The Micromanager

I was discussing the HBR case - The Micromanager - with 1st year MBA students as part of the course Principles and Practices of Management that I'm teaching. It very vividly presented a strained relationship between a manager - George - the CEO, and his direct report - Shelly - the Marketing Director. George was described as someone who liked to be in control. He always wanted to be aware of what everyone was doing. He was instantly there to rescue when someone was even mildly stuck. He was some kind of a problem-solver that way, didn't matter whether you wanted your problems solved or not. He'd do it for you before you asked for help or even tried to figure it out yourself. He probably didn't trust the abilities of people around him to complete tasks. This made him impatient and wanting to peek at all things work-in-progress. He made sure he pointed out others' mistakes, so that they were aware and were more careful next time. He saw it as doing them a favor.

Being the newly appointed CEO of a struggling company that was planning for an IPO, George had to deliver results fairly quickly. He felt responsible for it, and rightly so. The board wouldn't be kind to him if he didn't show results. They had kicked out the former (founder) CEO and George was brought in with lot of expectations. Clearly, George was under pressure. He needed a strong team behind him. And he needed that team to contribute flawlessly towards the goals laid out for the company.

Shelly was brought in by the board because of exceptional credentials in Marketing in her previous stint. While her past experience was in an industry that was somewhat different (hardware earlier vs software now), the learning curve wasn't expected to be much of a challenge. The company had to project to the market a strong image as it headed towards an IPO.

George was very quick at forming a negative view about Shelly's capabilities after looking at some of the first assignments she delivered. And that's when he started pestering Shelly with his constant remarks, pointing mistakes, accusing her of being careless and inefficient.

George's behavior started affecting Shelly's confidence. She descended into a vicious spiral of underperformance and frustration because of not feeling trusted. She couldn't tap into her own abilities and couldn't deliver the quality that used to be cakewalk for her. The constant pressure hampered her creativity. She felt scared to face George and just wanted to run away from there.

George, on the other hand, thought he was offering constant mentorship and support to Shelly. He hoped it would help her get up to speed sooner and contribute at her full potential - which was much needed for the organization, as marketing had to be top notch without compromise.

Who do you relate with more here?

Anyone who sees this picture and thinks about it for a while would naturally start relating to it. And in my observation, majority would relate with Shelly. Why do you think that happens?

The hierarchical nature of organizations along with the way we climb this professional ladder starting from the very bottom is part of the reason for this kind of association. We are managed from the moment we start working till the time we retire. Even a CEO like George is constantly monitored and subjected to tremendous amount of pressure. In fact, in a more general sense, we are managed by different people all our lives. And being 'told' what to do is never pleasant. Add to that the imposition of control over why, what and how - the means, and the burden of meeting expectations on the outcome - the end - the relationship between a manager and his/her reports is bound to be strained.

On the other hand, 'telling' someone what to do would never hurt so bad, although one may not be qualified to do so, and may even feel wrong about it deep down. The dynamic of the relationship is such that the manager gives and the receiver takes. For someone who is both a manager and a subordinate to different people, it's being the latter which is associated with more discomfort and therefore the empathy from that person would always be directed towards Shelly, the frustrated subordinate.

Modern organizations are designed as top-down pyramidal chains of managers / bosses and their reports / subordinates. The directionality of power, control, communication, expectations, pressure and feedback is predominantly all top-down in practice. One is supposed to adjust to the nature of his/her boss. Make the boss happy. At the same time, it's rare to meet someone without a list, usually long, of grievances concerning their bosses. So much so that being a boss seems synonymous to being insensitive, emotionless and self-centered.

It's important to acknowledge that Bosses / managers are human, and have personalities. Being a micromanager, like George, springs more from personality / behavioral traits than from a cultivated style of management. Micromanagers find it hard to trust team members to eventually deliver. When managers don't trust their reports, it is hard for the latter to feel excited to perform. They don't feel free. It hampers their creativity. They force themselves to be creative as managers want them to be, or at least say so. When creativity is an expectation it would only come out as stereotypical "crazy" for whatever qualifies. We can perhaps call it Generative Intelligence.

A common suggestion to resolve the situation between George and Shelly involves open communication, and George cutting Shelly some slack by trusting her more and interfering less in whatever she does. I find both of them hard to achieve.

