About six years ago, I created this website so that I could write more often and engage with my friends and colleagues on topics of mutual interest. When I look back, I can give myself a B for the effort... I did not write as regularly as I wanted to, and perhaps the topics were rather diverse and scattered; but a few posts did create a lot of engagement. Of course, the post that is most memorable to me and several others who talk to me about it was written when I left Tata Communications. 

During the last 30 months, my work has been quite diverse... teaching at b-schools, executive education for corporates, publishing management cases, mentoring a few start-ups, and more. I have been using GlobalGyan informally as a "brand" for many of my activities. Now, my education work is entering the next, more structured phase under the banner of GlobalGyan Academy of Management Education. 

Soon, www.globalgyan.in will become the portal for that venture. I will continue to write on relevant management topics in the GlobalGyan blog. For other personal topics, I need to figure out an alternative... most likely at Medium.  

If you came to www.globalgyan.in looking for information on GlobalGyan Academy, please bear with me for a few more days. The New Year will see a new beginning for this website.

In an earlier post, we looked at how network orchestrators like Uber, Zomato and Facebook see exponential increase in connections as they add more participants. There is clearly tremendous value in being a first mover and growing market share rapidly, even at the cost of reasonable business economics. Yet, we also see that none of the networks are really unique – every platform idea has spawned several other copy-cats. Most of the markets are still nascent and have a lot of room for growth, so everyone believes they have a chance at success. Moreover, given the asset-light model of network orchestrators, there are no real entry barriers for a me-too product.

This absence of competitive advantage is emphasized by the apparent lack of any platform loyalty by network participants. For instance, most customers of ride-sharing services have downloaded more than one app on their phones; likewise, many drivers have signed up to two or more networks. Availability and price seem to determine choice for both sides of the network. A similar situation of bargain-seeking can be seen in e-commerce and real-estate marketplaces.

As long as the role of the platform is to just aggregate and enable discovery of supply and demand (at no cost to either), there is limited stickiness. The next platform with a slightly lower price or transaction fee will churn traffic to its network. In an extreme but plausible scenario, why wouldn’t the network participants try to disintermediate the platforms? On several occasions, drivers of the ride-sharing networks pass along their business cards, asking to be contacted directly. What would stop the customer from saving a bunch of phone numbers for the promise of a lower price?

Essentially, how do these platforms add value beyond discovery and aggregation? Let us discuss two major sources of value and differentiation that appear to be working for the successful platforms.

Information

Every time a transaction occurs in the network, the platform gains valuable information that can be used to predict future demand / behavior. A taxi network that has analyzed demand / supply patterns can help its driver partners to locate themselves at specific locations that increase the chances of being hailed quickly. The network can ensure that all the drivers do not land up at the most obvious hotspots (e.g. airports) even as customers are waiting elsewhere. Not only does this help the drivers increase capacity utilization, but customers also benefit from faster access to rides. In fact, surge pricing reflects inefficiency in network planning (matching of demand to supply).

The principle would apply to any of the network businesses. E-retailers can plan inventory and logistics better, even as they offer valuable suggestions to customers on what else they might buy. A social network would be able to match people with other people, and people with advertisers much better.

Valuable insights about the network can create improved efficiency on the supply side, and customized access and experience on the demand side.

Risk Management

Any interaction or transaction carries an inherent risk of something going wrong. When it is done bilaterally, each party builds in safeguards to mitigate risk, thus creating inefficiency. If I were to book a cab, I would ask the driver to reach at least half an hour early because I am worried (based on previous experiences) that he would be late. It is inefficient for both of us – the taxi remains unproductive for that time and I might have to pay some waiting charges. Or we mitigate risks by purchasing from well-known sellers (brands) because they offer an assurance of quality. We could have bought a shirt directly, at a lower price, from the contract manufacturer who actually made the branded shirt.

The network platform, as a third-party intermediary, can take on the responsibility of efficiently mitigating our risk, partly through the information it collects and partly through its own due-diligence. By providing an estimated time of arrival (using location information of the driver and rider), the taxi app gives an assurance of availability. By collecting user feedback ratings, the network builds a self-correcting mechanism of quality. Through physical due-diligence (e.g. supplier verification), and standing guarantee to the fulfilment of the transaction, the platform mitigates risk for all parties involved.

