What It Takes to Go Far

A girl probably in her mid 20s dressed in business attire got into my Uber Share while I was on my way to a meeting today morning. She and I were the only occupants (apart from the Uber driver).

At a junction, the Uber driver stopped his car and gave the right indicator to take a right turn.

"Why are you taking a right?  Please take a left - we will reach 20 minutes faster" she ordered.

I and the driver looked left.  The left was a one-way street.

"Sorry madam.  As per Uber Share rules I cannot deviate from the route given to me by Uber on the map" he said indicating his Uber screen.

"I take an Uber Share everyday, and every driver listens to me when I ask him to take a left here" she said.

"Sorry madam.  I cannot take a left here.  And in any case it is a one way street" he said firmly.

"Nobody will catch you if you take a left.  If you take a right here I will be late for my meeting.  I insist you take a left here" she said.

"No madam.  I need to follow the rules" he said.

She turned to me in anger.  "You are also headed in the same direction.  Why don't you support me and ask him to take a left?" she asked addressing me.

"The rules for Uber Share are clear, and he needs to follow the rules" I replied.

She gave me a withering look and said to me "We need to use our brains instead of following a useless map"

Then she turned again to the driver "I am going to report you for not following customer instructions".

The Uber driver kept quiet and took the right turn.  I had really started admiring the driver now.  Any other person would have wilted under the pressure.

She got really upset now.  "Get me off here.  I will take an auto.  And I will not pay you" she said.

The Uber driver was about to stop to let her get off.  But then she changed her mind.  "How will I get an auto now?  You keep driving" she ordered.

Her destination came before mine and she got off in a huff without even looking at the driver.

I noticed the driver punching a "1 star" as his rating for the customer in his Uber app.  I am sure he too has been given a "1 star" by the customer.

"In today's world with that attitude she will go very far" I remarked to the driver.

"Maybe. But not in my car" he said.

On why Kedar grows a beard

So I am Kedar, and I am in a Market Research agency.  Yesterday I called a meeting with my team mates and with my boss to discuss something that really upset me.

My boss Rahul an old fogey, immediately asked me why I had called for a meeting.

So I explained : "So you see, last week I had gone to observe a group discussion that our agency was conducting among men who had recently bought baby diapers.  The group discussion was happening on the 2nd floor in a hotel room, and I had gone down to buy pan-beeda when I was approached by an interviewer who wanted to know whether I will be interested in attending the group discussion. He told me that all I had to do was to just sit there and nod my head, and I will get a good gift at the end of the 2 hour discussion.  Imagine an interviewer from my own agency trying to recruit me to attend my own group discussion".

I could see a lot of sympathetic nods in the room - apparently my other colleagues too have experienced it.

So I continued : "And what was especially embarrassing was that even my client was approached in the lobby by another interviewer and cajoled into attending the group on baby diapers.  My client was not even married and hence got really upset and gave me a firing of my life."

The old fogey Rahul said :"Does this happen in all groups?".  Trust my boss to come up with highly irrelevant questions.

So I said: "It always happens.  Why, even in female groups......."

Before I could complete my sentence, the old fogey says "What, you get recruited to attend even female groups?".

That old fogey needs to be definitely committed to a lunatic asylum.

Before I could retort, the old fogey says : "Ah, that explains why you have recently started growing a beard, Kedar".

I very much doubt the future of group discussions if this industry has guys like this boss.

Ravi's Question

Last week I bumped into my school friend Ravi at a get-together.  He had an interesting incident to narrate, which apparently was a self-revelation for himself. 

Ravi was waiting in the queue at the boarding gate for the flight departing to Bangalore. 

To while away his time he was gazing at the queue at the next counter which was for the flight departing to Delhi.

A smartly dressed young man – probably in his mid-twenties – suddenly turned around in the other queue and gave a nod and a familiar smile to Ravi. 

Ravi was momentarily confused.  Who was this person who gave him a knowing smile?  Was it one of Ravi’s ex-students?  (Ravi used to teach at a management school a few years ago on a part time basis over weekends purely as a hobby).

Or did that person recognize Ravi from the various culinary articles that Ravi wrote in an on-line magazine? (Ravi prided himself on his exotic culinary skills)

Or perhaps he had attended one of the music programs where Ravi plays the drums? (Ravi has developed a fascination for drums and occasionally plays during weekends in an amateur rock band)

“The way he smiled at me it was apparent that he was impressed by me and of what I am as a person. So in what circumstances would this person have known about me?” wondered Ravi.