Communication between bosses and subordinates is inherently constrained by the unequal nature of their relationship. While it is common for a boss to find flaws with a subordinate, the latter can't ever point boss's issues, howsoever damaging they may be to his/her mental well-being and ability to perform well. If he/she ever tries, it would most likely hurt the boss's ego, feel disrespectful to him/her and damage their relationship.

Trust more is not a natural to expect from George. Firstly, he would not be made aware by anybody how he is sabotaging productivity of his own team. If by some rare model of counselling an organization is able to develop that kind of an awareness, can George alter his natural inclinations significantly? I think the chances are slim in the short-term, but a sustained counseling and deliberate effort can generate long-term changes in his behavior.

But companies aren't in business of fixing imperfect humans. They exist to generate outcomes including, and not necessarily limited to, making money.

It's also ironic that most micromanagers are high performers in companies, and often make path-breaking business contributions. Everyone tolerates them coz they are capable of making things happen. They become assets to companies, while being pain in the asses of many who works for them. And invariably, there are also a few who would even enjoy working for them. It's strange how compatibility finds itself.

My view about this case was that people like Shelly end up leaving organizations because such strained relationships are hard to turn around in the near term, especially in an unequal relationship like a manager and his report. In the long-term, however, micromanagers can design more optimized behavioral templates for themselves so that they are able to generate the best outcomes from their teams.

What's your take?

"flow"

When we listen to a song by watching its music video, the video colors our imagination. There is a different magic that we can experience if we can isolate the sensory experience. Close your eyes and listen to the song. Imagine the singer singing it. Imagine yourself singing it. Imagine your own setting. Let your imagination loose. Lose yourself in it. Experience a semblance of "flow".

Take it a step further. Just look within, into yourself, into the depths of your mind. No music. No video. Nothing. It's just you. And everything you've gathered to become who you are. Look deeper, beyond the clutter of all the mental possessions. Beyond the light, beyond the darkness, to a place which no metaphor can explain. That's "flow".

Why they don't make movies that are "love stories" any more?

I was listening to the song “kaho na pyar hai” from the movie “kaho na pyar hai” and it suddenly struck me - love story as a genre in Bollywood is over.

There was a time in India when seeking love meant fighting the world, and of course the family. But now that’s not that big a deal - not totally and not quite everywhere, though. Seeking and finding love, and being accepted for it, is not that far fetched fantasy today.

Look at Hollywood. The love story genre there has been long dead. Romantic comedies as they are called are hardly love stories. I think that’s coz American, in fact most western cultures have embraced marrying for love long back. A few romantic comedies that still get made just celebrate love, and that’s cute, but we don’t want tons of that stuff when it just depicts the reality, and perhaps starts deviating once it starts looking too far from reality in how beautiful it turns out in the end!

Singapore - a truly amazing work of art

I recently had a wonderful vacation in Singapore with my family. I am of course tempted to write about the fabulously planned and developed place Singapore is and managed to become due to the sheer will of its leaders, impeccable governance, focus on efficiency, zero tolerance to corruption and uncompromising discipline instilled through well-intentioned authority. But there's a lot written about it already from myriad perspectives.

One of the things I love doing whenever I visit any city is to take long walks on its roads. While they are aimless and random, they give me an opportunity to observe - the little things - the faces, the expressions, the eyes - the bodies, the postures, the pace - the traffic, the rules, the compliance - the shops, the food, the architecture - the art, the dressing, the style, the life - the mood, the culture, the vibe. These walks help me uncover places in my own way. So, here's a little bit of what I uncovered about Singapore:

• 
  Attention to detail: I noticed this everywhere. The design of roads along with signs like directions, crossings, foot-paths, etc. are well thought out with careful consideration of all means of commute. You'd be amazed to see how well defined walking routes are and how well the route guidance on google maps is even for walking. (I didn't see much scope of cycling in the regular roads, but for that there were dedicated places.) It is like everything has been built according to a template. Every country has such templates, but I was amazed to see the uncompromising adherence to them in Singapore. And it is not just about the roads and signs. It's visible in how all public amenities operate.
  
