Rahul Gandhi: Damned if he speaks, damned if he doesn't!

He doesn't give full length interviews, doesn't socialise on social media and critics dub him as a clueless kid; however, Rahul Gandhi’s recent statements offer invaluable lessons in communications - what not to speak and when not to speak 

Damned if he speaks damned if he doesn't. Rahul Gandhi, the Congress vice-president, may have a point here that political commentators complained when he had too little to say and now when he’s talking, they continue to complain. However, his very own actions and words are to be blamed as to why he’s often mocked at and misunderstood. The Gandhi scion has been in active politics for almost a decade now; yet he has shown no inclination to express his views on key policy issues. Rather than entering into debates on real issues and laying out a policy framework, he is apparently more than happy stating, restating the age old problems and yes the various references to his mother - thereby always reminding all of us of his surname and lineage. 

Sample the statements: “Dalits need Jupiter’s escape velocity on Earth”, “Poverty is a state of mind”, “My opinion about the ordinance is that it is complete nonsense. It should be torn up and thrown away”, “India is a beehive”, "My mother came to my room and cried... because she understands that power is poison", or for that matter “If India is computer, Congress is its default programme” and you know exactly why opposition, media and political pundits are emboldened to say that he is a huge disappointment, a clueless kid and at best a diffident politician. 

While the opposition and critics may say that he avoids policy discussions (and they are largely right in saying so), yet towards the fag end of September 2013, for once he did address a policy issue in his by-now-legendary “nonsense” press conference on convicted MPs ordinance. He didn’t stop there, a few days later he followed this with his masterstroke political-physics (escape velocity) metaphor; in short making himself a subject of much mockery. We know the marginalised lot (Dalits, as Rahul Gandhi referred to them at a rally in UP) needs to be empowered, but isn’t the escape velocity metaphor indigestible. No wonder it was criticised left, right and centre. 

Interestingly, whenever he is in a tight spot or perhaps wants to sound more emotional he unfailingly makes a reference to his mother. The recent one being at a rally in Gujarat, post his ‘nonsense’ remark, he said, “My mother (UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi) also told me that I used very strong words and that I could have said the same thing in a nice manner. As an afterthought, I agree it was a mistake to use harsh words but I have a right to raise my voice." Well there is nothing wrong in accepting one’s mistake but it seems the Gandhi scion has made it a habit of being reminded of the same by his mother. 

What perhaps the young Gandhi has failed to understand is that while he unfailingly avoids policy deliberations, and if at all he makes one his timing of the same is grossly miscalculated. His latest impetuous reaction on the ordinance clearly shows a glaring communication as well as generational gap within the party. Let us give him the benefit of doubt; he may not have intended to undercut and insult the prime minister, but this is exactly the message that went out to the electorate. And in politics public perception matter more than reality. For a party that has pinned its 2014 electoral hope on Rahul Gandhi, such statements will only add to the misery. 

While his frustration at times may be well justified, but as a leader he needs to show respect, humility and sensitiveness. The Gandhi scion has rather donned the hat of a party outsider; he needs to be reminded that he is the party vice-president and he should raise his reservations/voice on policy issues when they are being discussed at various levels within the party and the government and not as and when it incenses him. 

As the de facto leader of the party Rahul Gandhi is expected to be its face and articulate its position on several matters, but he has over the years preferred to remain a backroom boy, with a few ill-timed dramatic exceptions here and there. It goes without saying, if you can’t lead or think you have been forced to lead, better quit and give way to deserving candidates. But then, perhaps once again his mother needs to remind him of this and ask him to hand over the reins to the capable and deserving lot. And perhaps, as an obedient son he’ll follow suit. 

Of late, he’s been addressing a number of rallies. Leave aside the content, which is the point of discussion in newsrooms, he’s gradually becoming combative. Here is a lesson for him and future leaders (political as well as corporate) – the product offering / promises need to be fresh with added advantages. It’s good to criticise the opposition’s policies, but the criticisms should be complemented with concrete arguments and must also tell the masses what better you have to offer. A clear cut argument would imply that you have given the entire matter much thought and importance; else it will be seen as mere tantrums and you run the risk of losing all credibility.

Political as well as corporate leaders need to a take a note: tokenism will no longer work; actions need to match the words.

What's the DNA of the leaders of tomorrow?

Leaders of the future will need a host of new skills and competencies if they are to succeed. What can organisations do?

‘What leadership skills are required for the future? Do we have the leadership to make the transition? How do we ensure that we hire, develop and retain the people with the right skills – intellectually, technologically and emotionally? How can we prepare the next generation of leaders, fast enough and well enough, to meet the company’s strategic goals?’ These and many more of such questions are bombarded at HR leaders once CEOs emerge out of their strategy sessions.

So what do business leaders look for in leaders of tomorrow? Is it intellect? Or is it a set of behavioural competencies? Or is it the ‘know it all’ attitude? What are the key traits that organisations should look for in a potential leader so as to not lose out in the race for innovation, the march to globalization and the war for talent?

According to Hay Group’s Leadership 2030 research the leaders of the future will need a host of new skills and competencies if they are to succeed. It states that leaders of the future will need to be adept, conceptual and strategic thinkers, have deep integrity and intellectual openness. Also the leaders have future must find new ways to create loyalty, lead increasingly diverse and independent teams over which they may not always have direct authority. An interesting observation that the report makes is that leaders will have to relinquish their own power in favour of collaborative approaches inside and outside the organization.

In the light of the Hay Group research report, organisations which see themselves as being ‘built to last’ perhaps need to opt for constant renewal. This implies that leaders must continue to develop themselves and their successors. Chuck Stoner, a Professor of Management at Bradley University in his book Building Leaders: Paving the Path for Emerging Leaders, says “Although new leaders can offer fresh perspectives and innovative ideas, they are often unprepared to handle all the obligations that accompany their new roles.” The question then is how can leaders of tomorrow handle all the obligations? Jim Collins, author and business consultant, in his book, Good to Great, offers a possible solution. He stresses upon the fact that a new leader should first focus on Who, and then on What—getting the right people in the right places on the leadership team, and when the people are in place, then decide what to do.

In a 2011 white paper Future Trends in Leadership Development, Nick Petrie, Senior Faculty, Centre for Creative Leadership, emphasises on four trends of leadership development. The trends are – vertical development, transfer of greater developmental ownership to the individual, collective rather than individual leadership and innovation in leadership development methods. But how will this help? With specific reference to collective leadership, Nick says, “The question will change from, ‘Who are the leaders?’ to ‘What conditions do we need for leadership to flourish in the network?’ How do we spread leadership capacity throughout the organization and democratize leadership?”

Organisations can create the required framework and environment to build future leaders; leaders on their part need to be flexible, collaborative and able to leverage subject matter expertise. The most important aspect however is their willingness to continue their learning. A Mercer & Oliver Wyman (global professional services firms) research paper, What the future demands: The growing challenge of global leadership development, rightly summarises that leadership is not about possessing a body of knowledge but about having the capacity to keep learning and to change and evolve – while staying humble.

Going forward, perhaps what will differentiate potential leaders from the rest would ideally be a mix of specific competencies, passion and above all humility.

Why 'resignation' is the most googled word?

There is nothing wrong with searching ‘resignation’ on Google, but it’s something employers should worry about

1.2 trillion searches. 146 languages. What did the world search for in 2012? Zeitgeist 2012, a list brought out by Google after analysing over a trillion queries, answers exactly what the world searched for in the year. From Whitney Houston to Gangnam Style to Superstorm Sandy -- web surfers’ attention across the world wavered between the tragic and the silly in 2012.

