybrid that aim to bridge the (big) gap between oil and electricity...But the overall direction is away from oil (this is as much hope as much belief...)

Turning around

This company had started off as yet another JRD Tata enterprise and started life off as Tata Airlines. Soon after independence, it became Indias national carrier. In 1962, it became the worlds first all jet airline - no mean achievement in those days. The Maharajah, its emblem is an icon in Indian marketing tomes. Probably one of the most recognized icons in India. Given the ubiquity of its mindshare, this airline should have been one of the (if not the only) preferred airlines for Indians. But clearly, something (or many things went wrong).

Today, the airline faces bad times with a loss of about 700 to 7000 crore rupees ( depending on whether you count the erstwhile Indian Airlines or not) and a debt of twice that amount. The airline is facing a government bail out (by the time this article makes it to print, it would have been predictably approved). And ask the man on the airport, if they think any of this will make a difference to the airline and whether they will travel on it given a chance, you will be surprised at how many people will say that they will.

The wiki entry on the airline lists out numerous awards that the airline has won but ask the casual traveler and most of them will tell you they won't fly the airline. People will cite a thousand examples (some of which I have experienced myself) on why they wont. Unclean airplanes, indifferent staff are just some of the examples. Culturally it is an even bigger mess.

None of the service mentality that you would see in a Jet airways would be seen on an Air India. People run scared of booking themselves on an Air India flight.

It is well known that globally the airline industry is going through troubled times for a while now. First it was the low cost airlines, then it was fuel prices, then recession, then wars, security checks and what not. The government prepares to give the airline yet another chance by infusing a billion dollar assistance.

So, what will fix the problem? As a management student, this is an ideal case study.

From a management perspective, you will find many Air Indias around you. In the form of people, in the form of projects, in the form of products and services. And these are places where tough decisions have to be taken. You may find yourself saving an Air India in the hot seat or find yourself on a committee that evaluates it.

First of all, employees (stakeholders and members of the project) need to buy in and agree that they will do whatever is necessary to execute the turnaround. If they are not willing, you will need to how much you need their assistance or if there is a need to get fresh blood. Without committed employees, no turnaround can be executed. This is a common occurrence whenever a company takes over a new enterprise. There is
fear, uncertainity, doubt (FUD) factor, people worry about their jobs and their future. They need to be told about it one way or other, yet done so in a sensitive manner.

A cultural change is expected and required. Will your present leader deliver or would need to drive change from the top? The leader may or may not be inspirational, but he needs to have the ability to take people alongwith him. More than leaders, you would need the support of various stakeholders with various levels of influence and needs. How the leader influences th em and has his right of way is very important. Ever
so often, we see a clear strategy, that fails because the stakeholders have not bought into the strategy. A lot of the ERP implementations in companies have gone this way due to the reason of not taking people along.

Do you need to run the business at all? Don't caught fooled by the sunk cost fallacy ("we have already spent so much money on this") or emotional attachments ("it was started as our first business") or delusions of grandeur ("it is prestigious to own this business") The question that you are faced with is, "Is the business in the best interest of the company today and the future"? Either answer demands a separate set of things to be done. For a lot of old world companies getting rid of non-core activities; indeed defining what is core and non-core and getting to it has been no cakewalk.

Even once you decide that you need the business a similar decision would need to taken with the product/service lines. Ever so often you see companies persist with product lines that are not in tune with the market. To me, PAL and Hindustan Motors persisting with their models comes to mind. And on the contrary, a Toyota has adjusted itself very soon.

Executing a turnaround is a tough job. Most businesses can turn around - with a sharp focus on strategy, market and customers, an eagles eye on execution and of course, assuming that you have the right strategy and support from all the stakeholders. We have seen government run enterprises successfully being taken over by private firms, both in India and abroad. Mittals turnaround of loss making steel plants is a
case study in itself.

Coming back to the Air India question, how does the fund infusion help when most of the other factors are not changing. The union appears to be as uncooperative as ever, the culture refuses to change? The government uses Air-India for its junkets. Presumably only the government and some destinations like Gulf are still profitable segments for Air India. And if that is so, do we really need an airline envisaged as a show piece to be in this situation? And is that what is national "prestige"? Would the private carriers not set a better example of service? Many other nations have privatised their national carriers...

Many a time, a turnaround requires a fundamental change. Telco at one time was a manufacturer of trucks and heavy vehicles - by and large. It was a permanent icon of Indian roads alongwith Ambassador and PAL. Today, Telco is still around. It managed to bring on the first 'Indian' LCVs (they are a hit even today), created the first Indian car (Indica), the pathbreaking mini truck (Ace) and of course, broke new ground almost simultaneously in two ends of the market with the Jaguar and the Nano and invested in some advanced truck making capabilities...

What will work for you?

(An edited version of this piece was published in Advancedge this month)

Is there a difference between NGOs and Corporates?

Except for the so called profit motive? And in my dictionary (which, really is borrowed from a few capitalists), profit is good - because profit oils the wheels and profit can be taxed and is ploughed back as investment...

In my books, if there are "rogue corporates", there are rogue NGOs and as far as my limited knowledge goes, companies are better regulated and hence have more accountability (and less evil agendas from their funders to paint with a broad brush).

So, if as per this report the NREGS is going to go to NGOs, it means we are wasting more money than is being wasted. Today it is probably pure corruption, tomorrow it will mean something more vicious. Well, give it to the CSR programmes of ITC or Infosys or Azim Premij foundation and you will get more bang for the buck - I mean if thats what you want...

Top of the mind response as of now, but I will put in coherent thoughts soon...

5 rupees for a cheque

If that sounds absurd, imagine you will pay 5 bucks for an e-transaction. Actually some time back the RBI allowed banks to charge 5 rupees for NEFT transactions.

Yes, the same e-transaction that allows banks to employ less people, build less branches and use less manpower and get technology to do all the work.

I don't recall who had blogged about it, but it is one amazing neanderthal move. So, if you want to save 5 rupees, go stand in a queue at the bank or put in a cheque which will then utilize the services of a million people and blow more money than that? Or will e-cheques cross subsidise the paper cheques? Well, many people like me wont, because I value my time too much to stand in a stupid queue, but there are others who will...

Indian railways, take a cue - reduce the quota online, get everybody standing in a queue for booking and cancelling tickets. Ditto theaters. Lets start pushing paper once again like the good old days...