• Truly secular: The peaceful co-existence of people with different religious faiths and races is truly admirable. I am sure the framework for such co-existence and the minimum acceptable code of conduct must have been laid out by the government. Singapore had its share of racial conflicts soon after it came into being, but the founding fathers meticulously and definitively set the agenda and path of the nation towards rapid development and prosperity, adopting English as the official language and made sure everyone was aligned.
• Some serious undercurrents: It was difficult to figure out whether there was any bitterness deep down while different religious and racial communities coexisted. And how did the locals feel about the tourists? Once while I was walking past a group of people waiting for a bus, one elderly man's mobile phone slipped off his hand and fell down because my hand inadvertently brushed on his phone. I immediately said sorry and pretended to bend to pick up the phone. The man was quick to pick it up himself, but he looked into my eyes and said "fuck you".
• Cleanliness: This seemed ingrained in the way of life. People, including tourists, were careful. Public places were clean, no litter. Even little India was unlike India coz Indians behave better outside, as we know.
• Maximum Government: Government seems to be present everywhere, but probably in good ways (though I can't tell for sure). There's lot of regulation, yet extreme levels of efficiency. Sounds counterintuitive, but they somehow make it happen.
• 
  Incentives to drive behavior: We met a colleague of my wife's who showed us a smart watch that she was wearing, which monitored her fitness routines. She told us that people were incentivized to maintain fitness levels through various rewarding mechanisms. The Netflix documentary on blue zones did highlight the incentives younger Singaporeans are offered to stay closer to their parents. 
• Maximum technology & automation: We are often made to fear automation as the enemy of jobs and job creation. Singapore (and also China form what I've been hearing) made me realize that it's not how it works. By letting things be more manual or sub-tech, we compromise on efficiencies while creating disguised unemployment, which doesn't raise standard of living.
• Extreme addiction to mobile phones: We all are addicted to our screens to various degrees, but in Singapore it's much higher than in India.
  
• 
  Little India is more like Little Chennai: India is vast and diverse, so it's difficult that any place becomes a true replica or representative of India. Little India felt more like Chennai, in fact just some part of Chennai perhaps. There was of course a lot of Tamil spoken and written everywhere.
  The place gives Indian old-city vibes, just with better roads and traffic even in the lanes.
• There is a Little everything there: Just walk around Little India into the lanes and you'll see blocks with different kinds of graffiti portraying different cultures around the world. I could feel that spirit everywhere in Singapore.

• Focused on natural preservation, Climate-aware, but high on energy consumption: The importance of preserving the natural beauty and ecology was communicated through various means - the amazing detail with which Gardens by the Bay was built, Zoo with animals from all over the world with artificially cultivated zones mimicking their natural habitats, the messaging on Palawan Beach, the all-out focus on public transportation and other amenities, and so on. However, what struck me was the high level of energy consumption - it was rampant in everything from excessive air conditioning (most of which was necessary because of the hot weather), to everything for tourists to watch and enjoy - like water shows, lights, rides, and so on.

Singapore has been carefully and beautifully designed to promote business, tourism and economy. And everything is held together with focus that doesn't digress more than necessary into conflicts arising from cultural, religious, ethnic and racial differences. Singapore is expensive, yet also encourages making money. All in all, a pretty complete city / country.

Cost it well and cost it right

IT services, especially maintenance and support, has always been driven majorly by cost considerations, besides, of course, the desired quality of service to support the business. The latter is an important aspect to take into account as IT became the "enabler of business rather than a support function" (... it's amazing to recall that this was even a debate a couple of decades ago and there were case studies written to establish the case for IT and its importance).

Price is just an extension of cost - it is predicting the cost that's the challenge. I was part of the global costing cell of Suzlon, where we were responsible for product costing and project costing. Building up the product cost involved adding up the following:

1. Gathering the cost of each component in the bill of materials (BoM) with inputs from SCM team's negotiated prices from vendors
2. Cost of manufacturing including labor and equipment
3. Logistics costs to ship the product to where it needs to billed at, the so-called Incoterms.
4. Overheads of all sorts

Projects could be (i) bounded - e.g., installation and commissioning of turbines, or (ii) ongoing - e.g., maintenance of turbines.

