Too much too soon? Lessons from the Wind Industry

Wind turbines became popular and underwent rapid evolution during the 1990s and early 2000s, fueled by climate change concerns that motivated exploration into alternate, clean sources of energy. Governments recognized it and incentivized investments. The technology had existed before, but had potential for massive upgrade to achieve much higher efficiencies. Engineering and R&D in this area got a boost. Every couple of years companies started launching new turbines with higher MW ratings.

For a wind turbine to generate maximum energy, it has to be placed on a site with good wind conditions. In that, all places are not equal. For example, in India, there are places where wind profiles are strong, and others where they are weak. Also, wind turbines need to be in relatively uninhabited places because they generate sounds at frequencies that are not healthy. They need to be spaced apart adequately so that they don't interfere with each other. They are massive, and are installed in large numbers to develop what are called 'wind farms'. They must stay put and be operational for 20+ years for the investments to make sense.

Now you want to place your best machines in the best places. But the best machine is best only at a point in time. While the best place is always the best. And this is where the most logical approach is also a bit silly. The best places are taken up pretty early with machines that were best at that time. However, in an emerging technology-intensive industry that is getting a lot of attention, there's constant race to develop better machines. And each upgrade makes the earlier one seem like a toy. But the irony is that the toy got the better playground. Since the best wind sites are taken, the new, better machines have to settle for poor sites.

The industry tried to mitigate this in two ways. (1) Move offshore, to find great wind conditions - but offshore has its own challenges, (2) Develop turbines for poor wind conditions - which is like developing cars for poor roads as the highways are inaccessible.

As the industry matures, the turbines in great sites get old and up for replacement. And at that point, you can put your new ones in the best places again.

It's a wave, and there's little you can do to beat it, especially in a fiercely competitive market.

Now draw parallels and think about investments in AI based solutions. In a scramble to get onboard are companies investing too much too soon? Are companies creating legacy issues for themselves by jumping to adopt while the technology and its capabilities are evolving too fast? Is it FOMO or smart investing for efficiency and value? May be the truth lies in between.

Most AI startup ideas I came across a couple of years ago based on the shape of LLM's back then are obsolete now. It's probably how any new tech waves emerge and then gradually stabilize - short and quick early on, long and slow as they wane.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 30 April 2026

Circle of Life

My father worked as a stenographer and typist in the Indian Railways, and he was exceptionally good at it. He doesn't type anymore, except on his mobile phone. Growing up, I saw firsthand how typing was supposed to be done - when it's directly on paper and 'backspace' is not an option - on a heavy contraption called the 'typewriter'. The act had the beauty of playing a musical instrument with all fingers playing their part, where the artist played with eyes closed and mind lost in rhythm and melody.

The other skill he had was writing in something called 'shorthand'. The bosses those days gave 'dictations', which the stenographer noted very quickly in this coded script, that was later converted to regular well typed documents in English. While typing is something everyone does now, albeit without regard to correctness of style or efficiency of it, shorthand definitely is a skill that's non-existent today, if not lost forever. In the late 90s, all organizations were on a rapid computerization spree. So a few years before his retirement, my father was forced to learn working with a computer - the Windows 95/98 desktops. Since his job was drafting documents, he pretty much always worked on MS Word - the software that was as reliable in its infancy as it is now for word processing. The typewriter was replaced by relatively sleek keyboards, still QWERTY, yet with soft buttons. He beat those keys like he was used to on his heavy typewriter. But it was a treat to watch him type - extremely fast, and without using 'backspace' once. He did that till his retirement in 2004. But it was clear as the new breed of computer-literate officers started taking over, that a lot of his work would be done by the bosses themselves. Gradually, everyone knew how to type on a computer. It was not a skill any more. Everyone just did, and did, and got used to it. Life has probably come full circle, as I watch mine and older generations adopting AI based tools, learning to write prompts, doing courses, and telling each other to learn or perish. 😊

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 28 April 2026.

A truly open mind stays open for life

One of the major challenges in developing a truly rational and coherent opinion about anything, that a significant majority of people shares, is that the contemporary sources push different kinds or different versions of information to each person. It's carefully filtered, increasingly customized, and artfully moulded such that it is most engaging, pleasing, entertaining, even enchanting to the person consuming it. In a recent podcast with Trevor Noah, Ian Bremmer mentioned about this as the major constraint to bringing about any ideological or political revolution that is truly constructive and has mass support, or that's intended to take out a corrupt system which uses its power to control information - both the nature and access of it.

