Is Air India the comeback kid?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Statistics show that Air India is re-gaining its market share; is it a temporary phase? If not, can Air India survive the competition and regain its lost glory and position? 

If numbers are to be relied upon, then data for the last six months show consistent increase in Air India’s market share. As a matter of fact, it has inched past other airlines to take number two position in the domestic market over the last two months. It has risen from 16.2 percent in May 2012 to 20.8 percent in October 2012. For June, July, August and September 2012, the market share of Air India was 16.8 percent, 18.2 per cent, 18.2 percent and 19.3 percent, respectively. Can the increase in market share be attributed to ‘the bad times’ for ‘the king of good times’ or is the ‘Maharaja’ improving its management-employee relations, rebuilding its customer base and all the more relearning lessons about quality services? Air India, for some reason or the other has been mired in negative publicity. Be it lack of professional leadership and good management practices; the inability of the national carrier to function on sound, independent, commercial lines (thanks to the high handedness of government and political leadership); or the employees holding the airline and its passengers to ransom through strikes and protests – may lead one to believe that this gain is a temporary phase, primarily due to the crisis at Kingfisher Airlines. While the reason cannot be out rightly rejected, yet there are ample reasons to believe that Air India is gradually doing things right and the gain in market share is rightfully theirs. This raises the more important question: Is Air India the comeback kid and can it survive the competition and move to the top slot?

When in May 2012, the IPG (Indian Pilots Guild) took the airlines to ransom, analysts and commentators were worried as to whether Air India could really come out of the mess and rebuild its image and brand loyalty? On their part they reasoned that an emphasis on management – employee relations, customer relations, and quality of service to passengers could help Air India get back traffic and generate the revenue to recoup the airline. On a rational ground, the suggestions were perhaps too good to be ignored. For irrespective of the amount of money the Centre pumped into Air India, nothing could probably succeed without good management – employee relations. A give and take approach, where protesting employees gave up their agitation and the management paid their salaries and dues, was adopted. It constituted a committee to ensure the implementation of the Dharmadhikari Report. A cash surplus of Rs. 48 crore during April-July, and the government’s infusion Rs. 2,900 crore to the airline (under the Rs. 4,000-crore budgetary allocation for 2012-13) gave ample elbow room to make up-to-date payment of PLI (productivity linked incentives) and clear payment of salaries of all its employees before Diwali. As a result of these measures there was a perceptible increase in Air India’s traffic.

It is argued that aggressive fare schemes and an improved on-time performance are perhaps the two biggest reasons why Air India is seeing an increase in its market share. This implies that it is gradually getting its customer relations and service quality on track. Increase in load factor implies that there have been fewer cancellations and rescheduling of flights (as a matter of fact, ordinary passengers and India Inc. had lost faith in the airline on account of the strikes, the cancellations, and the rescheduling of flights). As for the quality of service Air India is learning from its rivals. It is now trying to modernize services to improve the entire experience of flying with it. The airline has roped in the National Institute of Fashion Technology to design crew dresses. Soon flyers when flying in the new Dreamliner (Boeing 787) to any international destination can order from a variety of international cuisines.

The role of independent directors (usually well-known industrialists) at Air India has been put to question more often than not. Perhaps they could not see eye to eye with anything that the management proposed. For a change, the management has decided to invite professionals to take up the role of independent directors. In a bid to do away with petty politics and focus on the turnaround, it is expected that their expertise and professionalism would give the corporate restructuring process a leg up. Perhaps, this is put to rest the question of lack of professional leadership at the helm.

In a dynamic aviation market, it may be too early to term Air India as a comeback kid but nevertheless the approach seems to be on the right track and will certainly help rebuild its image and brand loyalty. If these can be taken care of being ‘numerous uno’ is a mere number game.

The Sena's Test

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Politics and the dark side of charisma aside, there are a few lessons that one can learn from the legacy of Balasaheb Thackeray...