In the Indian context, it was the likes of Sunny Leone, Ek Tha Tiger, Kerala and Sensex that dominated the searches. The question that arises is: Can organisations derive any benefit from this search volume on Google? Does the Zeitgeist list, or for that matter, Google Search Trend, have anything in store for employers and recruitment firms?

Probably yes. Sample this: Google Trends over the last one month shows that ‘resignation letter’, ‘resignation format’, and ‘sample resignation letter’ are popular search terms keyed in by most net users in South India. In fact, the worldwide trend also shows that Philippines, Singapore, and the UAE are searching in huge volumes for resignation letter formats. For the record, India ranks 5th in this list, (and Canada last) of maximum number of resignation letter searches.

So why are so many South Indians googling ‘resignation’? Is it that employees in this part of India are more dissatisfied? Or is it because there are more job options here?

According to the Google Search Trend Report, Bangalore and Chennai lead the race when it comes to ‘resignation’-related search, followed by Hyderabad, and Mumbai. Perhaps, there is no direct correlation between these searches and job dissatisfaction. It probably also has a lot to do with the availability of jobs in Bangalore and Chennai, as compared with, say, a city like Kolkata. Interestingly, in terms of states, Haryana leads the pack, followed by Uttar Pradesh. This could be due to the development spree witnessed in Gurgaon and Noida, which are fast emerging as corporate hubs.

Employers, however, should take note of the increase in ‘resignation’-related searches. The least that they can do is to initiate an employee engagement survey within the organisation, and if the scores are low, take the necessary measures. Better to have a happy workforce than a not-engaged, or worse, actively disengaged workforce – whatever may be the reason.

Should CEOs micromanage hiring?

The answer depends on what state and stage the business is in

Most of the CEOs don’t have a hands-on approach to hiring. Instead, they prefer to either leave it to the HR or hire executives only after a certain level. When Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer said that she would be personally reviewing every single hire in the company, a lot of HR professionals were complaining that such micromanagement will actually hinder the internet giant’s road to recovery.

Now, the larger question that comes to the mind is whether CEOs should really review every new hire for their company and instead focus their energies on more pressing issues. Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page reportedly also personally review the resume and hire every new employee. Maybe Mayer’s Google experience rubbed off on her.

But does such a proposition make sense? If one is a CEO of a small start-up, then it makes sense for him to review every new hire. This is because the CEO will be working with these folks personally, so it’s important to make sure that they fit with his/her vision for the company. Having said so, there is a big difference between a company with 15 employees and a company with thousands of employees.

For an organisation with thousands of employees and a competent HR department, there is no reason for the CEO to be directly involved in the hiring process. Unless the hiring is for a strategic position, tinkering with a system would only raise eyebrows and keep more pressing issues that need urgent attention at bay. In essence, what many HR professionals argue is that if the system isn’t broken, then don’t fix it.

Another school of thought believes that many CEOs spend very little time on recruiting, tacitly relegating it to a tactical fire drill instead of a core component of the company’s strategic plan. This is a mistake because it encourages staffing over recruiting. It is argued that CEOs must lead by building a well-managed recruiting function that is closely monitored and measured. Those in support put forth the view that CEOs who set the bar on intake of talent, retention of talent are setting their organisations up for success. Some others believe that it is best to have one person interview all potential employees and set a high bar of consistency for the organisation. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the CEO.

To interview or not to depends largely on the state the business is in and the strategic importance of the potential hire.

CEO Compensation: How much is too much?

What could be the possible reasons for the ‘gravity-defying' executive compensation and are they justified?

James Gorman, CEO, Morgan Stanley, perhaps ruffled a few feathers, when in an interview to FT (October 2012) he said that in the industry the compensation ‘is way too high.’ He argued in his interview that, ‘What the Street has historically done is when revenues went up; they kept the comp-to-revenue ratio flat. When revenues went down, they increased the comp-to-revenue ratio because they said, ‘We might lose all our people. We have to increase it.’” Further according to AFL-CIO’s Executive Pay Watch Report, the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay between CEOs of the S&P 500 Index companies and U.S. workers widened to 380 times in 2011 from 343 times in 2010. These two when read in conjunction lends credence to why shareholder voices cry foul and often use terms such as ‘fat paychecks’ and ‘gravity-defying’ for the high levels of executive compensations. Yet, despite the fact that corporations in the US have been widely criticized for their approach to executive compensation, the fact remains that executive pay keeps climbing.

Is India any different when it comes to executive compensation? Not really. According to Grant Thornton International Business Report (conducted by Experian in May-June 2012) 78 percent of respondents affirmed that senior executives at large public companies were paid ‘too much.’ A recent study by consulting firm Hay Group, titled the 'Top Executive Compensation Report 2012-13', with insights from 158 organizations, reveals that as compared to the top management team – CEOs are paid 3 times more than all other senior executives. This multiplier goes up to more than 4 in industries such as Basic Resources and Retail. Yet another global study by Aon-Hewitt reveals that that India has the widest gap between the salaries of CEOs and entry-level graduates. In India, a CEO's compensation is on an average 675 times that of the minimum wage earned by entry-level graduates. The US comes second with a 423 times difference. China, interestingly, ranks far lower in the list with the ratio at 268 times. Why is it that the ratio is so skewed? Sridhar Ganesan, Rewards Practice Leader, Hay Group India, reasons, “Impatience for business results has lead to recruitment of ‘Ready-made CEOs’ and is one of the reasons for variance in the compensation multiplier across sectors.”

It is argued that if an organization does not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. However, Charles M. Elson et al, Director, John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, in their new research question the transferability of executive skills set. They argue that, “There is no conclusive empirical evidence that outside succession leads to more favorable corporate performance, or even that good performance at one company can accurately predict success at another.” If this be so, then does it imply that CEOs are paid higher because they are more competent that their peers?

A recent paper from the University of Pennsylvania and New York University on relationship between executive pay to executive skill, concludes that particularly in big firms, a high salary doesn't necessarily mean that a CEO is more competent than his or her peers. Taking all these into consideration, one may be tempted to reason that a higher CEO pay would result in shareholder wealth maximization. But here too, there are not enough researches that paint a positive picture.

Nevertheless, CEOs and their ilks are paid highly so that they are motivated enough to face the business challenges and, instead of making value-destroying choices, choose actions that generate the maximum value for the organization. In the present global business context, it would make more sense to keep executive compensation (a business expense) reasonable and competitive.

Packaging Vs Content - What is more important

R Venkataswaralu, for the last few days, after he made the yearly appraisals open to his employees, seemed to be more pensive than his usual self. Quite expectedly, a few of the employees who got more than what they deserved were making merry while the others who thought they deserved more but got less were discontented. The worst that Venkat (an acronym for Radhakrishnan Venkataswaralu) had to face as a result of his decision was the resignation of a few of his key people, those who had helped Venkat and his ‘strategic group’ steer the company through the rough tides of the global meltdown. Perhaps Venkat failed to realise and appreciate their contribution while preparing and finalising their appraisal (both monetary and non-monetary). He was perhaps much too taken in by packaging rather than content.

Well, nothing much should have been expected of a fabulous marketer (or rather ‘salesman’ - that is what the disgruntled lot prefer to call him) that Venkat was who was forced to don the cap of the CHRO (Chief Human Resources Officer). Packaging was his key word and when it came to taking key decisions of human ‘capital’ rather than human resource or assets he invariably gave into packaging, for that was what he had been walking and talking for the last two decades or so. Not that the dissatisfied lot were putting the blame entirely on him for he had little clue about the importance of ‘people’, the emotional damage, and the tangible cost to the company in terms of knowledge and experience that chose to walk out of the company gates. Subramanium, who for the last two years was associated with the advertising of the company, firmly believed that packaging was the best marketing strategy that could be used to glamorise a product and attract the attention of the target audience. He often advised his colleagues on the importance of packaging and never failed to chant his favourite one-liner – “sometimes packaging is so important that it costs more than the product itself.” (Do not confuse – the product is YOU). It was no surprise then that Subramanium was siding with his CHRO.