And then it hit him. 

Not once had Ravi even considered the possibility that this young man who smiled at him could have met Ravi at the bank that Ravi works in - and that he was probably impressed by Ravi's flawless professional reputation in banking circles.

The fact is that for the past few years, Ravi has been consciously forging an identity - and searching for meaning - beyond just his corporate career. All of Ravi’s world now is about following his genuine passions and activities - which are all outside the office.  His banking career is doing well - but on auto-pilot : he does everything in the bank very clinically and professionally – but without the passion he used to show some years ago.

Whenever he thinks of anything that touches his soul or his aspirations/ dreams, he thinks only from the context of his passions outside work - almost as if there is nothing more he can expect in terms of genuine fulfillment from his corporate career. Hence he is increasingly reluctant to play the corporate game for survival.

Ravi then suddenly stopped talking, looked at me and said : "I wonder how many of our class mates feel the same way. Do you feel that way too?”

Regional Roles : Managing the Balancing Act

A Regional role – where a person oversees a practice area or a client relationship over a large geography – is an aspired role in today's corporate world. A regional role enables a person to work across different cultures across a large geography, and provides wide net-working opportunities.  Not surprisingly, a regional role - because of its high visibility - is often seen as a stepping stone to “higher” things – a global role, or a role in the corporate headquarters.

However, a regional role comes with its own set of unique challenges – a reason why not every person in a regional role is able to do full justice to his role.  Here are the lessons I learnt from hard experience as to why a “rookie” person often stumbles in a regional role : 

1.       Trying to force the direction without aligning with the local Line manager : A regional role typically is a staff role, and they need to work closely with the line managers who hold the P&L responsibility (and who therefore wield actual control) in the various countries comprising the region.  Regional people are therefore required to use their influencing powers - a mix of charm and active persuasion to accomplish their objectives.  The mistake an inexperienced regional person makes is in trying to aggressively push through his objectives without ensuring that the line manager is aligned.

2        Losing touch with the team in the various geographies : A regional person cannot be everywhere – so there are periods when he is not “visible” to the team he is expected to work with in the various countries.  The regional person therefore has to go out of the way to maintain touch over phone and video conferencing so that the personal connect does not get lost.  Being in touch with the challenges on the ground, and maintaining his relevance for the local teams scattered across the region is the critical factor - and this cannot be achieved just over email. 

3.       Getting his role mixed-up : The role of a regional person is to help his team in the various countries to achieve the P&L.  P&L is sacrosanct in today’s corporate world.  The trap that a rookie regional person gets into is assuming that his role is in driving top-line, and therefore becoming a number-chaser with the various local teams.  Local teams typically have their hands full fending off the revenue pressure from the local country head – and the last thing they want is someone from a distance asking why the numbers have not been achieved.  They need help from the regional person in terms of emotional support, sourcing relevant expertise, experience and client connections to help win business – and not merely additional pressure.  The local teams should see the regional person as an ally and friend – a person who eases their pain and opens doors – and not as a number chaser who merely mouths help without really rolling up his sleeves.

4.       Projecting a wrong perception of whose priorities is he pushing : The regional person needs to be extra careful in not being perceived as pushing the agenda – or working in the interests of - a particular sub-region or country - usually the country or sub-region that he is based in. Typically as the regional person is based in a country that is usually a “heavy weight” in terms of its contribution to the region, by default the regional person ends up getting closer to the teams and leaders of the host country and subscribing to their views.  A regional person has to clearly come across as a neutral person who acts in the larger interests of the organization and client–  in terms of either the time and attention he devotes to each sub-region or the way he influences allocation of resources – or else the regional role would degenerate into a largely ceremonial role for the "other" countries.

With adequate sensitivity and maturity, a regional role provides immense satisfaction and scope for the growth for the individual.  Regional roles when well handled can also provide a lot of satisfaction and career growth.  The individual can take pride and satisfaction in making a real difference in influencing a diverse region with differing priorities to align and work in the common interests of clients. 

Disclaimer : These are my own views - and not necessarily that of organisations that I have worked with.