“…For men may come and men may go, but I go on for ever…” reads Lord Alfred Tennyson’s poem ‘The Brook’. Perhaps other than ‘time and the brook’, a living entity can’t claim immortality, and more so a political entity. Yet, there are exceptions. Given that a number of political parties and leaders have come, dazzled the political firmament and then disappeared into oblivion; creating a political outfit, shaping it and remaining its undisputed  and revered leader for over four and half decades is an exception of sorts. Bal Keshav Thackeray (known more as Balasaheb Thackeray or Sena Supremo) stormed into the political landscape in 1966 when the opposition political space in Mumbai (then Bombay) was gradually becoming a stronghold of Left-leaning trade unions. Keeping aside the debate as to whether the ruling Congress used him as a ploy to corner the Left or not, what is worth knowing is how his political philosophy based on identity-politics changed the prevailing political discourse. What was the unique leadership trait of the political cartoonist that generated such a followership; was it his charisma; or was it the political vacuum; or was it Balasaheb’s ability to articulate, and that too aggressively, widely shared anxieties?

A leader first must be accepted as one, and in a country which generally believes in idolizing a leader, creating a space for one is not easy. You need to strike a chord, pinch where it hurts the most and espouse and address issues which affect the general masses. You need to have a set of trusted lieutenants who can carry forward the legacy with the same zeal and zest.

Perhaps, Balasaheb realized it early on. To begin with, he wanted to fight for the identity and rights of the sons of the Marathi soil, not fight elections. He did not go beyond the demand for jobs for Marathi youth. This struck the right chord with unemployed youth. His aggressive diatribes at leaders made him seem like a person with steely determination, unwavering in the pursuit of his goals and far from being emotive in public. He did not only do plain speaking; at local levels there was a genuine ability to translate bragging into action – in effect this was the major reason for the outfits’ early success.  He provided a collective identity and pride to the people who were feeling marginalized in the globalizing city of Bombay.  If a leader can stand up and raise a voice for a cause that will benefit masses, followership is not far away. He had a band of leaders, cutting across the social strata – be it Manohar Joshi, Narayan Rane or Chhagan Bhujbal, all grass root leaders who had unfailing belief in the brand of politics they were associated with and the vision of the leader.  It was only when Balasaheb did not approve of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission that leaders like Bhujbal dissociated themselves. In the management context, the question arises – should organizational philosophy be rigid, should there be no rooms for flexibility, if yes then what should be done to accommodate the aspirations of your trusted lieutenants? 

To remain politically relevant, he took up issues one at a time, connected with people and expanded his political base. He began with a tirade against communists and migrants.  The first target were the Gujaratis, followed by South Indian migrants and then labour from UP and Bihar. He simultaneously embraced the ‘Hindutva’ agenda to appeal to a larger electorate.  Old age, frail health and the limitations of identity politics did get the better of the Sena Supremo (after early electoral success in 1995); however what is noteworthy is the enormous support and power that he wielded in Maharashtra. Since his early days in politics he had mastered the art of developing a symbiotic relationship with his political opponents in the corridors of the Mantralaya. He was suave in using the ‘powers that be’ politically, openly or clandestinely. Perhaps these and many more such attributes made him the mass leader that he was.  

The man on whose charisma the Sena was born and reached its pinnacle is no more. And this raises the most relevant question on the future of Shiv Sena, the outfit. Will it crumble or will it re-invent itself? Like majority of contemporary political parties, the outfit too is a family fiefdom; the quitting of Rane (2005) and Raj Thackeray, Balasaheb’s nephew (2006) raised the question on succession planning. All the while Balasaheb scoffed at dynastic politics but when the moment of truth arrived he too gave in to the lure of family succession and handed over the baton to his son, Uddhav. Though the party has managed to remain afloat, thanks to the charisma of Balasaheb and the Sainiks’ implicit support of his vision, political commentators argue that the future of the party is bound to be tumultuous. It was the loyalty to Balasaheb that held the party members together and is seen to be a major roadblock in the party’s future success. Leaders can take a leaf out of this entire episode – build an organizational brand; the organizational culture must be such that potential talent flock to the company not because of an individual leader associated with the organization.

The way the succession was handled has some lessons in succession planning. Should the next in command be the kith and kin of the incumbent leader? How do you decide who is the best suited? What about the aspirations of the others? The rank and file of Sena leaders saw Raj as the natural successor, for it was Raj who measured up to senior Thackeray in charisma. As is evident, post the split, Raj has struck an emotional chord with the people and has used identity-based political ideology in the same way as his late uncle. Leadership abilities, the ability to come up with a strategic plan, organizational and people management skills are but a few attributes that should be looked into when deciding on potential successors. Many in the know say that Uddhav does not fit into the mental construct of a leader; on the other hand Raj epitomizes his late uncle and many are comfortable with his leadership traits. 