Assurance of fulfilment, timeliness and quality by the platform can reduce transaction anxiety and increase stickiness amongst network participants   

There is an Uber of something for almost every industry now. Actually, there are many of them. What will differentiate a successful platform from yet another copy-cat is the ability to use information effectively and efficiently to derive meaningful insights and reduce transaction anxiety.

(This was first published at DNA on October 20, 2015.)

Everywhere you look, there’s an Uber for something nowadays, whether it is healthcare or heavy equipment. The tremendous excitement about companies termed as Network Orchestrators makes one wonder if a dramatic discovery has been in the world of business.

Platforms like Uber or Ola connect drivers with riders and takes a share of the transaction value. Zomato or Foursquare connect restaurants with customers through an exchange of information (menus, photos, reviews, etc.); as they add advertising or delivery transactions, the platforms make money through revenue share. Similarly, Facebook and Twitter connect people with other people or businesses through information; revenue is made through advertising or transactions.  

In essence, network orchestrators enable ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers’ to discover and transact with each other. Most of these companies are rather asset light and their intrinsic value is a function of the number of participants in the network. If you were the only person on Facebook, zero connections would be made. Two persons would create one connection, three persons three connections, and six connections would be possible with four persons. A network of “n” participants gives rise to (n²-n)/2 connections, i.e. the number of transactions is an exponential function of the number of participants. While traditional business models grow linearly when their customer numbers increase, networks grow exponentially when their participants increase.

However, the idea of networks is not new. They have been around for centuries. We can seem them all around us. Financial exchanges are networks that connect buyers and sellers of shares; telecom networks connect speakers with listeners; banks connect depositors and borrowers; and shopping malls connect stores with shoppers. Brokers, whether they be of real-estate, wedding, or acquisition deals, have been around for a while too. Someone jokingly said that Sage Narada from Indian mythology ran the first information network.

So, what is all the excitement about? Why is there so much hype now about network models, and more importantly, such high valuations chasing them? There are three major reasons:

First, technology – a combination of the Internet, mobility and location-tracking – is enabling unprecedented scale to the networks. A real-estate broker was constrained by her time and also the localities which she could cover; an online brokerage has no such limitations. A retail store has constraints of time, location and (physical) space; an e-commerce site has no such issues. The use of technology and automation enables each platform to potentially reach every human being who can theoretically be targeted for that product or service; consequently, value increases exponentially.

Second, networks are being discovered in industries that were not seen as “network-friendly.” For instance, the automobile business was not considered a technology business; however, Uber is playing on the emerging mindset that customers do not need cars, they need a transportation service. Most “traditional” businesses probably have network models hidden in them, the orchestrators are just creating more efficiency and customer satisfaction, thereby taking significant market share away from incumbents.

Third, many of the traditional network businesses lost sight of their core operating model somewhere along the way. Banks, for instance, became asset heavy with lots of branches, systems and people; they are no longer efficiently connecting savings and loans. Similarly, many telecom operators moved to asset based, monthly rental models from transaction led, per minute pricing. This has given an opportunity for new-age players to build more efficient networks. Lending Club, anonline marketplace for peer lending connects depositors and borrowers at a fraction of the cost of traditional banks. Internet-based telephony and messaging company, Whatsapp which rides on others’ telecom infrastructure and provides free services, has 800 million active users, more than any mobile operator in the world.

Network business models are not new; neither are they technology businesses. The most successful of them use technology to accelerate their growth, discover hidden networks in traditional industries and create highly efficient, asset-light business models. Every company can gain from network business models; they just need to know where to look.

(This was first published at DNA on October 10, 2015.)

Mobile operators complain that spectrum prices are too high in India. Of course, the government policy of releasing small chunks of scarce spectrum at irregular intervals and setting high reserve prices is faulty. But that has not prevented mobile operators from bidding huge, unviable amounts to corner that spectrum even if it has come at the cost of required investments in network expansion. Indeed, there are now demands that spectrum in 700MHz be released by the government for which there would presumably be a mad rush. Some industry insiders say that the leading operators would rather wait to invest in building networks in the more efficient 700 MHz spectrum than in 1800 and 2100 MHz. Naturally that begs the question why so much money was spent in acquiring the latter spectrum.

There can be no denying that a lot of spectrum in India remains underutilized by the defence and other government bodies. But it is also true that private mobile operators have been extremely inefficient in using the spectrum for which they have paid huge amounts. A recent audit by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has reportedly  shown that better optimization of the network could result in dramatic improvements in quality of service. It has also been found that operators have set aside spectrum for data capacity expansion at the expense of their voice quality. And then we have the spectacular case of spectrum inefficiency: an operator who acquired 20MHz of pan-India spectrum in 2010 for Rs 12840 crore has not launched services even five years later.