Similarly, IT too involves products (software, hardware / infrastructure) and services - sort of equivalent of projects - which could be various types - (i) building an IT system - predominantly making software on bought-out / paid-for infrastructure, (ii) configuring an IT system for use - involves setting up the whole software and infrastructure systems to work as required in conjunction with rest of IT, and (iii) maintaining IT systems

Costing for IT is a bit more complicated than in manufacturing, as everything in IT has tremendous amount of human effort involved and the various ways in which the effort can be delivered.

In case of products, the effort is incurred once and any number of copies of the product can be sold, which makes it less un-predictable as the projected price can be adjusted once the product is ready and the making-cost is incurred.

The real challenge is in costing for services as these predominantly involve human effort whose extent is difficult to estimate upfront. There are popular case-studies of failed ERP implementations which had massive cost over-runs (e.g., Nike). When companies outsource these by entering into contracts with IT service providers, the pricing challenge is passed on to the vendors. While these vendors are supposed to be well-versed with industry best practices and have expertise from multiple successes in the past, the inside stories are full of large-scale cluelessness and seemingly intelligent guesswork within range good enough to win business.

The company that wants to outsource - although it has better information - has similar challenge in fixing up its own budget. However, because of the closer view it has, it's expected to have better idea of what it would take to execute and the price it translates to, although many uncertainties still persist in the minds of its experts as well.

A vendor, on the other hand, consumes all the information that's made available to them and estimates the effort, costs the effort based on their cost base, plays with margins and gets to the price. But that's an over-simplification. Between effort and price, there are numerous aspects and related parameters that determine cost of execution of the project and the subsequent price, and it's not just about people and their effort but everything that goes into delivering the project. Here's an indicative list, which by no way is exhaustive.

As can be easily seen, there are a large number of variables one can play with. It's not necessarily wise to try and be deterministic about each of these, but to be able to decide at the solution stage would allow a vendor to deliver with a plan based on a budget. And to be able to model with such a wide array of variables and underlying options needs (a) a solutioning mechanism that allows architects to think, visualize and decide their solution parameters, and (b) a costing mechanism - a tool - that understands these variables, has an ability to discern and validate, and has the sensitivity and robustness to provide cost implications of each choice made.

I've had good fortune of working with many IT outsourcing service providers. Among those I've worked with, Accenture has deeply impressed me with the robustness in its solutioning processes, costing databases and tools, along with a rigorous review mechanism. It helps Accenture in many ways - (i) it ensures that many more aspects are given fair and careful consideration at solution stages, than just the effort estimation, (ii) it ensures deeper and holistic review where every choice parameter can be questioned, and is hence chosen with care, (iii) ensures greater optimization at many levels, (iv) ensures greater consideration to project deliverability and optimization to ensure the same, (v) helps identify, assess and plan for risks, (vi) helps prevent manipulation of solution parameters to get to lower cost, and (vii) helps drive high level of confidence in being able to execute with success within budgeted cost.

There is of course a measure of rigidity that creeps in when one works with such an elaborate process and tool driven model that everyone strictly adheres to. Companies must also balance this with flexibility to improvise, course-correct or make rational choices when the older assumptions turn out bad.

I must point out that the Indian IT service providers can do a lot better in their solutioning processes, costing models, tools and underlying databases for costing / pricing, and review processes. Greater detail to solutioning followed by better costing mechanism is essential for confident and successful delivery later on. It's unfortunate that most large Indian IT system integrators can be rated very low on these parameters. While it's important to win so as to be able to execute, not being careful with solution and cost will only render the win meaningless and as equivalent to trying to deliver later to a predetermined price that would be too tight, being generally low, and would require fewer people working longer hours, under stress and facing failure.

Not all unknowns can be figured out or accounted for at the outset, but an honest and detailed solutioning process, a robust costing model powered by efficient tools and a thorough review mechanism can together help vendors enter engagements with greater confidence and probability of successful delivery.

To conclude, just a thought - as AI agents replace human effort, perhaps we'll be able to achieve greater precision in spend on IT projects vis-a-vis budgets, in spite of uncertainties as they emerge. Would love to hear your thoughts...

There are deals... and then there are ISG deals!

IT systems have been deeply and extensively integrated in companies' businesses for a few decades now, especially in the more developed world. Many companies who were early adopters often end up with multitude of applications and infrastructure components with lot of redundancy, many unused apps, scanty documentation and lost knowledge. Over the past several years, "rationalizing" such IT has been a prominent pitch from system integrators.