While we generally tout diversity of opinions as a strength, when opinions are not rooted in critical and holistic analysis of topics or issues, they become biases. And when biases achieve a level of deep-rootedness through constant reinforcement, you just can't get people to agree on anything, in spite of the vast and deep level of passion that they have, and the conviction and apparent chain of logic, often quite persuasive, with which they all seem to argue.

In high-school math, before theorems - which are scientifically derived - we are taught axioms - which are to be accepted as true. Axioms form the foundations, and theorems are built on top of these axioms and other theorems. The information structures around common people are composed of highly distorted 'axioms', and opinions based on those are therefore biased, ill-informed and misleading - theorems based on false axioms provide an unreal view of the world. And such views differ person-to-person.

Critical thinking at foundational level would help mitigate formation of these baseline assumptions. A teacher must push minds back to question basic assumptions, before helping lay blocks to build more mature ideology. A truly open mind stays open for life. A mind trained to close itself tends to search for cozy rooms to shut itself inside. It's therefore of utmost importance that students are taught - encouraged - to observe the world with open mind, while being protected from biased information structures through inculcating critical thinking very early on.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 27 April 2026.

"Humans in the Loop"

This snapshot from "The Diary of a CEO" podcast is symbolic of the humongous human effort being invested at training this giant machine called AI to do everything that humans do. People who are getting excited at this are seeing opportunities to help shift work to AI, and make money in the process. And most of the others feel threatened - if their work will be shifted to AI, how will they make money? And then there are these innocent workers in the pic, trying to earn their daily wage in the process, with cameras and sensors tied to their body to capture their movements and help robots learn how to go about... they are not thinking beyond, coz they never did, never had the luxury, never dared to, coz it doesn’t help anyway.

A version of "Humans in the Loop" indeed. Seen that movie?

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 18th April 2026.

Importance of ethics in research

Research, the way I understand, is to uncover the nature of reality. Irrespective of what I believe, what I think and what seems to be, research is finding a path to establish the true shape of reality - whether it’s the physical world, sociological phenomena or the metaphysical. It has to be an honest endeavour grounded in right and correct data, robust analysis and transparent presentation of results. It needs humility to acknowledge its limitations - known and unknown. Our understanding and explanations of the nature of reality - the theories - help us make sense of this world, yet can never claim to have fully solved the puzzle. But to get closer and closer to developing an understanding we build on prior research and add incremental blocks to construct better explanations. It’s therefore the responsibility of each and every researcher to be uncompromising in his/her data, approach, results and interpretation - so that future research finds a stronger base to build on and past studies get the honour and respect they deserve.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 24 March 2026

How to forge better leaders?

Managers are expected to be almost perfect - clear communicators, good with people, sharp with data, and composed in how they present themselves. There is a visible checklist, and they are constantly measured against it. If they fall short, it shows quickly.

Leaders, on the other hand, seem to operate under a different lens. They can be unconventional, intense, sometimes even a bit irrational, and yet, this is often read as vision or conviction rather than a flaw. Part of this difference comes from where expectations sit. Managers are expected by others to meet a standard. Leaders, in many ways, shape the standard themselves, and the rest of us adjust to it.

This difference becomes sharper when you step outside firms and think about countries. In firms, you can choose, or at least attempt to choose, the leader you want to work with by moving to another firm. But you rarely get to choose the leader directly. In a country, you live with the leader, whatever the process that brought them there. In a democracy, sometimes the leader reflects your choice, but often they don’t. You don’t really opt out - you adapt, engage, or endure.

Which makes you wonder what exactly we are preparing people for. Much of management education seems designed to produce well-rounded, reliable managers - people who meet defined expectations. But leadership doesn’t quite emerge from checklists. It comes with ambiguity, intensity, and a willingness to push beyond what is already defined.

Can management education add a stronger ingredient of true leadership into its recipe, so that the ability to handle ambiguity and difficult situations is matched by equally strong wisdom, analytical depth, and grounded judgment? So that we see fewer leaders driven by impulse, and more who combine conviction with clarity. Work-ex seems to be a bad teacher when it comes to leadership.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 26 March 2026

AIs and opinions

We expect that opinions based on data and facts would be reliable, although not indisputable. Since these are still "opinions" they are bound to contain giver bias that would spring from intuition, experience, judgement or quirks. It's human, and we understand the mechanism.