Survey Interviewing - What We Don't Talk About

Standardising how interviewers administer a questionnaire face-to-face to a respondent is one of the key aspects that we Market Researchers like to emphasise. Hence we hold elaborate briefing and training sessions for our interviewers on how to administer a questionnaire, and then try to enforce standardisation and interviewer integrity through elaborate quality monitoring systems.

In the whole process what we forget - or do not like to talk about - is that the responses we get to a question in a face-to-face interview is also based on the personality of the interviewer.  An enthusiastic and charming interviewer gets a different response as compared to an interviewer who lacks self-confidence or is introverted. Based on my observations in the field, an enthusiastic or charming interviewer gets higher number of spontaneous brand recalls and greater depth of responses to open-ended questions. And, of course, self-confident interviewers also tend to get easier access into higher social class areas.

The Art of Interviewing has therefore similarities to the Art of Selling. No matter how uniformly salesmen have been trained, there are salesmen who - by the force of their personality - get a different response from their customers, and therefore get different results.

The "personality factor" of the interviewer becomes a major issue in Continuous Tracking studies where maintaining interviewer consistency over long durations of the track is critical.  Drop-out rate of interviewers is rising at alarming rates, thanks largely to poor remuneration, low status and mounting refusal rates.  In tracking studies when there is such a high churn rate it becomes a huge challenge, as every time an interviewer is replaced it results in data fluctuation because of the "personality" factor - no matter how well the new substitute interviewer has been trained.  These kind of data fluctuations are euphemistically called "sampling error" and is not linked to any real market place events ("real" fluctuations).

With higher interviewer churn, a greater and greater proportion of the Face-to-Face Tracking data fluctuations will be interviewer related, and not due to market events.  And despite longer and longer "rolling periods" to neutralise the variations, the data in Tracking studies will only continue to fluctuate even more due to interviewer churn. This will pose a formidable challenge to the Researcher - as not only would his research and interpretative skills be tested, but also his client handling skills to ensure that the client does not lose faith in the data and - more critically - in the philosophy of the Continuous Tracking system.

*************************
The opinions expressed here are my own - and not necessarily that of the organisations I have worked for

The Pride from Corporate T-shirts

Corporate T-shirts are the least understood and biggest source of employee pride and identity. Unfortunately, not many organisations understand the power of the corporate T-shirt and therefore don't leverage it effectively.  I treasure the T-shirts of whichever organisation I have worked for over my career, and wear it with pride.

When I left TNS about 5 years ago, I had a handful of almost new TNS T-shirts that I very carefully moth-balled with the hope that I will get to use them sometime in the future.  

4 months ago when I rejoined TNS, I looked forward to wearing those old (but still almost brand new) T-shirts again. 

It was only then that I realised that the TNS logo had changed in the meantime. See if you can spot the difference (the new one is on the right).

So effectively I cannot "publicly" wear my T-shirts with the old logo anymore - or so my PR person tells me. In fact she was amused that I have at all so carefully preserved those T-shirts.

I am in the process of re-building my T-shirt collection with the new logo - and I hope to wear them with pride for a long time to come.

Will You Give Me A Job?

OPEN LETTER TO VINOD MEHTA, EDITOR OF OUTLOOK MAGAZINE

Dear Editor,

I recently read an issue of Outlook after a very long time.  I notice that you are giving writing opportunities to unknown journalists such as Kumar Ketkar ("covered the collapse of the Soviet union") and Saba Naqvi et al - anybody who is willing to be virulently anti-Modi.  

I am a budding writer (www.vandram.blogspot.com) desperate for a break in journalism.  I am willing to do anything - even write anti-Modi articles - to get my name in print in such a prestigious magazine as yours.  The only subject I am NOT willing to write on is against Jewellery buying.  You see my wife hates anyone mentioning that jewellery is a bad investment, and since we stay in the same house, I am very keen on safeguarding my physical wellbeing.

With warm regards, an aspiring journalist

Ram Mohan Rao

Leadership is Spice

The Konkani dish called "Dali Thoy" comes alive when there is a trace of hing (asafoetida), and methi seeds (fenugreek).  If these two spices are not added. the dish becomes bland and tasteless.  Too much of these spices and the dish becomes unpalatable. The whole magic of this dish is in getting the dish to just have a hint of these 2 spices.

Good Leadership is like the addition of spice to a dish.  Good leaders never demean themselves (or their junior associates) by usurping for themselves the role of the main ingredient.  They act as the spice - adding the je ne sais quoi effect with their subtle presence.  Such leaders don't display an urge to make their presence felt unless absolutely necessary - but in their absence they are missed.