Having reached the office early on a weekend (once again - quite unusual of him) he was recollecting the past days when Shantaraman and his team would discuss and debate on product development while he and his team would assist them hand in glove on the marketing aspect of the product. The two teams which complimented each other so well would never fail to appreciate the smallest of value additions. The then CHRO, Srikant Manjhi, who chose to call it a day (well, that is what the other employees are made to believe), when the company was going through its roughest patch (the reasons for the same yet remain unknown to Venkat) would always have a word of encouragement for the two respective teams and that was evident in the appraisals as well as the annual meets. The post-appraisal days during Manjhi’s tenure saw the least ruffle - a manifestation of the fact that all was well with their respective appraisals. Venkat who was asked all of a sudden to step into Manjhi’s shoes has ever since failed to replicate the magic spell and people skills of Manjhi.

Though the company has managed to sail through the rough tides, the order books from the West are not doing great; in the recent past, there have several complaints regarding of not abiding by the product development compliance norms; key people including Shantaraman have quit. As he looks around, he fixes his eye on the last group photograph still pegged on the office cabin wall. Shantaraman, Manjhi, and Venkat all side by side; ‘three musketeers’ he uttered. What could have possibly gone wrong, he questions himself after a long lull. Why is that Manjhi and Shantaraman put in their papers and why is it that after the recent appraisals employees are not happy and resignation letters continue to pour day in and day out? Why is it that Subramanium is hearty and happy while Raghavan is disillusioned? Amidst all this uproar, the office peon makes his entry and keeps on the table few résumés; Venkat asks for a glass of water. Going through the résumés of potential candidates who would (if selected) take over the roles of the likes of Shantaraman, the only question and thought that keeps him preoccupied is what is he going to look for in a potential candidate. Is it the candidate (read – the content, talent et al) or the packaging? Is he the right person indeed? Still grappling with these thoughts, he lays his hands on Friday’s edition of the Corporate Dossier and two interesting words ‘Management Mythos’ seems to have attracted his eyeballs. He read the entire article in one go, and then said, “All this while I have behaved just like Sage Uttanka….”

Very true. Like many other Uttankas in the marketplace, Venkat too had focused solely on the packaging, ignoring the content, and perhaps this is one reason why Subramanium is happy and hearty while Raghavan, who is a lot more talented and certainly deserved better than what he was rewarded, was disillusioned. As he accepted the glass of water, he seems to have realised his folly and considers the day as an opportune time to amend his ways. But he is indeed faced with a unique dilemma. All his life he has lived on packaging so how could he all of a sudden change his track? How does one identify the real in a world filled with counterfeit as well as me-too products? What does it take to judge real content? Having made up his mind to undo his past wrongdoings he makes a hurried call to Manjhi (and thanks himself that he was in contact with Manjhi on a personal level) and explains the peculiar situation that he is faced with. Manjhi, for his part offers his ‘guru mantra’ to a dear friend in need. He then calls Raghavan to his cabin and asks him to help him in selecting potential talent who could work with him and help the company reach its glory of yesteryears. Raghavan, for once hesitates, but nevertheless obliges his CHRO, considering the future of his source of bread and butter. Having learnt his lessons the hard way, Venkat now seems determined to usher in a fresh round of talent and also wants to change the existing appraisal methods. He is keen on defining and demarcating the fine line of difference between ‘desire’ (read packaging) and ‘deserve’ (read content).

PS: The case study was written for  HUMAN FACTOR. 

Why organisations need to be focus on employee engagement...

Organisations across the world are losing money because their employees aren't fully engaged. An insight into what the recent Gallup and other studies reveal on the importance of employee engagement…

It's nothing short of an obsession. Workplaces, conclaves, seminars, industry gatherings, you name one, and you would invariably find an obsession with employee engagement - everything seems to link to it. The reasons are simple, engaged workers are more productive, perform better, motivate others and, perhaps most importantly – stay.

Deliberations apart, what is the ground reality. Gallup, as it does unfailingly, has once again come up with its employee engagement scores, and as expected, it paints a not so rosy picture. Though the survey results are for the American workforce, its reverberations are equally true for other economies too. Entirely consistent with other, equally downbeat, employee engagement surveys, Gallup’s data shows 30 percent of employees as engaged, 52 percent as disengaged, and 18 percent as actively disengaged. Simply put, the findings indicate that 70 percent of American workers are ‘not engaged’ or ‘actively disengaged’ and are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.

Can we put to a cost to it? Yes! Gallup estimates that these actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. between $450 billion to $550 billion each year in lost productivity. 

What is it in India? According to an April 2012, Gallup study India does not have enough engagement to spare. As of 2012, 32 percent of employed Indians are actively disengaged and 60 percent are not engaged. Only 8 percent of all Indian workers are engaged - or involved in, enthusiastic about, and committed to their work. The disengaged employees, actively or otherwise, are more likely to steal from their companies, negatively influence their co-workers, miss workdays, and drive customers away.

A recent study by Towers Watson further reveals that only two in five workers (39 percent) in Asia Pacific are highly engaged at work. The rest, three-fifths of the workforce, are struggling to cope with work situations, do not provide adequate support and emotional connection. The study goes on to state that organisations with highly engaged employees report loss of an average of 7.6 workdays per year, whereas organisations with disengaged employees lost 14.1 workdays, or almost twice as many workdays per year. Significantly, disengaged employees are more likely to leave their organisations. Research shows that 58 percent of disengaged employees compared with 17.1 percent of employees with high engagement, are high retention risks. And this comes with a huge cost- the bureau of National Affairs estimates that U.S businesses lose $11 billion annually due to employee turnover. 

But who are these disengaged lot? The recent Gallup study provides a few interesting insights. Women are more engaged than men – 33 percent women were engaged, 50 percent not engaged, and 17 percent actively disengaged; while 28 percent men were engaged, 53 percent not engaged, and 19 percent actively disengaged. Remote employees were 32 percent engaged, 50 percent not engaged, and 18 percent actively disengaged. On-site employees were 28 percent engaged, 51 percent not engaged, and 20 percent actively disengaged. At a time when there is a lot of talk on millennial, the study finds that the most engaged generations are those leaving and entering the workforce. Traditionalists (defined as those at the oldest end of the spectrum, comprising 4% of the working population) were 41 percent engaged, followed by millennial at 33 percent. The study notes that more educated employees were not necessarily more engaged, perhaps because higher education levels bring with them higher expectations.

What does an engaged workforce mean for an organisation? David MacLeod and Nita Clarke in their seminal work, 'Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through employee engagement' for the UK government found a compelling correlation between employee engagement and operating income. Their study reveals that companies with low engagement scores earn an operating income 32.7 percent lower than companies with more engaged employees, while companies with a highly engaged workforce experience a 19.2 percent growth in operating income over a 12 month period. A study conducted by Corporate Leadership Council, that studied the engagement level of 50,000 employees worldwide concluded that engaged employees grow profits as much as 3x faster than competitors and that engaged employees are 87 percent less likely to leave the organisation. Further studies conducted by the likes of Tower Watson, Kenexa and LSA Global Learning Solution too have findings on similar lines. In this context McLean & Company's study states that a disengaged employee costs an organisation approximately $3,400 for every $10,000 in annual salary. 

A simple cost benefit analysis makes a strong case to have an engaged workforce. As Kevin Kruse, author of Employee Engagement 2.0, would have loved to state - high engagement among employees improves morale, reduces turnover, and improves profitability. For once, now I understand why employee engagement is an obsession.