An additional issue that has prevented network roll-out, at least in some cases, is that of permissions for tower infrastructure. Recent push-back amongst municipal authorities in permitting cell-sites in dense urban locations coupled with unnecessary and unscientific scare-mongering about the impact of radiation have added to the problem. The government needs to create certain national guidelines for critical infrastructure like cell-sites and fiber networks. The ambitions of a Digital India cannot be held ransom to by local municipalities, building societies and activists.

The suggestion in the TRAI consultation paper that operators should not charge for calls that are dropped is welcome: why should customers pay for a service that they did not receive? Unfortunately, the devil would be in the detail of its implementation. Envisage a scenario of a customer of Operator A calling the customer of Operator B and the call drops in the 50^th second of a minute; how is it established which operator dropped the call? Should both operators not charge for that minute, in which case the more efficient operator would lose revenue due to the failure of the other? How do customers keep track of this? TRAI should provide clarification on the mechanisms for not charging and compensating customers for call drops.

The most important action, however, that the DoT and TRAI must take is to examine the real causes for the deterioration of voice networks in India by doing an actual technical audit of all the mobile networks. Instead of being pressured into giving out more spectrum to those who are seeking to corner it, they must ensure effective utilization of spectrum that has already been allocated. If commensurate capital expenditure in network expansion does not follow spectrum acquisition, then a question must be raised about the underlying strategic logic of such investment. Further, the TRAI must study if a few players are blocking effective competition by pricing spectrum out of reach of the others. Do customers really have competitive choice in terms of enough differences in service offerings, quality and prices between various operators? Are call-drops just a symptom of a bigger structural problem in the Indian telecom industry?

(Disclosure: I was associated very closely with the Tata group's telecom business for many years. I continue to remain engaged in advisory services (mostly, teaching/training) with the Tata group telecom companies and other mobile/tech companies.

Last night saw one of the longest keynote announcements from Apple. At over 2-hours, it packed in updates to all their major product categories except computers. John Gruber has a nice summary of the event that you should read.

I wanted to share a couple of observations:

New iPad

When the original iPad was unveiled in 2010, I wrote that this was a computing device for the GAAKS - Grandparents, Aunties, Average J at work, Kids and Students. Over the years, the iPad evolved into a highly capable computer, replacing the use of a PC for many. But for some segments, it was still a media/reader accessory to the traditional laptops. While the iPad offered the great advantage of touch and easy access, it lacked some of the features that power users normally sought. In the business world, it's surely the physical keyboard. In some of the creative fields, perhaps the ability to have precision inputs. The size of the screen and the tablet's computing power were also "weaknesses", for many.

Apple has now made a major push into the enterprise, through partnerships with IBM and Cisco. So it was but natural that iPad would evolve into a device targeted at professionals. The iPad Pro appears to address the "shortcomings" of the previous iPads with its larger screen (13") and a processor that is superior to that of most PCs! More interesting were the two input accessories that were launched - the Smart keyboard and the Pencil. One would need to experience them before getting to a verdict but the videos and demos were superb. 

Nearly two years ago while watching the Indian super-hero movie (Krrish 3), I couldn't help but feel sad that Bollywood movie-makers weren't thinking big enough. I had suggested that if 100-million middle class Indians spent $1 each, a movie could garner Rs 600 crore ($100 million then) -- at that time, Krrish 3 had become the second-highest grossing Indian movie with just Rs 250 crore.

This year, Baahubali crossed Rs 500 crore in India collections, the only movie to do so.  

Let's take this Rs 500 crore number. Assuming an average ticket price of Rs 100 (using a 25:75 split between multiplexes and single screen theatres), it means 50 million tickets sold. Anecdotal evidence (including my own behaviour) suggests that many people watched the movie 2-3 (or more) times. That would mean fewer than 50 million unique viewers, perhaps 30 million or so. Imagine... the most successful Indian movies have less than 3% market penetration! Even if we considered the 140 million cable/DTH (subscription TV) households as the addressable market based on affordability, we are looking at a 5% penetration.

On the other hand, in the US market, a highly successful movie like the Avengers grossed upwards of $600mn, translating into about 75 million tickets sold (at just over $8 per ticket). As such, the ticket numbers (75mn in USA vs. 50mn in India) don't look very different but given the vastly different denominators (population: 319mn vs. 1267mn), one would expect much larger numbers here. 