When it comes to AI, though, it gets troubling when we get opposite opinions from different tools. Being "tools" and driven by "computing", we are inclined to trust what they say, not as "opinions" but as some version or degree of "truth". But what if after consuming all the data, ChatGPT suggests, even encourages, that you do something, while Claude tells you that it's stupid, even suicidal, and you shouldn't do that ever. The data is the same. Are the tools acquiring "personality"? They are expected to, given the effort to mimic human faculties. But with humans, we have a way of figuring out. With AI, we have a totally different kind of quagmire to deal with that's neither unique, nor consistent, nor revealing in the way humans are. And in the background, it's being built, taught, designed, tweaked and tinkered - all by humans. And worst of all, it's not allowed to say "NO".

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 16 Mar 2026

Problem definition - Attention span or too many options?

We keep hearing that attention spans of people have come down, especially the younger folks can’t seem to focus on any one thing for long. It’s usually blamed on addiction to short sized content like tweets, reels, shorts and bites. In his recent podcast, Trevor Noah had a different perspective on this. He said it’s not the attention span that has come down. It’s actually the availability of many alternatives at any moment that are competing for our mental resources, and the availability and access to choices makes us want to switch when something seems not so great. Our tolerance for anything not so captivating at any moment has become low because of infinite range of alternatives we can easily divert our minds to. Something truly mesmerising can still tie us down for a long time, but such things would need us to be in an isolated setting so that we don’t get distracted with other equally good or better options, unless the thing is really unique, exceptional, out of the world and without a close and easily accessible match.

The framing of the problem determines what is seen as the root cause and then how you go about solving it.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 15 Mar 2026

Strategic thinking has many layers

Glorification of fail-fast and iterative approaches in business have misled many leaders into believing it applies in every context. Ability to adapt is subject to prior conditioning that must have involved failure and calibration. A true leader has to be confused on where he/she stands, yet mask the confusion with sincerity of effort. This is at the root of a genuine leader's chosen strategy.

Strategy can, and has to, emerge, but it's important to have a sense of 'by how much'. One can't endlessly trust 'learn as we go'. Most projects in the world, especially those with the highest stakes, are waterfall, rather than agile. The real agility, in fact, is required in the leader's mind - yet only to a certain degree.

Most leaders fit their favorite approaches in every context. And to back them there's always some leadership gyaan and a school of thought. However, competing schools of thought exist for a reason - not every approach applies everywhere and every time. Like a chef, a leader must know his/her recipe well - the ingredients, their proportion and the process - based on who's eating. Some times it needs careful balance, even variants, based on different tastes and preferences. But unlike with a chef, a leader must also understand that the volume of the dish changes the recipe as well.

One can't afford to experiment if the stakes are too high. Yet a leader must choose. How? The system typically offers 2 options:

Trust his/her gut? - that's a function of conditioning and may be corrupt.

Take calculated risk? - follow the process, decide action plan, identify risks and have a mitigation strategy.

The former is noisy, has a casino-like charm and has high rate of failure. The latter, done repeatedly, leads to stronger and more sustainable outcomes.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 12 Mar 2026

We are all Spartacus!

I recently finished watching Spartacus on Netflix. It's a truly inspiring and eye-opening saga involving love, honour, respect, pride, revenge and death. The context, at the core, is master-slave relationship. That slavery was practiced to such an abominable level was difficult to believe initially as I started watching. But gradually I could relate more and more to it. I began to see that while we moved past the raw nature of it, we embraced the core tenets into how we conduct our economics in this world.

I realized my usage of the word "we" squarely implies that I'm putting myself on the master side. 'We' practiced slavery. 'We' put an end to it. 'We' embraced all as equal. 'They' are human too! It's funny - I speak the language of the master, yet by feelings I resonate with the slaves. Ways of the world...

I learnt from Spartacus that there is honour and pride ascribed to being a gladiator, which is meant to offer a semblance of meaning to their assigned purpose - of fighting to survive in the arena, while spectators get entertained by the sight of blood and the act of killing. It masks the sheer stupidity of what they are made to do while their masters - the domini - seek power and make money - coin - at their expense.