Identity based politics is losing steam and it is time for Shiv Sena to rethink and opt for a new political philosophy; perhaps one which is more inclusive and development oriented. In the same vein, leaders in general should not carry on for long with strategies that follow the law of diminishing returns – they must at some point of time opt for disruptive innovation. Just like political parties must come up with new political planks, organizations too must show and come up with ‘thought leadership’ which will not only propel the organization / sector on a fast track growth trajectory but will also contribute to society at large – what Prof Robert S Kaplan and Michael Porter term as ‘creating shared value’. The new (political) leader at helm should have a national agenda, have concrete plans to transcend the regional boundaries and make an imprint on national politics.

Though, Balasaheb’s column in Marmik (a political weekly), ‘Vacha Ani Thand Basa’ (read and keep quiet), became a hit; realizing that the only constant is ‘change’ he changed the title to Vacha Ani Utha (read and rise). It is time for the ‘Tiger Scions’ to change the stripes and survive…Lessons for leaders across the spectrum – you too need to accept and embrace ‘change’ 

Superstition@Workplace

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

A survey finds that Indian corporate workforce still finds sanctity in their superstitious beliefs to herald success.

‘Superstition is merely the confusion of correlation and causality,’ argues Marshall Goldsmith in his book, ‘What Got You Here Won’t Get You There’. Be it sportsperson, professionals, ordinary folks or workplaces across the globe, they use superstition- though irrational and nonsensical, to make connections and create explanations. Cut the picture to a stock exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange, BSE, offers a few tidbits. In January 2008, when the Sensex plummeted from the highs of 20,000 mark to the levels of 8,000, many edgy brokers and traders at Dalal Street became impulsive and blamed a five-foot-tall shiny bronze bull statue, usually a symbol of optimism and strength, just outside Gate 2 for the onslaught of ‘bears’. They were convinced that it was the position or the direction of the bull’s raging glance that was inauspicious. Attaching high priority to these unwarranted beliefs Vaastu experts were called in, who suggested a change in the bull's direction (South West, facing northwards to be precise - any other position would invite trouble). Those who blended superstition with money-making seemed to suggest, “Get the bull to look at us and all will be well." This wasn’t the first time though; such beliefs (superstitions) were forced upon to explain earlier corrections too viz.: the free fall of Sensex in mid-80’s was reasoned as the pain of a tree which was cut for BSE’s expansion; the 1992 Harshad Mehta scam was linked to the opening of the eastern gate; the same gate which opened once again in 2001 to welcome Bill Clinton was reasoned to be the cause behind the famous post-dotcom market fall.

But is it that such (superstitious) behaviors are only to be seen amongst traders and brokers? Perhaps the answer would be in the negative. We have ample examples of our very own politicians hopping from one temple to another in response to each political crisis or tests. Leave the political class; there is no dearth of office going colleagues who have their favorite Ganesha or a Feng Shui plant or Sai Baba or Laughing Buddha on their office desk.  November 2012, report “Superstition and Personal beliefs at workplace” by TeamLease Services reveals that overall faith in personal belief or superstition is quite high (62 percent) among employees in India and more than half of respondents (51 percent) follow superstition at their work place. Add to this that for as much as 81 percent of employees there is a high willingness to follow superstition/ beliefs at work place (there is an equally high belief system seen across the senior management too) – this is an eye-opener. Further, the level of believability on superstition practices is found to be higher in Bangalore and Delhi as compared to other cities. This lends a feeling that Indian cities despite being modern workplaces are traditional at heart.

 The report states that while Vaastu Shastra and Feng Shui are the most common practices followed at the workplace, the personal favorites are lucky charms like stones, color specific items etc. It further states that managements in India are generally adaptive to employees’ superstitious beliefs and don’t restrict them from practicing them at work, as long as it doesn’t negatively affect productivity. In fact, a majority of senior management officials believe that superstitious practices are more prevalent at the top of the order. Does such kind of belief system have an impact on the corporate culture? A majority of senior managers believe that though practices like Feng Shui, Vaastu Shastra, lucky charms, arrangement of idols and stickers of gods at workstations, laughing Buddha and money plant are common at workplaces, they don’t have any significant influence on people and the corporate culture.