As IT systems became huge and complex, services around those also had to be well structured. And since they are most commonly outsourced now, the contracting of such 'support & maintenance' services also demands careful and comprehensive detailing. Finding the right IT services partner is a mammoth task fraught with risks hard to foresee.

There's also considerable amount of risk for a service provider entering into such engagements, as they base their offers, proposals and contractual agreements on very little information and lots of assumptions. Even due diligence exercises don't reveal many details. The competitive selection process forces them to paint lot of rosy pictures. And pricing is extremely tight these days because of the constant pressure to reduce, be more productive, automate, invoke AI, and so on. So they end up squeezing wherever they can - effort, cost, margin, price - while committing the moon and the stars in addition to the earth - all in a couple of years' time.

Often times, large companies engage consultants - third party advisers (TPA's) - to facilitate the whole vendor selection process. It does make sense as TPA's bring in relevant experience and understanding of the vendor landscape. They also claim to specialize in such selection processes such that the best vendor is chosen to serve the client interests perfectly.

In an effort to position and differentiate themselves, TPA's have developed different approaches to go about the whole process of IT services vendor selection. In very broad terms, the TPA's offer on three dimensions

• Documentation
• RFP package creation
• Contract documents
• ...
• Process
• Managing the prospective vendors including communication and information sharing
• Defining the process and timelines, e.g.,
• Pre-RFP interactions
• RFP release
• Vendor briefing
• Q&A - from vendors on the RFP and responses back from the customer
• Pre-submission presentation(s) by vendors - sometimes called CAS (Customer Alignment Session)
• Submission of the responses by vendors
• Defense presentations by vendors to customers
• Short-listing for subsequent stages
• Due-diligence by short-listed vendors through meetings with customer SME's
• Further information sharing for response refinement
• Revised submission by short-listed vendors
• Defense of revised proposals, discussions, agreements - disagreements
• Commercial negotiations
• Best and final offer (BAFO) from the vendors
• Final selection
• Contract drafting
• Negotiations on clauses, redlining, agreements
• Contract signing
• ...
• Facilitating the whole process
• Experience
• Offering advice, suggestions and recommendations

Having worked on IT services deals from service providers' sides for a long time, there is one TPA whose deals / RFP's presales folks on this side hate to work on although they might fake being excited - it's ISG.

I must mention that there are many other TPA's which follow approach similar to ISG's. I am taking ISG as an example as it seems to be the most prominent TPA with this kind of approach and sets the standard for TPA-led deals.

Here are some interesting characteristics of those deals:

• Excessive documentation just for proposals: ISG develops the RFP package for clients, each package composed of hundreds of documents, each in a certain standard 'ISG' format which they love. The package would be composed of a large number of these documents which are sort of draft contract documents - say exhibits and appendices - in addition to a few which provide information needed to respond to the RFP. Each vendor participating in the race has to review the entire set of documents, enter their responses wherever required and agree to each word written in those documents. A lot of these documents have relevance when the vendor is close to contracting. Contract, though, is generally an item for discussion much later, once the technical clutter is overcome, and just a couple of vendors remain in race. However, ISG makes every vendor devote resources to work on all the documents and in the process leads to hundreds of person hours of wasted effort in multiple companies.
• Rigid Templates: ISG swears by its templates for everything. Some of those are needlessly confusing or over-engineered to sound scientific. An example is their pricing template.
• Process rigor: In the name of making the process rigorous ISG often does 2 things
• Share information in lots or share updates to info already shared. This not only creates anxiety among the poor vendor architects working on developing response to the RFP, but also often makes a lot of expended work redundant when key data points change or come later, assumptions get invalidated, etc.
• Tight timelines. For all the extra work that needs to be done by large teams at each vendor company, ISG would allot extremely tight timelines. For example, a large $100 Mn worth of RFP which would typically have 150-200 page core technical proposal and another 200-300 pages of documentation covering all aspects of the potential contract. A typical IT services vendor would have a core team of 20-30 people actively contributing to this response. Then there will be 20-30 leaders over multiple levels who'd be making all the noises, asking questions and reviewing. Then there will be many many meetings daily just for all these guys to sync up on various things, leaving almost no time to work for those who are supposed to put their heads together and create the solution for the customer ask. It just becomes a boiler room on vendors' side, with the additional pressure of aligning all stakeholders, getting everyone's blessings, redoing many things coz new information came in, and turning it all over to ISG in 30 days - the typical timeline.
• Insane milestones: In addition to deliverables that are voluminous and detailed to the point of redundancy, they often seem to enjoy setting milestones that make it impossible to work with. E.g., a presentation just 1-2 days after the proposal submission, final Q&A responses 2-3 days before the proposal submission, etc.
• Large volume of repetitive and visibly redundant work: This has been highlighted before in several ways but needs a separate mention as well. Instead of boiling the ocean with each vendor, most of whom would not even reach close to contracting, it would make more sense to go ahead in steps. Contractual clauses agreed in haste in the proposal stages would be discussed later in detail between the right personnel anyway, and can therefore be taken up at a more appropriate stage. For example, while core technical elements and commercials are fluid, what's the point of agreeing about change control up front?
• Extremely limited facetime with clients: During various stages of the deal, vendors are allowed very limited interaction with clients. It is hard to figure out whether the proposals address client objectives. And depending on the kind of due-diligence offered, there are chances that a lot of critical information is discovered even by the 'winner' while taking over the actual work, the so called 'transition'.

