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.

Give rewards & recognition a ‘fair’ chance

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Fairness in rewarding and recognising employees for their contribution holds the key to productivity and employee morale

It is the last few days before the financial year 2012-13 draws to close.  At the workplace there are talks about rewards, recognition and yes the often repeated appraisal. There is inherently nothing wrong with either of these. However from an organisational perspective a more loaded question is, “Are employees being rewarded fairly for their efforts?” What is more important here is not whether the organisation (read management) believes that employees have been rewarded fairly but whether employees think they have been rewarded fairly or not. What if the entire process of reward and recognition is unjust – does it impact the organisational fabric? A number of research points out that reward and recognition programs effect employee motivation and productivity. As a matter of fact employee rewards and recognition are positively correlated with the motivation and productivity. It is specifically herein that the fairness (as opposed to injustice and favouritism) component in rewards and recognition arises.

Off the record chit chat with friends did give me reasons to believe that the reward and recognition process is not entirely just and fair; yet I had every reason to believe that not all is bad, until I read this story. False Glory (http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/false-glory) and its subsequent telecast on CNNIBN is a clarion call on the need to revisit the finer nuances of fair reward and recognition and its impact of employee morale / motivation.  The story dwells on how a senior CRPF officer, a senior Indian Police Service officer and an inspector connived to get themselves nominated for the prestigious President’s Police Medal for Gallantry (PPMG), while sidelining two brave soldiers who were the real heroes.  All this while there is clear evidence to suggest that the senior IPS officer and the inspector did nothing to deserve the award. The story goes on to state that, “the injustice went unopposed for about a year, the overlooked jawans did not raise an objection. They were resigned to their fate, telling themselves that this was how the system worked. They stayed on in the force, but their morale fell. On crucial operations, they lost their will to take any initiative. It affected the morale of other jawans as well.”

The question then is – does the same happen in organisations too? Well seen from an organisational perspective, this perhaps is not a new phenomenon. It’s no secret that the playing field among workers isn’t level in most workplaces. Favoritism and taking undue credit of good works done by juniors is perhaps not new. A survey conducted by Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business found that 92 per cent of senior business executives have seen favouritism at play in employee promotions, including at their own companies (84 per cent). About a quarter of the polled executives admitted to practicing favouritism themselves.

But how does such behaviour impact an organisation and its employees? The fact is that employees who don’t feel they are fairly rewarded are likely to become de-motivated to perform, frustrated, resentful and seek to leave the organisation at the first opportunity. True that with the current economy, this may not happen right away, but while these employees may stick to their current jobs, they will not put forth their best of efforts towards achieving organisational goals. Also, by focusing attention on particular employees, it’s easy to overlook growth opportunities and unique skill sets offered by others. If the yardstick for success has nothing to do with performance then there’s every chance that the organisation may lose good people, if they feel their talents are going unnoticed.

What is the way out? Simply put, managers (or those assigned with the task) must be sincere (and not be manipulative – as in the story above) in deciding as to who should be rewarded and for what. While it makes sense to gather accurate details in highlighting performance and avoiding insincerity in work, it is equally important to figure out who is the actual performer. There may be situations where people are getting recognised for a work done by some other person. It is important to get beneath the surface and identify who has actually performed the job and recognise their effort. This would prevent unfair treatment being meted out to unrecognised employee.

Mind your words…for words are all that you have

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Why is it important to communicate with courage, innovation and discipline...

Sometimes in December 2007, Airtel chose to express itself differently. “Barriers break when people talk…fences fall when people talk…walls crumble when people talk,” is how Airtel communicated its philosophy. For those who were accustomed to the brand’s ‘Express Yourself’ campaign, the new communication was a mere extension keeping in line with the brand’s philosophy. Apart from students of advertising, the ad campaign has lessons as to how to effectively use the power of words to communicate. Be it a mere marketing campaign or an outstanding advertisement, or a powerful sales pitch, or for that matter an electrifying election campaign; what stands out in each case is the ‘power of words’ and yes the tone in which they were communicated. Words, by themselves, have the inherent power to move, inspire, uplift, give hope to the hopeless; on the contrary they can pull apart, demoralize, hurt, deflate, destroy and belittle. Words and how they are communicated are powerful instruments; they can show great wisdom and knowledge or utter stupidity. Communication, as they say is neither easy nor intuitive. True, it’s one of the most important skills that we have, but isn’t it equally true that it is this skill that we happen to screw up the most. Hence, when communicating, care must be taken to speak empowering and positive words; for negative words can trigger the fight / flight / freeze response which further leads to reactive, defensive thoughts and behavior. So much so, organizations have set up ‘corporate communication’ department and have hired PR firms for effective communication with both internal and external customer / shareholder.

Powerful communication in the political arena have  helped leaders build their political careers and have even helped a few swing the mood of the voters on the penultimate day; on the contrary there have been instances of leaders who have had to bequeath their chairs, or have had to bear the unwanted brunt of media criticism when their words are blown out of proportion (in the Indian context Shashi Tharoor and Narendra Modi are two such examples). In the organizational context, there have been instances wherein dialogues between management and employee representatives were unnecessarily prolonged because of the lack of clarity in communicating their stands. Nearly all of management issues arise due to lack of effective communication. Chances regarding misunderstanding and misrepresentation can be minimized together with proper communication system. Depending on the existing organizational dynamics an organization and its lead communicators can choose either of the four communication styles: the listener, the creator, the doer and the thinker. The listener is an effective communicator because he is steady, understands there is more than one way to achieve the same results and is willing to listen to other perspectives. The creator is another effective communicator because he is enthusiastic, creative and skilled in persuasion. The doer is assertive, goal-oriented, verbal and competent in problem-solving. The thinker is analytical, slow to react and contemplative.

Are there returns on investment in effective communication? A communication ROI report, ‘Capitalizing on Effective Communication’ by Towers Watson (2009/10) stated that, "Companies that communicate with courage, innovation and discipline, especially during times of economic challenge and change, are more effective at engaging employees and achieving desired business results." Further the report said that most effective communicators had 47 percent higher total returns to shareholders over a five-year span than the least effective communicators.

The success or failure of an organization clearly depends on how it communicates. If it wants the barriers of misunderstandings to break / crumble, it must communicate. Effective communication invariably depends on the choice of words; communicators on both sides of the table must realize that its words and words alone that they have to either make or mar.