Coaching vs Teaching : 12 Key Learnings

I just returned from a fantastic "Train the Trainer" program in Dubai, organised by the Nielsen Global Learning team. This was an eye-opener for me as I now realize that I was not following many of the principles of being a good Coach. Here is a bland sum-up of the key learnings - though to really understand this subject one needs to experience the full 1.5 days intensive course:

1. Coaching is all about asking the right questions.  By asking the correct questions, the coach helps the person who is seeking the solution (the Coachee) to discover the solutions by himself.  The Coachee in an office situation could be your subordinate, and in a home situation could be your son seeking a solution to a problem.
2. Coaching is not Teaching.  We are often tempted to jump in and solve problems for others under the guise of teaching. But this perpetuates dependency, and consequently a "just in time, urgent" culture which is not a good environment to practice coaching.
3. "Directing" or "telling" a person what to do is not necessarily bad - it is used in situations where there is no time or the coachee has poor competence.  However, minimise Directing to the extent possible as it is neither good for the manager (Coach) nor for the personal growth of the subordinate (Coachee). 
4. Coaching is all about the Coachee - and not about the coach.  Buy-in of the solution, and its implementation, is better if the solution is self-discovered by the coachee through the coach asking the right questions.
5. A coach figures out the level of competence of the person for that particular task, issue, challenge or question - and asks the suitable coaching questions (open-ended, suggestive, leading or directive) depending on the competence of the coachee for that particular task.
6. To be a good coach does not require one to be skilled at that task - it is all about having the right mind-set.  In fact in many cases, the best coaches are not the experts on the subject matter.
7. Coaching always operates in the environment of Trust.  Lose the trust (example by blaming the coachee for a mistake), and you lose respect and credibility as a coach
8. Coaching does not imply a hands-off, low involvement approach.  Coaching by its very nature implies very high involvement by the coach to help the coachee to self-discover the solution to the problem.
9. For pro-active coaching tying up the feedback to the Motivating Drivers of the coachee is critical - and the coach needs to ensure that he taps into the Coachee's Motivating Drivers (and not his own).  The Motivating Driver could be Achievement, Recognition, Affiliation, Power, or Safety.  Tapping into the right Motivating Driver is crucial for the feedback to be taken in the right spirit, and for the coachee to be motivated to either change his behaviour, or to continue (or even improve) his current excellent behaviour.
10. When starting the process of coaching, spend less time on "Investigative" (understanding the past) - and more time on "Insight" (understanding the future options), and "Empowerment" (arriving at the preferred option with a timeline).  Typically we all make the mistake of spending too much time on the Investigative part.
11. Coaching is a continuous process, and is best pro-actively done. Periodically re-visit the goal of coaching and keep its focus on aspects within one's control ("don't try to solve world hunger"). Coaching should be done not just for areas of improvement, but also in situations where there is a great performance (Typically we only give feedback when something needs to improve). 
12. To be a good coach requires lots of practice as we need to come out of the teaching mind-set. It requires the constant practice of skills such as Active Listening, understanding body language, and para-phrasing. It requires effort to move into unconscious competence where we do this naturally.

Thanks to Nielsen for living up to its reputation of being an Academy Company, and to the trainer Adam Pickford.    What I learnt will need to be practiced not just in office - but in life in general. 

Buddy Boss

"I am the boss in office, but outside office we are the best of buddies" claimed a senior colleague commenting on how he manages relationships with colleagues who he claimed are also his buddies outside office.

And when I say buddies, I mean Buddies - it goes beyond mere friendship.  Being a buddy is different from being a 'friend'.  A boss can be a 'friend' of his subordinate - and can socialize, share personal feelings, and go out camping together.  But this is a friendship that always tacitly respects the official position held by the senior of the two individuals.

So coming back to Buddies - such buddy-ships (for want of a better word) typically get formed when two colleagues are not in a direct reporting relationship. The challenge arises when one of them over-takes the other on the career ladder and ends up as the boss.  Or in the case of a matrix structure, where my buddy ends up in a position where he has a significant role in my assessments/appraisals - or vice versa. Would the original buddy-ship built on absolute equality still survive?