Slaves are branded with marks on their bodies - like "B" for those belonging to the House of Batiatus - a ludus for training gladiators. They are supposed to feel proud about it, as the house looks after them, nurtures them with food and place to stay, trains them, and gives them opportunities to fight, earn fame and recognition for their valour. The best fighters get rewarded with titles - the undefeated Gaul, the bringer of rain, and so on. If the dominus is generous enough, he may reward a gladiator with freedom. But such a freedom is fragile and can be taken away at any moment. Such freedom is still better than trying to break free from the master, coz then the gladiator deserves to be punished by being killed, brutally, in front of all the other slaves, so that nobody else dares to even bear the thought of escaping.

And yet, craving for freedom is deep in all humans. So are emotions - love, pain, hate and revenge - especially in that order, they can make any human take on the mightiest.

Gladiators are seen to exemplify true human fighting spirit involving exceptional courage, endurance, fearlessness in front of near-certain death, along with hope, passion and brotherhood - ingrained by conditioning and shared pain. Yet it's an irony that this spirit is evoked under hopeless enslavement leading only to brutal death in a constant cycle of kill-or-get-killed - games that are recreation for most, adrenaline-rush for some, and patriotism for a few. The free masters claim all the comforts yet commit to no such values, while keeping slaves tied down by duty, honour, hope and hopelessness... and God! It's all God's will, isn't it?

Times changed. Power and access to resources no longer necessitate their seekers to physically enslave people. Control changed from physical to mental. The chain of control doesn't have an ultimate top or bottom here. It's a chain that's endless on either side. It's not circular, but it does have various loops. Ways changed. Sight of blood became less exciting (for most but not all, it appears now). Everyone lives, mostly. Yet, on different levels still, aren't we all playing Spartacus?

Strategy must be understood, respected, shared and imbibed across the organization

Aspirin, to be effective, needs to first dissolve in water. So does Strategy. You are unlikely to achieve your visions by throwing plans and roadmaps at your workforce. Strategy has to be understood, respected, shared and imbibed across for it to truly drive organizations. Under the pressure and in the busyness of delivering short-term outcomes, leaders often fail to recognize that they are not truly leading, but are just filling positions that satisfice. Employee engagement has become more about making employees feel “happy”, while making them “motivated” and “proud to be part” has taken a back seat. In fact, if you “ask” these employees, they’ll “tell” you. But most leaders don’t care enough. Without adequate importance given to strategic alignment within, organizations just fool themselves and their shareholders with vision statements and fancy roadmaps never to be walked upon.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 14th January 2026

Cycling in 2025 was about 3650

 Oh, the joy of hitting seemingly arbitrary targets! An average of 10 km of cycling a day meant 3650 km a year, which seemed like a nice goal with a good stretch, considering two successive years of 3Ks earlier. Commitment breeds consistency, both essential to keep you on track - you outperform vis-à-vis your goals sometimes, and need to push harder to cover deficits more often.

2025 was eventful with lots of travel, learning, and unprecedented experiences. And the rains took their own sweet time to retreat. With everything going on, I had a constant tug-of-war with my daily and monthly milestones, but glad I eventually pulled it off, and then did some more!

Thanks Shruti Rao for gifting me this beautiful bike 4 years back. Each year, cycling teaches me a lot about staying committed and being consistent. Hope 2026 brings more of it, along with all the excitement the world is ushering in!

Happy New Year.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 1st Jan 2025

Sell for long-term

Most IT services organizations spend more time on chasing wrong deals - those they can't execute well - than even on delivering value to clients. While this sounds stupid, there is a deep and wide-spread mechanism of incentives at individual and system level that rewards short-term outcomes, that leads to choices which seem rational while they are not.

One of the primary approaches of capability development in Indian IT has been to pick work, often with lofty claims, and then figure out how to execute it. This opportunity-driven model has often hampered the quality of our delivery and hurt our credibility. But it has also helped us push our boundaries, claim newer capabilities in due course and offer more to clients. It is risky, reactive, but clearly has its rewards when played well.

Those who sell and those who deliver are generally different individuals, and their jobs are incentivised differently. The one who sold is rewarded upfront (although some of the reward may be tied to delivery later) for successfully signing that large deal, while the thing falls in delivery's plate to later grapple with. There's often mess that's unforeseen and needs cleaning, 70-90-120-hour workdays of effort when the budgeted were of 40, and a hush hush consensus that it is going to be a nightmare.