ISG is a very high profile TPA for IT outsourcing deals. Their method really saves lot of effort for themselves and their clients when finalizing vendors, and in the contractual formalities. Their templates, especially, make it easy for them to assemble, communicate and consume information from vendors and to present it in the most insightful ways, given that these templates have been used repeatedly and have become their standard, which helps in working faster with all the information. Such a templatized and well-defined process-centric approach definitely derisks vendor selection process for their clients. And over time they have built a vast portfolio of deals executed based on the same template, and am sure, incorporated learnings to make it better. And perhaps that's the very reason ISG, and the like, are hired.

However, the job of a consultant or TPA is to make the overall process efficient and the outcome successful 'for all parties', not just the party that's paying them. For all the vendors participating in such selection processes, the wastage in terms of resources and the impact in terms of stress on all of the personnel engaged is tremendous.

I must add that all large and traditional IT services companies - Indian or non-Indian - have become bulky and inefficient. There is more leadership than necessary, more reviewers than doers, more talkers than hands-on executors. And even among the doers, the skillset per person is extremely limited and bounded. So, for large deals they end up with a large team with lots of people bringing in tiny chunks of capability. Then there are 'leaders' who pretty much just review and comment, and there are multiple levels of those - pushing up the review and trickling down the comments as the deal approaches submission. And at the lowest level are a small set of people who actually understand, define and write. They are pushed and crushed to the point of break down.

Have you worked on ISG deals? Or others with similar approach? What's your take?

Find ourselves when AI becomes us!

A friend of mine is struggling with a "bright" b-school intern he hired recently. The intern just can't stop using AI. Even for stuff that needs a personal touch, he just can't do it by himself and needs the AI output. And by AI, I am only referring to ChatGPT and the like. There is an extremely strong tendency among the current generation of students to resort to these LLM tools for all kinds of tasks, be it analytical, creative, linguistic and clerical. And there is a gradual loss of judgement about how quality of the output could be better with human touch.

While we hear that AI will only free our times to do things of higher order, I doubt we, most of us, have much interest or aptitude ourselves in doing things of higher order, coz even for those tasks we are letting AI take a shot, followed by our laziness willing to settle for what we got. It may be true that AI will never match what a human mind can accomplish, but most of us are neither used to do such amazing things nor are our minds trained and warmed up sufficiently to take up activities of higher order like to "create", visualize something new and beautiful, of meaning that has never been ascribed before, yet makes sense that can't be questioned.

We are all excited that AI is improving by leaps and bounds. It will soon do most of what we thought our lives are all about until now. To make the newer generations more capable of thriving with AI, instead of dumbing themselves down, we have to rethink education, mental grooming, work, contribution and creativity - starting from first principles.

We have to find ourselves, while AI becomes us!

This topic needs open and unhindered discussion. Please do share your views.

You may have the urge, but I hope you won't prompt ChatGPT for something nice to say 🙂.