There are probably two major reasons why Indian movies have such low penetration:

1. Content is not universally acceptable. Even in a highly fragmented market such as cinema, it is tough to believe that the most successful product appeals to just 5% of the market. Different languages spoken in India adds to the challenge. Just 45% of the population knows Hindi, thus ruling out the most popular Bollywood movies to a majority of the market. 

2. Reach of cinemas is still very low. India has 9000 cinema screens, giving it a density of just 8 per a million population. On the other hand, the US has 117! Therefore, even if a good movie with universal appeal were to be made, access would still be a huge issue. Obviously, cable & satellite TV has much greater reach but far less monetization (on an average about Rs 50 crore per movie). Further, most Indian movies have also not been very creative or aggressive in the after-movie market of accessories, merchandising and digital content/games. 

On the first factor, Baahubali has made an interesting beginning* by releasing Hindi, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam versions simultaneously, thus addressing over 60% of the market. Even the theme - an Indian super-hero movie on the lines of popular mythology / historical stories - probably had wider appeal. The cast included well-known stars from the southern states; if there had been a recognized Bollywood star, I guess the Hindi version would have done much better. This could hold the formula for future, large budget Indian movies: 

* Stories that can connect across cultural groups (fantasy / mythology / patriotism / kids)

* Dubbed simultaneously in all major languages (Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati, Malayalam... would hit almost 75%)

* Multi-starrers with leading actors/actresses from various regions

On the second factor, it would be interesting to see if Baahubali can revive an interest (and value) of TV rights for a movie. There hasn't been much to see on the merchandising front too.

The profits from the first Baahubali should give its makers (and other producers) the confidence to push the boundaries next year. It would be exciting to see an Indian movie cross Rs 1000 crores ($150mn now) in revenues soon. There, that's the new target!

(* Other movies like Roja, Robot and Bombay were also released in multiple languages earlier. Baahubali is the only one amongst the all-time box office leaders.) 

It is college admission time and we are outraged (again) as various Indian colleges announce their cut-off levels. A few at the Delhi University are at 100% and most are above 90%. So we will rant for a while, and like our friend Ali Haider sang many years ago say, "Yahan ka system hi hai kharab!" 

Why is the cut-off at 98% or 100%? Obviously, these colleges have received applications from a sufficient number of students with those marks - else why would they create an artificial entry barrier. Earlier, these colleges didn't have such high thresholds for entry, as confirmed by a celebrity media anchor (rather modestly): 

Next on news today at 9: crazy cut offs. 98 per cent needed to get into a top Eco college. I certainly wouldn't have made it!

— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) June 25, 2015

So why have the cut-offs crept up? 

Maybe the kids are getting brighter - they have many more avenues to learn from and are therefore, smarter than ever before. Perhaps the exams are getting easier, in an attempt to make education easier and more inclusive. Whatever the reason might be, we now have a greater demand from youngsters who have scored high marks in their school exams and are seeking higher education amongst the top Indian colleges. 

How can a large and increasing demand be a problem? Under normal market circumstances, more demand is good. But in education, we don't have a normal market. While there are many colleges (supply), the problem is that there are just not enough good quality ones. Due to various regulations and controls, only the politically connected or the unscrupulous seem to be investing in expanding education facilities. The situation is so bad that many folks who have young children are wondering how much they have to save every month if they had to send their children for studies overseas.

Given that education is so fundamental to our thinking and the choices we make, I believe that no government - irrespective of ideology - will give up control . So is there no way out? 

The answer could be IIN. 

Is that a joke!? Wait, before you fall off your chair... here's what I mean... let us consider the IIN concept (as shown in the ads) - that you don't necessarily need to go to a formal college to learn the skills that are required to succeed in life. There are several, emerging options - many enabled by technology - which can substitute formal college education... it's just that you will not get the degree.

And it is the degree granting authority of the universities / colleges that give them the power, why they are in so much demand. The degree matters, partly for the social recognition (remember that photo with a funny hat and gown), but mostly because the job market demands a degree, creating yet another entry barrier. Rarely do you come across a job that is not qualified by the degree that is necessary for it. So you see that the limited or controlled access that begins at high school continues all the way to the job market.