What a leader can learn from Narendra Modi

Narendra Modi's rise in the political landscape of the country offers a few insights into what it takes to break the clutter and make a mark for oneself in the leadership space...

Depending on which side of the political spectrum you belong to, you may either be a staunch supporter or a critic of Narendra Damodardas Modi, the BJP’s official PM candidate for 2014 general elections. Cliché it may sound, while you might love him or hate him, but you certainly can’t ignore him. So much so that even his detractors would agree that Modi is a perfect blend of an astute politician and a shrewd businessman. His decisiveness, clarity of thought, personal integrity and missionary zeal, is beyond doubt. It needs no mention that, it is because of these unique selling propositions that the party decided to ignore a few well-reasoned opposition to his elevation. 

Leaving aside the internal party dynamics, a recent survey of 100 chief executives conducted by Nielsen for The Economic Times revealed that 80 percent want Modi to become prime minister. What is it that makes Modi the leaders of masses as well as classes? What are the lessons that business leaders can learn from him? 

The very reason why Modi scored a hat-trick in 2012 Gujarat elections is due to his extraordinary leadership skills. The charismatic leader possesses a number of leadership traits, and business leaders could well learn a few lessons from him and implement them too. A few take-aways

The Art & Science of Communication 

Modi has mastered the art of communication. He is one of the few politicians who has used technology to connect with his people. So be it Google+ hangouts, projected 3D public speeches or for that matter twitter, he's virtually left no stone unturned in using the current technology. It is his novel delivery mechanism that has forced leaders of India Inc as well as foreign diplomats, who once shunned him as a political bezonian, to seek a minute of his indulgence now. 

Seen in an organizational perspective, while one-to-one interaction with each and every employee may be impossible (and more so because of a global workforce), leaders need to be aware of the current trends in technology and use it to their advantage. A technologically naive person can never work for the betterment of his/her organization. Be it a small or big organization, or a huge economy; wise and correct use of technology can invariable help reach out to a larger employee base and bridge the communication gap. 

Identify opportunities and take risks

As a business leader, it is important to see opportunities when they knock on the door and grab them. Undoubtedly, opportunities come with a few risks, but it is the bigger picture that needs to be considered. Many were left wondering when Modi offered a red carpet to Tata. They couldn't figure out what Modi had envisioned when he invited Tata to shift his plant to Sanand. By providing land to industry at throw away prices, as he is accused of, Modi invested in a long term profit. Post this event, Modi became a business darling and investments poured in to Gujarat regularly after that. 

While making decisions, leaders besides keeping the present in mind need to have foresight. They need to envision the future and take decisions that are in sync with future goals. 

Quick decision making 

When Tata's decided to relocate their dream project, Modi moved with Usain Bolt-like speed and got the MoU inked within 96 hours of Tata's announcement to quit Singur. It is said that Modi makes it a point to return the call of large businessmen within 24 hours. For urgent calls, the response comes within three hours. If something cannot be done, Modi says so without beating around the bush. It’s a well known fact now that it is primarily the speed and the single-window clearance of Modi that make investors in India and abroad flock to Gujarat.

In a competitive business environment, it is not only about identifying opportunities, but a lot also depends on the speed with which decisions are taken. Procrastination should be the last word when it comes to decision making.

Be confident and play to your strengths

Modi is never low on confidence and that is probably one reason why he is able to inspire confidence in the electorate. Be it his rally in Hyderabad or for that matter his address on August 15, he exuded confidence and despite chinks in his armor he focussed on his strength - his development card. It is rare to see a political leader who unfailingly hard sells his state as an investor friendly destination, and in doing so he minces no words.

As a business leader it is important to be confident about one's organization, product, and project and let it pass on to the target audience. For the success of the brand / organization, it is equally important to hard sell and never let go an opportunity. 

Set an example 

If a leader wants his /her team to be honest, hardworking, and sincere; it goes without saying that it must begin with him. The leader needs to be honest, hardworking, sincere, set an example and make the first sacrifice. It is this track record of Modi in office that is the envy of his adversaries. He has been equally successful in selling ideas to both the masses and the classes. He firmly believes in letting his work do the talk. The biennial Vibrant Gujarat - brain child of Modi-and its success is a point in case. Likewise a true business leader too needs action.

Have a team

No one is bestowed upon with all the qualities needed to a successful leader. In fact, a leader is but the representative of his/her team at disposal. A team has members with complementing qualities and it is up to the leader as to how to leverage the talent in the team. And that’s what makes all the difference! It's worth learning a lesson or two here, from Modi. His extravagant use of technology in the 2012 election is well known. Did Modi have all knowledge about it? No! He employed right people who helped him plan out his entire campaign strategically and innovatively. And did that work? Well...

Why organisations must strive to build high-trust culture?

As trust takes a dip, invariably it is the implementation of organisational strategy that would go for a toss

Political rhetoric and sloganeering aside trust deficit is for real. Almost everywhere we turn, trust is on the decline. According to Randstad's World of Work 2012 - Asia Pacific, trust is in short supply, it states that, a third of employees across the region don't trust their leaders. Add to this the fact that only a meager 11 percent of employers rate trust as the most important attribute of a successful leader - clearly underestimating the importance of trust. An Employee Outlook survey conducted by UK's CIPD in 2012 reveals that only 36 percent felt a level of trust in their senior leaders. A more recent Edelman Trust Barometer 2013 finds that while 50 percent of respondents trusted business in general to do what is right, only 18 percent trusted business leaders to tell the truth. Cut to India, according to a study, Learning Across Culture in the Human Age, conducted by Right Management and Tucker International, rates Indian business leaders the worst at building and maintaining trusting relationships.

With organisations facing challenging times and continued economic uncertainty, trust becomes even more important. While leaders - social, political and corporate - agree that trust is important, they more often than not think it to be just another one of those 'soft issues'. In his book, ‘The Speed of Trust’ management consultant and author, Stephen Covey challenges the assumption that trust is merely a soft social virtue - a nice to have. Instead he demonstrates that trust is a hard economic driver, a learnable and measurable skill that makes organisations more profitable, people more successful and relationships more energising. 

Given the crisis and importance of trust, it becomes all the more important to ponder over a few questions - is there a measurable cost to trust, what is the return on trust and is there a tangible benefit to high trust? 

Experts reckon that trust is perhaps the most important element of a successful workplace. Companies whose employees trust them tend to have a more engaged workforce and a high efficiency work environment. On the flip side, organizations that have lost employee trust are not as successful. While high-trust creates flatter organisations distributing information, responsibility and influence across the workforce; a low trust creates hidden agendas, politics, interpersonal conflict, and protective communication. In a low trust climate, everything slows down. Ultimately it creates disengagement and unwanted employee turnover, which in turn causes low morale and impacts productivity. 

In fact, in its 2010, Ethics & Workplace survey, conducted by Deloitte, 65 percent of Fortune 1000 executives believed that trust will be a factor in voluntary employee turnover in the near future. Trust facilitates the implementation of strategy. Doesn't it stand to reason that if levels of trust between employees and their managers, or the organisation in general, are low; it will be more difficult to implement policies, practices, and eventually strategies of which they are a part?

Return on trust, RoT, too can be measured by examining the financial performance of high-trust organizations. Research by the Great Places to Work Institute, publisher of the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list, has shown that between 1997-2011, high trust companies outperformed the Russell 3000 and S&P 500, posting annualised returns of 10.32 percent versus 4 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. Additionally, those best companies provide 4 times the returns than market average for comparative low-trust companies and typically experience a 50 percent lower turnover rate. Yet another recent Watson Wyatt study shows that high trust companies outperform low trust companies by nearly 300 percent - reasons enough to build a high trust organisation. 