From my observations, very few do.  Despite all the talk about separating out office life from personal life, it is the rare individual who operates in water-tight compartments. The fact is that whether it comes to performance appraisals, assignment of interesting roles/projects, or even simple things like the seating arrangement, friendships do play a huge role in office life, and buddies in reporting relationships do tend to mutually benefit in the office. But inevitably there will come a time when on a certain issue some expectations from either side will not be met - and that will be the beginning of the straining of the buddy-ship.  The strain will first show in office, and willy-nilly soon it will manifest outside the office - and best buddies will turn bitter foes.

If I have a good buddy and recently one of us has started reporting to the other, how do we protect our friendship?

If I am the boss, then the simplest thing I do is to manage my own expectations in terms of how much I think my buddy-subordinate should go beyond his normal role to help me - whether it is in terms of over-over-stretching himself or snitching on his other colleagues.  I would also involve another senior colleague in sensitive - and potentially confrontational - issues such as performance appraisals, determination of increments, bonus etc.  By this process I am sending the message that I want a neutral person involved to prevent any mis-understandings between us - especially when the news being delivered may not be pleasant. Of course my buddy will still think I am deliberately distancing myself - but at least this will ensure that the relationship does not deteriorate sharply. He will still continue to be a friend, if not my buddy.

And if I end up as the subordinate, what then? I can then play a bigger role in ensuring the buddy-ship survives - if I want it to.  From my observations it is all about how much one values the buddy-ship, and therefore how willing one is to walk away from bitter confrontations in office.  To give an example :  I may think I deserve a bigger team to manage the work load, or an x% higher bonus.  If my boss is not a buddy I would probably raise this issue gently with him, and if that does not work - fight it out through escalations.

But if my boss is my buddy, then I need to think very carefully before I escalate : Is the larger team or the x% potential increase (that I MIGHT get after a fight) more important than the buddy-ship I would most probably lose - after all I am dealing with a human being, and not some emotionless organisational position.....

If the x% is really important and I feel I have not been treated fairly, then I will go ahead and fight.  Probably he is not a genuine buddy anyway and he is just exploiting our friendship.......

But in many cases - and after careful thought - I find it better to manage my own expectations.  In which case I choose to walk away from a potentially nasty fight (and a potential x% increase). Walking away could either mean diplomatically and gradually maneuvering myself into a different role (and a different boss), or staying back and accepting and trusting my buddy-boss' decision without showing dissent.

Walking away may sound wimpish.......

But after all, I don't know : maybe he has already tried his best to fight my case internally, and is too embarrassed to tell me he lost the fight.

Or maybe my expectations from my buddy-boss are not fair.

Or maybe it has dawned on me that we are blessed with so few buddies in our life-time...... 

Notes To Myself - on Farewells

1. A few years ago when I was leaving an organisation I sent out a general "Farewell & Thank you" mail to the entire organisation, thanking a lot of individuals by name.  Inevitably as it happens I forget to mention a few names - either by accident or by design.  Those whose name I mentioned will not remember me for this gesture; but those who thought they deserved a mention but who I - accidentally or otherwise - forgot to mention will not forget the omission. 
2. The best thing to do - either in farewell speeches or farewell mails - is to keep it general and thank everyone without mentioning any specific individual names (except perhaps your direct manager).  If I need to thank some specific individuals, I will write to them individually or drop by their office and thank them personally.

Getting What We Deserve

"I am extremely disappointed with the caliber of researchers in the industry today.  Where are all the good guys gone?" commented the client the other day.  This is a client who habitually demands meetings at extremely short notice - and then makes the agency team wait in the reception for hours.  This is a client who does not return phone calls even from senior members in the agency, and who treats the views of the best guys from the agency with a "I know better" hauteur.

A few years ago when I was working on the "other" (client) side, I quickly realized that my Market Research budgets are limited, and not comparable to the MR budgets that other larger client organisations had.  In the beginning, I could not get the best guys from the agencies to service me.  If I make some threatening noise to the agency head, for a brief while I will have some of their best guys coming in for a couple of meetings, but then not turning up subsequently.

For me therefore to ensure that I get the best possible servicing on a regular basis I had to completely change my approach.  I realized that the only approach was to use "soft" power.  I prepared a list of the individuals on the agency side that I thought were best in the industry and then literally wooed them. Some of these individuals were industry dons when I was a mere baby.  It did not take much really to woo them - just treating them like a friend, calling them over for lunch or dinner, not making them wait in the reception, giving them the right respect in front of their junior colleagues .....  Very soon I was punching much above my weight - and had the best of the talent involved even in routine matters as they felt valued and respected.