But, WHAT IF, what if some large company came forward and said, you know what - these degrees don't matter much. Most of what you learn in college for 3-4 years is outdated or not connected to the job. We will test you on basic aptitude, specific skills and attitudes; we will anyway train you for a while to get you up to speed. WHAT IF a few other companies followed suit. WHAT IF the degree was no longer an entry barrier or gatekeeper to the job market. 

So here's my disruption scenario (and I wish Idea Cellular had actually, publicly played this out)... one or more corporates build institutes (or portals) of learning and certification but not degree granting. Anyone above a certain age is eligible to join based on an aptitude test, irrespective of how much they scored in any school exam (or whether they went to a school or not!). Since there is no degree, no government or university approval is required. They offer to hire all those who qualify through the programs. Soon, other corporates seeking to tap into this qualified talent pool would make competing offers to these students or set up their own such institutes. Or, as is more likely, entrepreneurs will create a mix of online/offline models of certification (think MOOC++) on the basis of demand from these corporates.

Is this feasible? I think so... there are many IT services companies which (each) hire thousands of "engineers" and then put them through months of training. What if TCS, Infosys and Wipro that hire over 50,000-70,000 freshers annually said that in 2016, 25% of our entry level hires will not require any degree, just the appropriate skills? I can tell you, just like the IIT coaching cottage industry bloomed, we will have private tutors, entrepreneurs and portals coaching young people for the job interviews. Five years ago, I wrote briefly about the need for corporates to do something about it... it's still not too late.

One might argue that this is a very materialistic view of education; there's more to it than just getting a job. True, and I am not asking that colleges and degrees be done away with. Just that for a majority of the student body, the primary purpose of education is to enable a livelihood. We need to ensure that their access to the job market through good quality education is not blocked because they haven't scored 98% or their parents cannot afford to send them overseas.

It is fashionable nowadays to write about the first week or first month anniversaries with gadgets, as well as publicly break-up with them. So, let me join the fray! To be fair to myself, though, I had written about my expectations and first impressions of the iPad - therefore, this is not something new. 

This note is based on personal experiences and should not be seen as applying to everyone. I will try to highlight, objectively, why the Apple Watch works and where it needs improvement. For some, it will work more and for others, it won't at all. 

A few quick, initial comments:

First off, the Apple Watch (in its current avatar) requires an iPhone. That, in itself, is a limiting factor on whom it's meant for. Yes, you could be so impressed with the Watch that you ditch your Android or Blackberry and jump on to the iOS side but that's highly unlikely. (Although for those still on Blackberry phones, just jump on to something else, watch or no watch!)

Secondly, for those in India, it is probably going to be a while before the Watch is available locally. Unless you are willing to jump through hoops to get it from some other country, you have some time to make your decision.

Finally, I would say the Apple Watch (at its price - in INR equivalents) is for the enthusiasts, those early adopters that like to experiment with and experience new products. The inflection point should happen, I believe, this fall when the new Watch OS (and apps based it) become available. 

What worked for me

1.  Reduced the distraction of the iPhone

We have to admit it - most of us are addicted to the iPhone (or any other similar smartphone). Constantly checking for new messages, mails, alerts or tweets - our eyes remain glued to the phone. I have often, while working or in meetings, wanted to put the phone on silent and leave it in my bag, but there's this fear (or desire!) of that urgent call or message that might be missed. So, the phone remains handy and with that, its constant distraction. The iPhone is great because it allows you to do so much with it; that's also its weakness.

With the Apple Watch, my phone has been on silent mode for the most of last month. When I am walking, working or in meetings, the phone is rarely in my hand or within eye-glance. When I want to, I can now focus on the task. Let me give you an example.

I would always carry my phone in my hand while walking outdoors. Perhaps to check time (I had stopped wearing a watch) or to ensure that I didn't miss an 'important' call or message. And since the phone was handy, why don't I quickly check my Twitter feed or oh, there's a notification on FB, let's see what that is.... Before I knew it, my eyes were on the phone even as I was crossing the street or navigating broken pavements. Last week, I was walking somewhere and suddenly it struck me that I hadn't looked at my phone for nearly half an hour! It was in my jeans pocket and I had forgotten that it was there. So what changed?

The Watch has this wonderful wrist tapping mechanism of alerts. I have set it to notify me (and only me) under specific circumstances. Most calls or messages can be ignored for a while; even if a message is urgent, the most likely response is Yes or No. In an exceptional situation, I can answer the call on the Watch itself or send a voice message in response if the canned options don't suffice. 