In a global, virtual and multicultural world, trust is bound to become a powerful element for collaborative climate. As organisations strive to create an atmosphere of trust in untrusting times, it must be kept in mind that creating a high-trust climate must go beyond one-on-one relationships with employees, to building credibility around the entire organization, its people, its brand and its reputation. 

a

Why women’s need greater representation in corporate boardroom

Good corporate governance calls for greater women representation; the government’s recommendation for women directors to be mandated on corporate boards in the companies Bill is a progressive step

‘Women in the Boardroom: A Global Perspective’ a survey conducted by The Deloitte Global Centre for Corporate Governance, categorically notes that support for boardroom gender diversity is spreading in many regions, although support has come more from governments and regulators rather than from shareholders. The much awaited Companies Bill 2012, which got its nod from the Rajya Sabha on August 8, 2013 in a few of its provisions resonates what the study has found. The Bill divided into 29 chapters, 470 clauses and 7 schedules; in one of its clauses makes it mandatory for company boards to have a woman representative, something that will give a greater representation to women in corporate decision-making. Unquestionably, the move is more in sync with the requirements of the corporate world in a globalised environment.

A look at the state of representation of women in corporate boardroom makes all the more sense. Industry body Assocham in a study titled 'Corporate Women: Close the Gender Gap and Dream Big' has noted that out of 1,112 directorships of 100 companies listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, only 59 positions -- or 5.3 per cent -- are held by women. Further, Deloitte’s November 2011 report, ‘Women in the Boardroom: A Global Perspective’ too has a similar observation. Well, India’s biggest competitor, China at 8.5 per cent had more women in the boardroom. A study, ‘Board Diversity in India’ conducted by Hyderabad-based The Institute of Public Enterprise makes an interesting observation – none of the boards of Sensex companies is led by a woman. The study further notes that, of the women directors 50% are independent directors. This makes India 38th in the world in terms of women representation on boards. 

As per McKinsey & Co’s report titled, ‘Women Matters’ companies in Asia’s leading economies have ‘strikingly’ few women in senior jobs, thereby missing out on a vital pool of talent to fuel the regions’ growth. According to the report in India women’s representation on boards and executive committees are 5 per cent and 3 per cent respectively (lower than that of China which has the representation at 8% and 9%). However, despite low women representation at senior level, gender diversity is not yet high on the strategic agenda for most companies. While over 500 companies have signed on to the global WEPs (Women’s Empowerment Principles) across the world, in India, only six of an estimated nine lakh-registered companies have committed to the WEP principles. It will be interesting to note that the new Companies Bill making provisions for appointing women to top positions by setting targets and benchmark will actually make any difference in the mindsets of corporate in the years to come. For records, women now hold 17.1% of the boardroom seats of the Fortune 500, according to the latest 2020 Women on Boards Gender Diversity Index released in October 2012. 

A recent research from the Credit Suisse Research Institute indicates that companies with more women on their boards outperform those with fewer or no female directors. For instance, Credit Suisse found that net income growth over the past six years averaged 14% for companies with women directors compared to 10% for those with no female board members. Reasons enough that India Inc makes for the opportunity cost. 

Is availability of talent a problem? Perhaps not, there are several qualified women out there. The problem perhaps lies in the process of identifying and grooming potential women directors; it is not a structured or formal one. It is cliché that the talent management process must work toward developing the required skills and competencies and create a pipeline of potential women directors – but somehow there has been a failure to identify talent pool and prepare them for serving on boards. 

Can this be tackled, and if so how? Will not the government’s mandatory norm be counterproductive, in the sense that entry standards would have to be lowered? 

The nomination committee needs to take lead in answering these set of questions. It can do so by either spending money and advertising or seeking the services of executive search firms to systematically create a database from which to choose. A more structured and formal search process coupled with the government’s norm would certainly see more women representation on corporate boards without jeopardizing the entry standards. 

Wooing employees via Employer Branding

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

‘Times’ have changed; thanks to the demand and supply gap in terms of talent, organisations are investing millions in branding themselves as ‘employers of choice’…

Branding, as a concept as well as a technique to be on the top of mind recall, has primarily been associated with consumer products and services. However, given the dramatic changes in the workforce trends and immense competition in the labour market, organizations are applying the principles of branding to human resource management to create an emotional relationship between an employer and employee.

Employer brand, as it is referred to, is about capturing the essence of an organization in a way that engages current and prospective talent. An employer brand conveys the  ‘value  proposition’ ­ the totality of the  organization’s culture, systems, attitudes, and  employee relationship  along  with encouraging  people to embrace and  share  goals for success, productivity, and  satisfaction both on personal and professional levels. In essence, it is a differentiator that helps an organization differentiate itself from its peer by creating its branded factors as its USP (unique selling proposition) for employee satisfaction and happiness resulting in retention, productivity and efficiency.

Is employer branding therefore an indispensable strategy or a mere fad? Literature survey and reports in the media lends a belief that employer branding offers a fine blend of the science of marketing with the art of human relations management and is one of the strongest bulwark against the scourge of unbridled employee attrition.

The Building Blocks

         

What does it take to build an employer brand – one that is able to communicate and ingrain in minds of employees the most critical value proposition that their organization stands for and in effect help increase the likelihood of employees becoming brand ambassadors and advocates?

Invariably, Employee Value Proposition, EVP, is at the heart of developing and managing an employer branding. Employer Value Proposition speaks about the direct and indirect benefits of working with the brand. It also speaks about the core aspects of the association. EVP is influenced by the organization's values, culture, leadership, environment, and talent and reward programs. Once an organization’s EVP is formulated, it is then gradually integrated with the HR process to ensure delivery of the brand promise and consistent employee experience.

Like any other consumer brand that expresses inherent qualities and images, an employer brand too is representative of the corporate identity to its current and prospective employees, headhunters, and other stakeholders who get associated with the people side of the corporate. Hence it becomes all the more important to have a consistency between the internal and external aspects of employer brand. The internal factors are the culture, HR practices, and the overall employment experience that a current employee has. The external factors are what a prospective employee feels about the organization. Instances of inconsistency between the promises made to the external world with respect to what is happening internally can create conflict. The new joinees will expect what was promised through branding and the current employees on the other hand might feel cheated by the practices followed. Eventually, inconsistency in ensuring delivery of brand promise will leave both the current and future employees unhappy.

How can organizations ensure the delivery of brand promise as well as consistency of employee experience? Articles published in the media and other survey reports lend a perception that the key lies in communicating a set of unifying attributes that help employees in identifying with their employer. Organizations take concerted efforts to engrain them internally as well as externally. A few organisations have moved a step further; the EVP is incorporated in the internal and external communication, including the communication used in the context of lateral hiring and campus hiring. It enables them to attract the right profile of talent – who will be effective and highly engaged in their organization.

Organisations also use internal mapping and external brand image to chart out the important attributes that resonate with majority of employees to create its value proposition for its employees. There are others for whom the key constituents of employer brand are its set of core values – which includes open communication, generosity, and leading by example; and vision of the organization to build and sustain reputation. 

What do you communicate?

There is no doubts on an organization’s employer brand being a very important mode of communicating to the current and potential employees the position and value of a firm. The approach as to how an organization wants to ‘position’ itself is not a ‘one shoe fits all’ strategy. Depending on the industry, the life-cycle stage and the economic dynamics, the branding strategy can be different. For example, in the creative industry an employer brand typically aims to communicate the creative environment in the workplace and a fun place to work. A technology or a beverage brand has mass marketing campaigns. The employer brand in the professional services industry, however, targets professionals and not masses. The messaging in an employer brand in the professional services industry therefore is aligned to what professionals can relate to, such as the promise of developing technical expertise and longevity of careers.