Fortunately or unfortunately the MR industry has reached a situation where there is a massive scarcity of the really good research talent on the agency side. I will be surprised if such expert talent is more than 5% in any agency. These rare talents have their own egos, their own desire for being valued, and a need to prioritize their time both for their own and agency's maximum benefit - which need not always be revenue. Increasingly those rare talented individuals can pick and choose who they service, and what level of servicing that they will provide.  A large client can throw his weight around and bully an agency into getting a particular talented individual to being involved in a project - but such attempts will be very short-term - the talented person will always find ways of reducing his involvement if his heart is not simply with the client.

The only way some of these complaining clients can get what they think they deserve is by ensuring that they start acting as magnets - a magnet that the best people from the agency side will love - and will do anything - to service. And the funny thing is that it is not difficult being a magnet - and fortunately a few clients have cracked this little secret. 

Corporate Nirvana

The more I spend time in the corporate world, the more I realise the truth in the ancient Indian belief of "Non-Attachment".  "Non-Attachment" in the corporate world does not mean "non-involvement" or "lack of passion" - on the contrary it means that I acknowledge that:

1. I do not own my current position - and nothing I do will ever ensure that I can continue in that position as long as I myself like.  So be humble, and avoid indulging in self-aggrandizing behaviour or creating personality cults
2. there will always be people who are better than I am and who will step into my role or even supercede me, and it makes more sense to encourage this than resist it.  Rat Race - imaginary or real - is the biggest destroyer of harmony
3. I will always strive to do my best in my role within my physical & mental limits - but there will always be lots of things that I will have absolutely no control over, and in those situations it is best to go with the flow, keep smiling, and leave the rest to God
4. Often, for quick corporate glory we will be tempted to make "small, and for-this-one-time-only" deviations from our values such as honesty, openness, or what we stand for in terms of principles.  However, the moment you take a "small" deviation you are on the irreversible path to self-destruction and the end of any hope for corporate nirvana
5. Ultimately it is my choice on what kind of organisational environment I want to be in.  It is a trade-off that I need to make.  If one cannot cope with a certain organizational environment, then don't blame the organisation, but blame the choice and then do something about it.  

Unfortunately these are easier said than done.  It becomes definitely easier to live these beliefs if one is not chasing a constantly upward spiralling life-style. A constantly upward spiralling life-style brings in a state of perpetual comparisons with others (and hence dissatisfaction) and leads to the ultimate killer tendencies for Corporate Nirvana - Greed and Insecurity.

Precision

There is something formidable about precision.  We all love Swiss watches, and we all love precision in our Market Research data.

I was visiting Muscat and was having dinner with a client, and another person called CS whose agency conducted the fieldwork for us in Oman.

During the course of the dinner, the client - who had a reputation for being a stickler for accuracy - said:

John (the client) : "it is unfortunate that none of you Market research agencies seem to be able to give me precise market shares of the leading lube brands ...."

I : "Yes, it is difficult to assess that unless we carry out a large quantitative study"

CS (field supplier): "Your market share is 93.56%"

Stunned silence at the table.  The client's mouth was agape.

The client : "From where did you get this figure, CS?".

CS : "I know that for a fact".

I : "John, there is some soup on your collar".

The change of topic helped.  But the client was silent for the rest of the dinner, raising his head from the plate only to dart quick suspicious glances at CS.

After the dinner I took CS aside.

I : "Where did you get that number from?"

CS : "The client's brand is everywhere - it is obviously the leader"

I : "Yes, we all know it is the leader, but where did you get that number of 93.56% from?"

CS : "What is the problem? That is just a number to indicate that the client brand is the market leader.  I have seen lots of you researchers presenting such kind of numbers to clients in their presentations, and clients don't question those numbers"

I : "You cannot make up a random number like that.  We researchers present such kind of numbers only after we carry out fieldwork".

CS  : "Yes, and it is I who carries out all your fieldwork".

The conversation was getting into dangerous territory, and I thought it is better to beat a hasty retreat than probe into the implications of that statement.

There was one client though who seemed to have forever lost his taste for precision.