2. Made me stand up more often

Being very active (physically) doesn't come naturally to me. My work, when I am not teaching in class, requires me to mostly sit in meetings or in front of a computer. Sitting is the new smoking, they say. And all we do is sit (or sleep!). In spite of this knowledge, our lifestyles haven't changed much. It is so easy to continue the status quo.

Unless, there's a tap on the wrist and you are told that it's "Time to stand!" Fifty minutes into an hour, if you've not stood for at least a minute, the Watch prompts you to get up and move about a bit. Standing for one minute per hour can't be such a big deal, you may think. Believe me, even a month later and after being more conscious about the need to stand, I get this alert at least twice a day. The Watch also aids the iPhone's activity tracking - I am more likely to have my Watch on when moving than to have the phone in my pocket. 

While I have not seen any dramatic fitness or weight loss results during the past month, I do check daily how active I have been. Hopefully, results will show soon. Here's an interesting post by someone who used the iOS HealthKit and the Watch to lose a lot of weight!

3.Told me the time

 The Apple Watch also tells the time. With a turn of the wrist or the raise of my arm.

The question is - are the above "benefits" worth the $350 starting price. "Not being distracted by the phone" might appear to be a double-whammy: pay a huge price for the smartphone and then get this watch to reduce distraction! True. But if you are already on the smartphone distraction boat, then the Apple Watch will feel like a liberating force. Yes, you can get activity/fitness trackers for much less, but then they are what they are: bands.

The Watch is a beautiful piece of hardware - not at all geeky. The digital crown and the various straps are very cleverly designed. Yes, it could be thinner but the Apple Watch doesn't feel out of place on the wrist. 

There's a lot that needs to improve with the Apple Watch to make it attractive and value for money for a wider audience. Most of that change is software based, so it can happen without having to wait for the next hardware iteration of the device. The new OS that was demonstrated at WWDC appears to address many of the problems and also opens the Watch up for innovation by app developers. I am waiting to see some good apps that go beyond a miniature version of the iPhone app. My friend Sajith Pai has an interesting idea about leveraging the signaling prowess of the Apple Watch. Time will tell. (Oops, sorry, I couldn't resist that!)

One more thing: I believe the Apple Watch will have serious implications for watch manufacturers, maybe not so much for luxurious, hand-crafted Swiss watches but for the mid-range quartz watches that are in the $50-300 range. How so, when the Apple Watch starts at $350? 

The Apple Watch may focus on its well-crafted, premium segment but it is helping shape a new market category. It's a matter of 12-24 months before competitors and imitators create wonderful looking, good enough, Android-based smartwatches. The traditional watch will then be left with just price as a competitive variable. Try competing on price with Micromax and Xiaomi. 

(Updated: Earlier I had referred to Canvas as distinct from Micromax. Thanks Farhan for pointing it out.)

Anyone who has taken Gallup's Q12 employee engagement survey would have recognised that this post is about the most controversial question of the twelve. Employees are required to rate, on a 5-point scale, if they have a best friend at their work place. Most respondents read this question literally and reply that their "real" best friends are not their colleagues. Some others question the relevance of such a question and seek to keep their personal lives separate from the professional.

In fact, I recall this NYT article about the difficulty of making new friends once you are in the thirties and forties. A subsequent discussion about this article with several colleagues revealed that there could be a western / eastern divide on this topic. For instance, in India, the workplace is often a seamless extension of the personal space / family. Many Indian organisations refer to themselves as families. On the other hand, the (typical) western view of a job is led by the employment contract. (As always exceptions exist.)

But this post is not really to discuss the Gallup survey or west/east divides. It is about friends. And some reflections on the topic during my 24 months out of a workplace.

Many of us, over the course of our careers, give all our time to our job. This comes at the cost of our personal relationships, including a connection with the self. As we jump from one role to another and hop from one airport to the next, friends and family take a hit. Somehow, due to greater proximity and responsibilities, we might keep the family ties alive but friends from yester-years (childhood, school/college, first job) are forgotten. Yes, Facebook might remind us of their birthdays and a Whatsapp group creates an illusion of fun and conversation but the connect is lost.

Meanwhile, we build new relationships with colleagues and others whom we meet in the context of work. Or parents of our kids' friends. Yet, very few of them rise to the best friend category. The NYT article mentions three conditions that are essential to creating friendships: proximity, repeated/unplanned interactions, and a setting that enables people to confide in each other. I believe that the first two conditions are enablers whereas the third seals the bond. That's the reason friends from childhood (age of innocence) or hostel life (high level of dependence on each other) are often in the BFF category. On the other hand, even as corporate relationships provide opportunities for meeting frequently, most organization cultures (or politics) prevent the confiding from happening.