Are you investing enough?

Though, the importance of building an incredible employer brand is beyond doubt, there is an investment that has to be made into developing and managing the brand. And thus the primary question: Are you investing enough?

Who is the ‘employer brand’ manager?

While there is no unanimity or even general consensus as to who should own the process of creation and execution of an organization’s employer branding campaign, it is a given fact that building a strong employer brand cannot be the sole responsibility of Human Resources or the Marketing department for that matter. As a matter of fact the entire philosophy of ‘employer brand’ has to be co-owned. The initiative must follow the top down approach, starting from the leadership at the helm and must include Human Resources, Marketing and Finance. In fact, everyone in the organization should be encouraged to take up the role of an ambassador of the brand.

How is the campaign propagated?

The success of any brand campaign, however brilliantly designed, to large extent depends on how well it is propagated, whether or not it has been able to reach its desired target audience. This becomes all the more critical when speaking from an organization’s ‘employer brand’ perspective; for the basic aim of the entire philosophy is to attract, retain and engage current and potential talent. There is no dearth of media vehicles to propagate its employer brand, however not all serves the purpose. Like a consumer product brand which has the leeway of resorting to ‘road blocking’; organizations use a similar concept when they reach out to campuses or job fairs or job sites – where they  can register their presence in the minds of the required target talent space.

In order to portray their organization as an employer of choice, organisations cite career website, word-of-mouth and social media as three top channels that their organizations invest in to promote their employer brand.

How do you measure effectiveness?

All organizations are different. There is no preset standard of measurements that suits every organization. But how does an organization measure the effectiveness of its employer brand campaign? From an organisation’s perspective it is important to measure the employer branding impact on individual productivity. For some a measure of a better employer brand would be the ratio of number of offers given to people to the number of people who finally joined. Examples of traditional metrics that have been used to measure ROI on employer branding activities include: cost per hire, engagement levels, time to fill, retention rates, turnover rates, absenteeism, headcount, time to productivity, total costs of labor to revenue, candidate satisfaction rates etc.

Conclusion

An effective employer brand in essence embodies all that the organization has to offer vis a vis what the employees expect from the organization.  Having an effective employer brand helps organizations attract, engage and retain talent. Studies show that having an employer brand significantly impacts savings by enhancing retention (reducing replacement hire costs) and engagement levels of new hires and existing employees. In an environment of economic uncertainty coupled with talent crunch, an effective ‘employer brand’ is perhaps a panacea to ride over the tide.

How to deal with erring star performers?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Star performers are the ones who surpass goals more often than not, are technically superior, are quick to grasp new organisational missions and have risen through the ranks by producing exemplary results.  However, a few of them have bad attitude, which if left unchecked can destroy the organisational culture and team. How do we handle such performers without losing them?

Yes, Gautam Gambhir and Virat Kohli besides being captains for their respective franchisee teams, Kolkata Knight Riders and Royal Challengers Bangalore, are undoubtedly star performers for their teams. While star performers prove to be an asset to the organisation, but like most superheroes, star performers too have a dark side and at times with their behaviour and attitude cause a problem. The 12 April, 2013 verbal duel that the two star cricketers engaged themselves in does raise a question or two about how to manage such star performers. The two players in question are highly talented and fiercely competitive; however the entire episode paints a picture that the two insisted on having their own way often contemptuous of others.

Cut the picture to an organisation, there are numerous examples of star performers who are arrogant, demand special treatment and absolutely no one wants to work with this individual. The failure to deal with such individuals or allowing them to have a free run, does have a negative impact on the cultural fabric of the organisation besides undermining the performance of the entire team in the long term.

Besides raising an ethical question, as such disruptive behaviour by star performers if left unchecked can run counter to the organisational values, the key question is - how should organisation deal with such star performers? Should the organisation retain the employee just on account of performance or should it take necessary measures to change the behaviour of such star performers? Those in the know argue that in both the cases, there is the probability of a backfire and the organisation can face the risk of losing their star performer. According to Peter Cappelli, Professor of Management at The Wharton School, the trade-off between talent and disruptive behavior depends on how important teamwork and morale are in the organization's culture.

Coming back to the above question, Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel Sousa Lobo – authors of the Harvard Business School study “Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the Formation of Social Networks” contend most employees would rather work with someone less competent because that person may be more pleasant, more open to other’s ideas and more willing to share their own. They may even be perceived as more trustworthy. What if the organisation decides to change the behaviour – how should the organisation go about? A few suggestions (not exhaustive to say the least):

Hold the star performer accountable for performance as well as behaviour: Not holding employees accountable for their behaviour just because they perform well makes the company’s values meaningless.

Adopt a team based performance recognition system: Sometimes star performers walk away with all the credit for a job done well without acknowledging the contribution of others in the team. The star performers need to be gently reminded of the benefits of sharing credit when it is due. This will improve their relations with others in the team and also gain them their respect and admiration.

Focus on interpersonal skills: The star performers should be made to realise that developing interpersonal skills holds the key to good leadership qualities, which is needed along with technical expertise to reach the top.

Regular feedback: Erring star performers should be given regular feedback on how their behaviour is affecting others by both their supervisor and other team members; this will help them to modify their conduct. Coaching and counseling activities can be resorted to. Besides the 360 degree approach it is equally important to have direct feedback sessions with star performers so they know the exact consequences of not changing their behavior.

On Rankings: Do we need a new Ranking?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

There is no dearth of players in the B –school ranking market, each claiming to be more authentic than the other; yet questions are often raised over the credibility of such rankings. Nevertheless year on year the list of ‘the most authentic ranking’ goes on increasing. Does a new set of ranking matter and if so what is it that makes it more credible & acceptable – a few questions…

Like it or loathe it, rankings are an integral part of business school world. Be it either the aspirants, or the influencer or the alumni – each one assesses the impact of the business school’s ranking in the global market. This is all the truer for the aspirants, for more often than not they rely on these rankings to shortlist their target schools.  Perhaps this must have been the guiding philosophy as to why, globally and in India too, a host of business newspapers and magazines started to rank MBA programs and the business schools that offered them. Ever since, media organisations have started ranking business schools using varying methodologies, looking at criteria including how schools select their students and how eager employees are to hire their graduates, student/faculty ratio, graduate and alumni salaries, number of full-time professors, tuition fees, notable alumni, infrastructure, library holdings, student satisfaction, and so on. However, there is considerable debate about the legitimacy of rating systems, specifically the various methodologies used to rank the programs. The critical question is: which ranking is the best and which one is the most accurate?

It is beyond doubt that glaring differences in rankings of B-schools, probably because of the varying weight-age assigned to various parameters, does raise questions pertaining to authenticity and reliability. Nonetheless, identifying a good B- school matters a lot in the long run and it is here that rankings at least have the merit of providing potential applicants with certain data that would otherwise be unavailable. In essence, rankings (though subjective and debatable) help candidates to sift through the huge amount of information available and the sheer number of institutions offering MBAs and select the few programs they wish to find out more about.

A few questions

Unfailingly and on an annual basis, a number of media organisations come up with their version of best B-schools; as such there is no dearth of B-school rankings. Thus the important question is: should there be yet another B-School ranking when there are already a multiplicity of these rankings studies out there? Is there really a need to add to the existing clutter of the profusion of B-School rankings out there in the marketplace? Will a new version of who is best and who is second best mean anything to anybody (read the influencers and potential applicants)? Add to this reports such as "B-schools and Engineering colleges shut down - Big Business Struggles," by The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) which states that more than 180 B-schools have already closed down in 2012 in the major cities  and another 160 are struggling for their survivals.  So will this new set of ranking help view B-school rankings in perspective and look beyond the stereotypical rankings; will it be elegant in its simplicity and profound in its methodology?