The result of experiments conducted by social psychologist Lysann Damisch et al., on effectiveness of ‘good luck beliefs’ (i.e. superstitious behaviors like crossing fingers, using lucky charms etc) suggests that superstitions improve performance. According to Matthew Hutson, author of ‘The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking: How Irrational Beliefs Keep Us Happy, Healthy, and Sane’ when people feel lucky or follow a superstition, it gives them enough confidence and optimism to boosts their performance. The latest TeamLease study, in the Indian context, goes to say that more than 48 percent of the respondents felt that practicing superstition at workplace has had a positive effect and modern organizations impose fewer restrictions on such practices.

But how does superstition kick in? Goldsmith explains in his book, ‘What Got You Here Won’t Get You There’, that it is based on the assumption that, "I behave this way, and I achieve results. Therefore, I must be achieving results because I behave this way. This belief is sometimes true but not across the board. That's where superstition kicks in.”  Nevertheless, practice whatever you may, but ultimately the work and outcome are subject to an individual’s skills, knowledge and its application.

Yes Minister!

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

The recent cabinet reshuffle was touted as one infusing young blood. In this context, will the new leadership at HRD ministry bring about a new policy direction?

There are 20 bills pending (11 on higher education and 9 on school education) for passage in the parliament including the crucial National Accreditation Regulatory Authority Bill, Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, Prevention of Malpractices Bill and Education Tribunal Bill. However, the HRD ministry – the custodian of the country’s education system, has rarely been in news for either failing to muster the necessary political support to push forward the bills or how it intends to end the logjam. Two instances where the ministry did make some buzz in the media and the intelligentsia were entirely for the wrong reason – the cartoon controversy (a 1949 cartoon depicting Pandit Nehru and Dr B R Ambedkar by Shankar) when the then minister Kepi Sibbal apologized in the parliament, and second being the reshuffle in the ministry which was more or less sabotaged by Modi-Tharoor-Naqvi-Raju comments. The reshuffle was much needed, for Sibbal donning two hats (Telecom and HRD) was too burdened with the scam ridden Telecom ministry and was bent on defending his ‘zero loss’ argument, had little time to spare or prioritize for India’s education ills. There is immense optimism that the new leadership in the ministry would push for reforms and expedite work on long frozen bills.

There are reasons that the new team would make sincere efforts in seeing to it that a few of the pending bills are passed before the 2014 general elections. People in the political circle reason that as an anti-thesis to Sibbal’s aggressive ways of working, M M Raju’s (the new HRD minister) conciliatory demeanor would come in handy in persuading, creating consensus and convincing parliamentarians across the political spectrum. Former UN Diplomat Shashi Tharoor, who is back in the cabinet, along with Jitin Prasad, is expected to infuse fresh ideas in the ministry. While it is true that education portfolio is a new turf for the trio, it seems that they are well aware of the problem at hand, are ready to take on the challenges and make a mark before the general elections.

As the new team works towards putting the reform agenda back on track, it will be interesting to see whether they will bring about new policy direction in a short span of 15 months or so, or will they continue to focus on policies laid down before the reshuffle. If the latter is true, it will be a big disappointment, especially given the credentials of the three ministers at the helm of HRD ministry. M M Raju, in a press briefing outlined that he would continue and consolidate the good works done by his predecessor in the ministry. Thus it will become all the more interesting to see as to how they will make a case for allowing foreign universities set up shop in India. Will the muster the courage to make way for greater investment in education to improve quality (at present the government spending on education is a mere 1.2% of the GDP)? Can the team led by Raju, Tharoor (both with global experience) and Prasad play a critical role in transforming the research environment in the country? Will they expedite the recommendations of committees headed by Narayan Murthy and Kakodar? And more importantly, can they bring RTE (the flagship legislation of UPA II that has woefully fallen short of its promise to ensure free and compulsory education to all children up to 14 years of age) back on track?

In their interactions with the media, the team has outlined their intent to make a mark. While time is a constraint, the greater impediment to the reform agenda could be the lack of political will by the leadership and a greater focus on myopic gains based on electoral politics.

Be careful! Lest you post and are damned

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Your fascination to be connected on social media and your penchant for posts, share, tweets and retweets could land you in problem. Be careful! lest you post and are damned... 