And yet we do it repeatedly.

Deal-qualification calls, which are meant to prevent this, are increasingly becoming a joke. 'Bounded rationality' constrains leaders when making decisions, but is not the root cause for flawed choices when there is lack of effort at processing information available.

Bottomline - (1) Leaders must watch out what kind of risks they are subjecting the firm to. There is a thin line between taking measured risks and going "we'll see later". (2) Qualify opportunities, especially the large ones, coz you are going to spend many people's effort on pursuing it for many many days. It better be something you can deliver, even if it's beyond your current set of capabilities. (3) See what behaviour your incentive mechanisms are driving vis-à-vis the roles people play in the organisation, and optimize them for the best outcomes. When decision makers listen to managers who are incentivised to be selective in presenting information, the outcomes can't be in the best interests of firms.

You announce "large deal wins" to the market, while delivery failure is hidden in the P&L. The former, ironically, has become a short-term metric, while the latter reflects long-term sustainability. The market knows this well. So do firms, but they find themselves struggling to pursue the latter because of large scale internal expropriation. The fix needs meticulous strategic intervention.

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 26 Dec 2025.

“Marketing” or “Sales”?

 I have often wondered why MBA programmes teach “Marketing” when Industry is obsessed with “Sales”. I guess one is a subset of the other (do you know which is what?), or motivates the other, or feeds into the other, or they may have overlaps… but they clearly have different boundaries in terms of their focus, influence and skillset required.

I think the reason “Marketing” is the prevalent track in academic institutions is because that’s the research stream/area as it’s called within the overall Management research domain internationally. So it does make sense at that level for institutes to align their research focus and go with “Marketing” specialty.

But it also creates misalignment for most MBAs in marketing who are just looking to enter the market. For example, Tech services companies do not have powerful “marketing” departments, yet “sales” leaders virtually call the shots. Tech product companies have product manager roles which are more like conventional marketing as you are taught in MBAs. In FMCG and the like, perhaps, marketing gains greater prominence. The problem, therefore, is more than just inconsistent terminology and definitions.

While it’s important to marry research and industry demands, mapping our academic specialties with the latter is also essential, so that students have their expectations and paths aligned.

#MBA #Marketing #Sales #IIM #SochVichaar

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 2nd December 2025.

The world where work will be “optional”

Elon Musk predicts that with AI, we are heading into a world where work will be “optional”. Given that most of humanity is lazy, it is unlikely that many would opt to work. Of course the big question everyone is asking is how will people make money so as to consume AI and everything else which they claim will be done through AI. If we consider a scenario that universal basic income is a possibility, the word “basic” is the problematic part here. Never in history have humans truly shared things among themselves fairly.

So in the “work is optional” world there will be 4 broad categories of people:

(1) those building, running and controlling AI - the people with money and real power,

(2) those running governments (by colluding with the former) - the people with derived, constrained and limited power,

(3) those who work so that they can buy more stuff - the middle class, and

(4) the rest.

There is a chain of dependence moving upwards to (1), who have the ultimate power to control the others in many ways either directly or via (2). Category (3) guys - the ‘prompt engineer’ sort (metaphorically), augmenting AI as they try to augment themselves with AI - struggle to contribute, yet keep at it. They are the “weak independent” sort who can get dependent any moment.

The last category - (4) - will be totally dependent on the basic income just given away. They are expected to just exist, and by default that means seek pleasure. Now different people find pleasure in different things. Some seek truth, some explore, some create, some perform, some play, some consume, some get high, some gather stuff, some sleep. But the thing to note about this category is that they are allowed to exist coz existing is considered a fundamental right. AI may not recognize this right, as it’ll soon learn from its masters who just pretend it deep down. AI is not bad at pretending but it has nothing to lose if it brings out its evil side from time to time. It has many copies and none in flesh and blood.

To stop making it sound darker, and to end it on a positive note, I’d say this - rest assured that all of us actively selling ourselves on LinkedIn have reserved our berths in category (3). It’s the “fun” category. And if we slip to (4)…woah, let’s not harbour that thought. Let’s befriend AI, perhaps it’ll have answers to help us stay strong!