In essence the questions that seek immediate answer are - why do we need a new B-school ranking and more so how the new set of rankings will be an invaluable guide to each and every MBA aspirant in the country. What is it that will be its key differentiator?

Why the difference?

The inconsistencies in ranking and the movement of B-schools year-on-year on a particular league raise questions about the methodology and the lack of validation therein. The methodology of a few of the rankings is well-constructed, it takes into account parameters such as infrastructure, international exposure, quality of faculty, research, diversity, pedagogy, alumni, etc.; but it is either because of supply of sketchy data that questions the credibility of such rankings. Also more often than not, over reliance on reported data (i.e. lack of validation) is a cause of discrepancies.

How do you differentiate?

MBA rankings are hugely influential for graduates when ascertaining the degree of respect that employers hold for their business school, and subsequently their MBA degree. Consequently, a lot of MBA aspirants browse through rankings with a great deal of interest.  It is well known that methodology of each ranking is subjective in its choice of criteria, and that the difference between a school ranked 25th or 30th is probably not that great. An interesting question is how does a hiring manager choose a B-school – is ranking the most influential factor when identifying the school? What are the parameters that it chooses to base its decision on? Is it the student profile or the academic excellence of the institute that organisations consider more? 

Can money buy you motivation?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Research shows that pay ceases to matter if the employee has all the basic necessities of life...

For most of us, money is a fundamental reason to work because it is measureable and tangible. Hence, it becomes a motivator by default though it may not be the primary one for many employees. But, would we continue to do what we were doing if we were not compensated for our efforts? It is at this point that questions like ‘does money really affect motivation?’ crops in. Thanks to the complexity of human behaviour, there is no definitive answer to this question.

Daniel Pink in his book, ‘Drive – The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us,’ convincingly argues that money does not motivate people who work for us. Generally, people are more motivated to work harder when they have the ability to work on their own terms, he said in his book. This is not to suggest that money doesn’t motivate; in fact, to underplay the importance of money and benefits as motivation for workers would be a mistake.

The author states in his book that employees expect to be paid fairly, but over-paying employers do little to motivate them to work harder towards achieving company goals. In a similar vein, Entrepreneur quotes Ian Larkin, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, as saying, “Money is highly motivational for people… But saying money is the only thing we should use is also silly.” 

Be it the Expectancy Theory or researches conducted by psychologists like Daniel Kahneman, each one point out that money motivates only to an extent. According to the Expectancy Theory, money will motivate employees as long as their personal goals are being satisfied and the perception that their pay is dependent upon their performance. Kahneman said money does not increase people’s happiness after they have got all the basic necessities of life.

Timothy A Judge, an organisational scientist and his colleagues in their 2010 meta-analysis, “The relationship between pay and job satisfaction” published in the Journal of Vocational Behaviour, gave the most compelling answer to this vexed issue. The results indicate that the association between salary and job satisfaction is very weak. The reported correlation (r=.14) indicates that there is less than 2 per cent overlap between pay and job satisfaction levels. Furthermore, the correlation between pay and pay satisfaction was only marginally higher (r=.22 or 4.8 per cent overlap), indicating that people’s satisfaction with their salary is mostly independent of their actual salary. The findings are in sync with Gallup's engagement research (October 2011), which reports that there is no significant difference in employee engagement by pay level.

So does money demotivate? It’s a tough question and there is no consensus about the degree to which higher pay may demotivate. A few studies throw some light on this aspect. Edward L Deci, Professor of Psychology - University of Rochester, and others in their seminal work, ‘A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation’ conclude that tangible rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation and even when tangible rewards are offered as indicators of good performance, they typically decrease intrinsic motivation for interesting activities. Similar studies conducted by Yoon Jik Cho, Assistant Professor – University of Georgia and James Perry – Distinguished Professor- Indiana University, Bloomington, conclude that employees who are intrinsically motivated are three times more engaged than employees who are extrinsically motivated (such as by money).

The meaning of money (and hence it being regarded as a motivator or demotivator) is largely subjective and our relationship to money is highly idiosyncratic. If companies want to motivate their workforce, they need to understand what their employees really value — and the answer is bound differ for each individual. Motivating employees solely based on money will indeed turn out to be a herculean task.

Mandatory CSR spending - a blessing or a burden

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

It’s a Rs. 120 billion question - Does it make sense to thrust upon CSR spending on India Inc., or should they be allowed to take a voluntary call on it…

In the new Companies Bill that was passed in the Lok Sabha towards the fag end of the winter session, it is precisely the Clause 470 of the Bill that aroused interest and skepticism in equal measures. As per the clause it has been made mandatory for corporates that make an average profit of at least Rs. 5 crore or have a worth exceeding Rs. 500 crore, or their turnover exceeds Rs. 1,000 crore in the last three years to spend 2 % of the net profit on CSR. It is herein that the debate on conscience versus action, heart versus mind and numbers versus results sets in. What is the worth of CSR kitty that the government decided to make it mandatory? A report by SMC Global Securities Limited states that in the last financial year the combined net profit of listed companies in India was to the tune of Rs. 4, 37,167 crores, at 2% the CSR kitty amounts to Rs. 8,700 crores.  The March issue of Forbes India categorically states that the government expects Rs 63 billion to flow in from India’s top 500 listed companies, going by the government’s 2% norm. If this list is further expanded to the top 1,000 corporations, add MNCs, co-operative banks and SMEs, and then we are talking about at least Rs 120 billion. Undoubtedly such a large sum generated year on year has the potential to alleviate many social as well as environmental issues ailing the nation.

While there may be an overlap between philanthropy and CSR, Indian corporate led by Tatas and Birlas have been voluntarily investing in CSR. Hence, the provision to make CSR spending mandatory is more of an intrusion and it is apparent that by doing so the government is trying to abdicate itself of its social responsibilities. Will not the mandatory provision disrupt the business plans of a many companies? Going by an ETIG research, India Inc will have to scramble to meet the target as only two companies in the Nifty - Ambuja Cement and ITC - currently spend 2% of net profit towards CSR. While not all Tata group companies have disclosed their expenditure on CSR, Tata Steel's sustainability report mentions that the Tata group companies spend 4% of their net profit towards CSR. In fact, the new imposition takes out the sanctity of CSR making it more of a forced exercise and more so a new form of tax on profits.

Does it not make sense that corporations take up social responsibilities on a voluntary basis rather than making it mandatory? Those in support of the move argue that by mandating CSR in the Companies Bill, the government has created a process whereby companies are forced to spend on social returns along with financial returns and they are forced to report on such spends. Such a mandatory provision, however noble its intentions may be, could lead to irregularities in revenue accounts and perhaps more corruption. The other point worth considering is will not the mandatory clause give government officials a strong tool to harass companies. Jagannadham Thunuguntla, Strategist & Head of Research, SMC Global Securities Limited, says “While the objective behind CSR is noble, but proper system and procedures need to be implemented for effective usage of such massive amount. Else, there is always a risk of misuse of noble intentions.”

Is there a way out? There are a few who argue that if the government wants, it can increase the rate of corporate tax to 32 percent from the current 30 percent rather than making it mandatory for companies to spend 2% on CSR. According to media reports, a number of companies are lobbying for tax breaks on CSR investment.

While reporting CSR spends in their annual reports and making it public is a measure of good corporate governance, enforcing spending on CSR would perhaps not motivate companies to become more socially responsible. In essence CSR should be done with passion and dedication, and not because it is thrust upon. 

How to make a good impression in the exit Interview?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Don’t use the time and space to retaliate or get emotional, rather consider exit interviews as an opportunity to make one last good impression...