The Challenging 40's

One of the most difficult life-stages is when a person gets into his 40s. Even if that person has maintained himself well, the body starts to creak reminding him that he is a mortal.

On the career front he is typically at the top-most layer that he will ever rise up to - any further rise in the organisational hierarchy will be marginal and merely designation adjustments or role swaps, rather than substantive responsibility changes.

He also realises that he has put behind him more years in his career than he will in the future.

And around him he might also see quite a few fallen heroes within the organisation - heroes he may have worshipped and role-modelled a decade ago, but who suddenly seem to have stagnated and gone to pieces.  These ex-heroes would typically be in their late 40s or 50s - these would have been the high-fliers a few years ago, guys with a lot of promise and possible CEO material - but who mysteriously seem to have lost their way.

And our man will start wondering what went wrong with these ex-heroes, and will dread whether a similar fate will befell him too some day.

In today's fast-track growth era it is very easy for a bright ambitious person to learn all that is there to learn in his industry by the time he is in his 30s.  He then starts picking up various fine-tuning soft-skills - but these skills are acquired gradually.  No measurable step changes - which is pretty disconcerting for our ambitious go-getter.  Since his whole life revolves around this particular industry or skill area he starts feeling a distinct sense of what the French very elegantly call ennui - the result is he loses his sense of purpose.  At this stage that person either takes premature retirement, becomes an entrepreneur and gets into something totally new.  Or he starts going to pieces by passively trying to hold on to his job, and passing his time = fallen hero.

Which is why it is critical that every individual entering this life phase to parallely takes up a "second" passion or career which is totally unrelated to what he does in office.  This could be learning to paint, helping out an NGO over weekends, teaching, learning golf or to play a musical instrument - anything that has a bigger purpose and will challenge the individual to once again exercise his learning skills in a totally new arena.  Most of the best brains in any sphere continued to be productive and useful in their main career, because they consciously developed a 2nd passion which added the required zest and more enduring purpose to their life.

Luck

Very long weekend.  Lots of time to read.  And mull over life.

Nassim Taleb in his book "Fooled By Randomness" talks about the human tendency to credit our own talent and hard-work for our Success, and the tendency to blame the external environment (school/unfairness/ parents/bosses etc) for our Failures. He believes the role of luck is not given due importance by most of us - in fact he goes on to prove that Luck (rather than mere talent) is one of the critical ingredients that shapes a person's destiny - the right turning taken purely by chance in a small fork in the road can be a turning point in one's life.

Luck is never given its due. My 9th standard English teacher (Mrs. Rukmani who alas is no more) used to dwell on it at length while discussing the famous "Elegy written in a country churchyard" written by the poet Thomas Gray where he says:

Full many a gem of the purest ray serene
the dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear.
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
and waste its sweetness on the desert air.

That poem had a marked impact on me - which is why decades later I can still recollect every word of that poem.

I think we should be all thankful to God for whatever luck he has put in our paths in order to make us the people we are today - whether it be in our families, relationships and careers.  I for one fully acknowledge the role Luck has played in my life, and am really grateful for it.  And for the lots of very talented individuals who believe that they have not had the luck breaks yet : I hope and pray that very soon they will get the lucky breaks they deserve. 

The Ingredients For Career Success

Currently I am reading some HBR articles on Emotional Intelligence and Value systems.  Both these are very current - and relevant -  topics in a world where leaders are increasingly failing due an absence particularly of the latter (Values).

However, the over-riding importance given to Emotional Intelligence and Values in current Management thinking cannot reduce the importance of the 3 BASIC ingredients for career success:

1. Luck - the role played by Luck can never be under-estimated.  Everybody has their share of good and bad luck which tends to impact their career.It could be anything from joining the right organisation at the right time, finding a good mentor early in one's career, and having the luck to be associated with high profile & successful projects.

2. Brilliance - the innate intelligence, also called Talent.  Brilliance tends to be especially important at the beginning of the career in terms of getting noticed, and being fast-tracked by the organisation.

3. Discipline - this is basically a mix of resilience, persistence, ability to face both victory and defeat with equanimity, and systematic application of past learnings.  This of course requires substantial emotional intelligence.

Luck is God given - it is not within the control of the individual.

Brilliance (Talent) is also God given and partly influenced by the environment in which one grew up in one's childhood.  It can be developed to a certain extent over time by  conscious training. But Brilliance is also subject to the environment - a brilliant person in one office environment can turn out to be quite ordinary when he is surrounded by other brilliant individuals.