In a nation of a billion-plus population, faced with myriad challenges ranging from mass poverty, developmental issues to corruption, few of us would have ever known about people such as Ambikesh Mohapatra, Aseem Trivedi, Ravi Srinivasan, Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan or for that matter Henna Bakshi. Thanks to our nation’s somewhat schizophrenic relationship with freedom of speech and the arbitrariness of the amended Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act; the reach of social and mainstream media has given them minutes/hours/days of (in)fame. While Ravi’s followers on Twitter increased manifold, Aseem landed in Big Boss’s house and Prof Mohapatra in jail. At one point it seemed that the entire debate on revoking (or may be even restricting the scope) the so called ‘draconian’ law was put on the back burner, yet the arrest of Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan for ‘posting’ and ‘liking’ (respectively) a question on the appropriateness of a bandh in view of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray’s death, has once again put the debate back on track. Given the series of arrests, invoking Section 66A of the IT Act, it is apparent that the government and its machinery have more often than not used Section 66A of the IT Act to enforce suppression of dissenting voices. For a change (and for the wrong reasons) the action of police in each of the case has been swift and harsh. This brings us back to the discussion – what does the Act state and what makes the legal hawks and civil societies challenge the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act?

The Section states that any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character could be punished with imprisonment for a maximum term of three years, besides imposing appropriate fine.

For a layman, the wordings of the Act mat not suggest that the Act is against the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution.  Consider the tweet, “got reports that karthick chidambaram has amassed more wealth than vadra” [Karthick Chidambaram is the son of Union finance minister P Chidambaram and Vadra refers to Sonia Gandhi’s son in-law Robert Vadra] and the repercussion Ravi had to face thereafter. In the early hours, 5 am, on October 30 he was woken up and pulled out of his house and told that he was under arrest because of his tweets. Similar was the case with Prof Mahapatra who shared a satirical cartoon criticizing Mamta Banerjee, the CM of West Bengal. The recent post by Shaheen and ‘like’ by Renu and their arrest on flimsy grounds expose the potential for mischief embedded in the law.

 In all sanity, neither of the tweets, posts or the cartoon was ‘grossly offensive’ or had a ‘menacing character’ to invoke the Act and subsequent imprisonment.  This is why lawyers and civil society members feel that there is an incongruity as far as the section of the Act is concerned. They argue that the phrases such as ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘menacing character’ – both of which are subjective, need to be well defined, which is presently not the case. It is perhaps this vagueness that allows the police (and politicians with authoritative backing) to use the law as per their whims and fancies and suppress dissenting voices.  A general argument put forward is that as long as the section remains so loosely worded and sweeping, it will continue to remain a draconian weapon of oppression of anyone viewed as a dissident by the ‘powers that be’. Cyber law experts such as Pavan Duggal believe that Section 66A has the potential of becoming a dangerous tool that can be used to gag legitimate free speech online.

But is the right to free speech an absolute right? The answer is a big NO. As per the first amendment to the Indian Constitution (May 10, 1951), “reasonable restrictions” was placed on the right to free speech. However players across the political spectrum have often abused the opacity that surrounds the expression “reasonable restrictions”. And this was exactly what junior Chidambaram cited in his defence. He had tweeted, “Free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. I have a right to seek constitutional/legal remedies over defamatory/scurrilous tweets.”

Interestingly, the expression “reasonable restrictions” become wholly unreasonable if we were to see politicians hurling abuse at one another, parliamentary or otherwise, in parliament (assembly) or outside.  It is no wonder that Section 66A of the IT Act has never been used against the political class. This raises a question as to whether there are two distinct standards of freedom of expression – one for the privileged political elite, and the other for the common citizen aka aam aadmi.  

Are there exceptions where to the 2008 amended Section 66A of the IT Act (it was passed without any discussion in the Lok Sabha) has been used for good –protect citizens against online harassment. We do, thanks to the celebrity status of the complainant.  It was when Chinmayi Sripada, a Tamil Singer and entrepreneur, filed a police case about a series of vulgar comments aimed at her on Twitter that the Chennai Police registered a case under Section 66A of the IT Act and others including the Prevention of Women Harassment Act and used the law in fairness to the end of justice. But such cases which highlight the merits of the laws, to move against incidents of harassment or defamation online, are far and few.

Will Section 66A of the IT Act get cleaned up? Will the ministry of ICT seek legal advice and recommend a modification? Will the honorable Supreme Court take suo motu cognizance of the act and step in to protect freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution? Till then ‘Be careful! Lest you post and are damned.’