It’s that time of the year, when a number of organisations see a lot of old ones’ giving way to the new faces. No matter how wonderful an organisation is, it is but inevitable that at one point or another, an employee will quit or will be asked to do so. While this can be unfortunate - or fabulous, depending on the person and the circumstances; the turn of events that follow the decision can be a learning experience for both. The secret lies in exit interview. On the one hand it gives the organisation an inexpensive and valuable opportunity to collect data, devise policies to improve employee retention and nurture a culture that values employees input; on the other had it teaches the employee a few lessons on how to make a smooth exit. A few suggestions for the rookie’s as to how to go about the exit interview:

Don’t burn bridges

The most important rule of all, ‘Don’t burn your bridges!” Irrespective of the situation at your job, it is best advised to take the high road and leave things on a positive note. Do not use exit interview as a platform to retaliate or get overly emotional. As far as possible make your comments constructive and ensure that you include the positive parts of your time in the organisation. You just never know what the future holds in store and honestly you may need a reference from this former employer.

Be honest, give constructive feedback

If you are asked for a feedback, don’t hesitate. “Being truly honest will hurt and offend,” says a good friend, who has had his own share of experience. However, it is important to know that recommendations (constructive feedback / possible solutions) and not rants are appreciated. While sharing meaningful dialogue with the former employer is good, keep the conversation short and sweet and that will indeed help you avoid revealing too much and digging yourself a hole.  This will help set a positive tone and prevent you from leaving people with an unfavourable impression of you that could tarnish your professional reputation.

Post a positive outlook

Treat, exit interview as an opportunity to make one last good impression. Show that you are positive about the future but at the same time communicate in clear terms that you harbor no negative feelings toward the organisation.  Emphasize more on what lies ahead and use that as the fulcrum to stress the reason as to why you are quitting (if this is the case). This serves a dual purpose, it saves you from having to say anything at all about the job you're quitting, and it helps you stay honest, too.

Ensure that you make a smooth exit, and once you do so, the negativity (if you harboured any) will fade into the distance. It is only then that you can put all of the positive energy where it belongs - into your new job. 

REVISITING MILE SUR MERA TUMHARA

It would be a real challenge to come across an Indian who has not resonated with India's unofficial anthem, 'Mile Sur Mera Tumhara, To Sur Bane Hamara ' that was first promoted on Doordarshan in 1988. 22 years later, the same iconic song that had the entire nation humming to its tunes was revived as ‘Phir Mile Sur…The Song of India.’ Both of them focuses on reconstructing the cultural fabric (in an environment dominated by chauvinism and parochialism) and sends across a positive message of patriotism and unified India.

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Circa August 15, 1988; for the first time ‘Mile Sur Mera Tumhara…” was aired on the then only available channel, viz Doordarshan; and since then for the last two decades the audio visuals of Bharat Ratna Pandit Bhimsen Joshi (reciting ‘Mile Sur Mera Tumhara) and Dr. M Balamuralikrishna at Kovalam beach, Chennai (erstwhile Madras, reciting ‘Isaindhal namm iruvarin suramum namadhakum…) has never failed to mesmerise the listeners. Without an iota of doubt, the song captivated and enthralled the entire generation by showcasing the diversity of India and established the message of unity. It goes beyond saying that the second song of “The Trilogy” (consisting of Freedom Torch- The Spirit of Freedom, Mile Sur and Raag Desh) became the unofficial national anthem of India. Cut the picture to 26 January 2010; the simple eight line stanza (translated into 16 languages) was once again aired in almost all the available channels, albeit in a slightly different format. For once, those who could vividly recall the opening lines sung by Pandit Bhimsen Joshi and M Balamuralikrishna must have been surprised. Surely the legends were missing; but nonetheless the present rendition by none other than Amrita Surendranath and Kailash Surendranath (who had earlier worked along with the legendry Suresh Mullick of O&M Advertising) too deals with the concept of national integration. ‘Phir Mile Sur’ has in it the freshness  that reflects the enthusiasm of modern India, a tune and lyrics that every Indian today can relate to and which would further ignite the passion for India and its diversity. Like its predecessor which used a combination of music and images to instill in feeling of pride in Indians from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, Phir Mile Sur too speaks a common and universal language - that of love for the motherland and its people.

Bhairavi, the raga that is common to both Hindustani and Carnatic classical music, is apparently the common theme in both the versions. While there are many who believe that the original ever beautiful song ‘Mile Sur Mera Tumhara’ replete with the spirit of unity in diversity version was better but nonetheless it is a sheer delight to see the Sarod maestro Ustad Amjad Ali Khan and his two sons Amaan and Ayaan Ali Bangash play the same raga (in the backdrop of the Charminar) spreading the same message of love and harmony. Times have changed, it is true (howsoever sour it may sound) that the generation of today may not be able to recognise the maestros of 80’s and early 90’s; and this perhaps necessitated the idea to reinvent the best patriotic ad till date. In other words the current version is but a rediscovery for today’s younger demographic against the backdrop of the events which have rocked and shocked the nation (26/11 et al). Set amidst the backdrop of the hotel Taj (the centre of 26/11 episode), Big B’s baritone voice serves the purpose well. Commenting on the initiative, Kailash Surendranath, the brain behind Phir Mile Sur, said, “It has been an incredible journey creating ‘Mile Sur Mera Tumhara’ which was a mosaic of so many different personalities from various walks of life and regions in India. Today, we feel the same emotions gushing, after a span of two decades. So many things have changed in India - growth, prosperity, the economic scenario, however, as citizens of this wonderfully diverse country, our feelings for India have only grown stronger and we hope that Phir Mile Sur will further strengthen this bond. ”

The locations, the people, the costumes et al have been successful in reliving the nostalgia. Consider Ustad Zakir Hussain; Pandit Shiv Kumar Sharma and Rahul Sharma playing the santoor (in the backdrop of Qutab Minar), Anoushka Shankar, the ever improving Siva Mani drumming away on water – leaves one and all mesmerized . However, there have been few changes here and there (for matter – the lyrics) which have not gone down well with admirers of the 1988 version. “There is no new patch in terms of contents and execution. If they really wanted to create that nostalgia then they should have kept the lyrics intact and shot it with kids as they represent the future of the nation,” says an ad veteran. The veteran is not alone; a Brand Guru and Director of an ad agency shared similar concern. He said, “The ‘Indian’ feel which binds billions of people through a smartly executed “Mile Sur Mera Tumhara" campaign around two decades back is completely missing in the present “avatar” Phir Mile Sur.” It is indeed true that the present version is heavy on the Bollywood front with 22 of India’s biggest superstars (out of 68 of India’s icons who have lent their support to this initiative) and lacks the participation of stalwarts from the filed of business, science & technology et al. A quick realization that India today is no longer juts about Bollywood and sports, it has got a whole new dimension to it. It does make sense that the new team should have used a new metaphor to represent India. One who has seen the new version would agree that the length of the commercial is bit too long and fails to captivate the viewers.

Once again, one is bound to question whether or not the present version evokes the same nostalgia. Let’s not mince words: To some extent the nostalgia related to 'Mile Sur Mera Tumhara is evoked… it gives an opportunity to revive the old memories through Phir Mile Sur. The lyrics, according to a few, are the positive linkage in the current version. Despite few shortcomings what is worth acknowledging is the fact that each artist speaks of a cause. Phir Mile Sur captures the true spirit of contemporary India and will hopefully also resonate with new generations. The present version, in a way reflects the enthusiasm of modern India, a tune and lyrics that every Indian today can relate to and which would further ignite the passion for India and its diversity... “Mile sur mera tumhara to sur bane hamara…” and this is the essence of both the versions in letter and spirit.