Luck and Brilliance can never by itself help build a successful, long-sustaining career.  It can take a person up to a certain level, but whether he/she will remain there for long is not certain.

Of the three, Discipline is the only aspect that is within the control of the individual, and the only ingredient that can help sustain an individual over the long term. If you look at all the successful CEOs whether Steve Jobs or Narayana Murthy, it was Discipline which enabled them to remain at the top for a long, long time.  

On Becoming A Good Manager

It was disaster waiting to happen.  I got over-ambitious and tried to prepare 4 dishes simultaneously today.  Trying to juggle the brinjal subji and the broccoli saute that was on fire, I dropped the mustard seed bottle and spent half an hour cleaning up the kitchen floor.

No doubt cooking teaches best the skill of multi-tasking under severe time pressure - and also helps understand one's own strengths and limits.  Not surprisingly, in my experience, women usually tend to be better managers - their multi-tasking skills tend to be fine-honed due to their greater exposure to cooking at home.  And I mean no disrespect to male managers, some of whom are also very good at cooking.

Which brings me to the other point - it suddenly dawned on me today as to why the worst couple of managers I have ever encountered also happened - paradoxically enough - to be women.  On hind-sight it is easy to explain - I know for a fact that both of them hated cooking.

Positivity

The world's rarest stuff is not money - and nor is it love.  It is the positivity quotient - whether a person has the ability to impart positivity in any environment or situation.

There is a simple test for positivity.  In any encounter with any individual, figure out whether you are walking away from the engagement with a positive, negative or neutral feeling.  If you walk away from the meeting with that individual usually with a positive feeling, then that person has a high positive quotient.

People with a high positive quotient tend to see - and communicate - the positive aspect in any person or situation.  They are also persons with high self-awareness - who believe that reinforcing positive behavior (rather than criticizing negative behavior) is the key to bringing about change.  They tend to be keenly aware that most people crave for positivity from any engagement and that positivity is the rarest stuff currently.

Watch out for - and stay away from (if you have a choice) - people with a negative quotient.  How often have we encountered a person who normally leaves one feeling drained of energy and enthusiasm and feeling totally inadequate?  If we encounter such people often, then there is the real danger that we too will get sucked into the downward spiral of negative energy and thoughts.

So go ahead with a ready smile, a spring in your step, and a good word for everyone.  In these difficult times be that rare beacon of positive energy.

The Closet Musician

An interesting article in the NYT caught my eye : it mentioned that staff at Goldman Sachs are required to keep a low profile about their extra-curricular activities.  Several Goldman staffers who gave public performances in music during their leisure hours have been "encouraged" to leave the firm as this was not in line with company policies.  "Bankers should behave like Bankers. You are not supposed to be known for anything else or stand out for anything besides your work" was how industry observers interpreted this stance by Goldman Sachs towards what their employees did during their leisure hours.

Several years ago at the beginning of my career in MR, I was in a similar predicament.  I was very keen on learning music during my leisure hours, and I actually enrolled for music classes after office hours.  Unfortunately I did not bother to keep it a secret, and very soon I started getting subtle and not-so-subtle messages that pursuing extra-curricular activities was not in line with what is expected from a junior Market Research executive - unless of course he is not serious about his career and lacks ambition. All serious and ambitious MR executives should be slogging away in the office late into the night as an indication of how seriously they took their career.  I seemed to have unfortunately sent the message that I had the time to pursue a hobby - and was not keen to sharpen my professional skills.

Managing one's career is a lot about managing perceptions - especially during the formative period in the career when a person is expected to be dedicated only to his career.  After the person has made his mark, then of course, one has slightly little more liberty in openly doing what one wants to do in his leisure hours.

I quickly corrected myself therefore - and made my affair with music such a closely guarded secret that not even my close colleagues were aware of it - and all because I was worried about being perceived as "non-serious" and uncommitted to my career.

Much has changed in the MR industry since then - and I am glad to say that the industry has become a lot more relaxed, and does encourage diversity in its talents.  I came out of the closet a few years ago - and am no longer embarrassed about talking about my passion for music and the fact that I play the harmonium.

So, I felt a bit strange reading the NYT article - I had expected the banking industry (especially investment banking) to have evolved a lot more quickly than the MR industry - but then life is always full of surprises.