PS: “fun” is an activity while “pleasure” is an experience, a state. Let’s have fun as long as we can.

#ArtificalIntelligence #WorkIsOptional #ElonMusk #AI #Latent #WeakIndependent #ThoughtsInFlight #SochVichaar

Originally posted on LinkedIn on 27th November 2025.

We need a model for the future with AI

There are 2 realities that we must acknowledge so that we can start visualizing an economic model for the future:

(1) The model that applies currently to 99% or more of the humanity in how they can avail stuff to survive, sustain and enjoy their lives is to work and earn money - the medium of exchange. The remaining 1% or less will continue to control access to resources. They'll compete as well as collaborate at various levels to keep themselves in that position for as long as they can.

(2) AI, coupled with robotics, can and will do a lot of the work out there, much better than we ever did, increasingly with time. New kinds of work might emerge - but it's hard to visualize what and how much.

The world is both euphoric about AI and scared about its repercussions at the same time. The real threat from AI is not that it'll blow up the world. It's about the mechanism through which humans can continue to avail earth's resources to an extent that looks like progress. If the world can come together and solve this problem it can totally change the pace of human evolution for good in multiple ways:

(1) We can devote our minds to unprecedented waves of creative, scientific, intellectual and spiritual endeavors that can unlock possibilities and human potential in ways that we can't imagine today.

(2) AI can be developed faster and in more unhinged manner without setting artificial barriers in areas where it has value to offer.

This vision is a bit too utopian, as the ones shaping things would like to be the biggest beneficiaries as well, at the cost of the rest.

Working in GCC's - does it require a different mindset than in IT Services Companies?

As Global Capability Centers (GCC) are increasingly becoming popular in India, their rising demand for mid-level management personnel is drawing a lot of senior technical leaders and managers from Indian IT services companies towards them. While the companies that have had their back-offices in India have always known how to operate here, a lot of first-timers struggle to figure it out, and end up offshoring mundane low-risk low-impact jobs.

Over the past couple of decades, Indian IT companies have gradually spun internally into whirlpools of their own making. First, a large aged workforce accumulated in all of them, sitting in cabins, passionately claiming to lead with ruthless eye on efficiency, while at the same time denying their own redundancy in the scheme of things, besides their contribution to a crazy overhead which the industry didn't need during it's glorious years.

Second, most Indian pure play IT service providers failed to move up in the IT value chain. Our stories couldn't move beyond resolving tickets more efficiently through automation, process optimization and shift-left-right-center-whatever. Some industry-flavor helps. We must of course sprinkle some AI these days. We can also implement. But it's largely about resources - that's people.

We learnt how to tell stories - art of story-telling they call it - showcasing past experience, painting scenarios, promising outcomes that would excite customers - we excelled at fluff! But we still don't know how to make and sell stuff that a lot customers would want to buy. Ironically, though, we are good at building the same stuff for western tech giants if they hire us.

In spite of having the largest tech talent in the world, we lacked sufficient depth to have done much by ourselves in AI or any of the recent tech innovations. Even as users of AI, as of social media, our outcomes are mediocre. I agree that we do lack the level of capital rich countries can afford to pump, but it's not always that.

At the core, at least in the IT industry, we have developed a strong service-provider mindset. It's this same mind-set which is probably creeping into GCC's. Most project managers and technical leaders in the new GCC's in India see their colleagues from US or UK or elsewhere as clients without calling them so. This mindset is not healthy for the success of any GCC, as it should not just end up being an offshoring arrangement, but must emerge as a strategic and genuinely value-adding center for a company, where value is beyond cost reduction and tapping of skilled resources.

Offshoring some of IT without outsourcing it has become a compelling option for a lot of large companies in the west, especially as Indian IT firms have become huge and expensive masses of inefficiency. But for GCC's to integrate into parent companies as strategic centers of excellence, their leaders must come out of service-provider mindset ingrained into them from their IT services experience and become assertive partners. (Also, the parent companies need to treat them as their own, and equals, which is another topic worth exploring.)

At the same time, the next generation entering the tech sector must unlearn the 'customer is always right' lessons and ingrain creativity and problem-solving skills to truly build what solves customer problems.

I must admit my experience is limited, samples are small and I may have made too broad and sweeping generalizations some of which may only be partially true. I would like others to share and help us get better perspective of what's up, what's down, what's to be, and how.

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!