So we end up with this set of highly transactional relationships with colleagues. Meanwhile, lack of proximity and/or repeated interactions with our original best friends weakens the bond of trust. When we change jobs, new work relationships replace the old ones, and the illusion of company continues. The hollow nature of such existence is most felt when we quit a job for a solo gig (like I did)... there may be no 'workplace' nor are we surrounded by constant emails and meetings that have come to define our social life.

I was fortunate that some of my work relationships did turn into good friendships - perhaps it was the challenging journey at Tata Communications or it was just a coincidence. Even though we lived in different cities/countries, work created sufficient opportunities to meet frequently; shared passions (like gadgets and innovation) and values (like humility and respect) helped transcend age / hierarchy barriers. Now, we meet less often... will this also go the school/college friend way?

The last two years have taught me a lot about relationships, in both professional and personal lives. The achievements that we care about so much - grades or earnings or deals concluded or goals overachieved - matter very little beyond the immediate. People stay in touch (or not) because of their experience of who I was as a person. My former colleagues might have all but forgotten what I did at the company for ten years; however, they probably have a vivid recollection of how I made them feel during our interactions. 

Take a minute to answer these (or any similar) questions:

When was the last time you went on an impromptu road-trip with your school friends?

When was the last time you surprised your parents (or grand-parents) with an unplanned visit?

When was the last time you cuddled with your spouse on a weekday because the weather was such?

When was the last time you began (and continued) a new hobby?

If you cannot remember the answer, note that your friends & family cannot too.

It is not possible to turn the clock back on what we did or didn't do in the past. But we can surely work on the present and future. We must change the way we measure our life and (re-)allocate our resources accordingly. Now, pick up that phone...

Following my earlier post on FoE, one question that remained unresolved in my mind: does FoE automatically granted everyone the freedom to insult. Rajeet raised a similar issue in his comments on that post. Here I try to (somewhat) address that question and also share some more ideas and information that I have come across.

It appears that the United States has taken an extreme position on free speech, through its interpretation of the First Amendment that there shall be no law abridging the freedom of speech. The US Supreme Court, in a landmark case in 1969, went so far as to permitting even "hate speech" as protected by Constitution unless it presented the possibility of "imminent lawless action." This formulation, referred to also as the Brandenburg test, looks for "imminence, intent and likelihood" of the speech leading to violence or violation of laws.

Another recent US Supreme Court judgement in Snyder vs. Phelps reaffirmed this "extreme" view on protecting speech, thereby enabling the Westboro Baptist Church to make offensive statements at a soldier's funeral... as long as it was speech in public interest, made at a public location. Essentially, as long as a particular speech is not personal in nature nor delivered to a "captive audience," the state has no right to prohibit it, subject to the Brandenburg test. In an earlier case, Cohen vs. California, the USSC struck down a law that tried to regulate content of speech, whereas the state may be within its right to determine conduct (timing, location, etc.) Even with regards to restrictions on conduct, the USSC had issues with a law that was "vague" and did not specify what citizens could do or not. They said that the words "offensive conduct" alone cannot "be said sufficiently to inform the ordinary person that distinctions between certain locations are thereby created." Justice John Marshall Harlan II famously wrote, in the context of a four-letter expletive in this case, that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Therefore, my understanding of the US position is that insulting a religion is permitted under FoE because it is a matter of public interest, but insulting someone personally - the fighting words doctrine - would not be protected speech.

So, should you punch someone in the face because he/she insulted you or your family? Clearly Pope Francis believes, yes, in spite of what Jesus suggested about turning the other cheek. Ironically (because of the context of the statement), another spiritual leader, Swami Vivekananda also expressed similar sentiments about what he would do in such a situation. Beyond the rhetoric, the legal position appears to be quite clear: a violent reaction to a verbal insult will put you on the wrong side of the law. So while one would have legal recourse against verbal abuse, particularly if it is threatening or defamatory in nature, giving it back in the same vein might be a more prudent response, if at all. The issue with laws that start encroaching on the verbal insult / abuse territory is that politicians / police officers / lawyers won't know when and where to stop. In fact, faced with (often silly) distorted implementations of the law against insulting, England recently removed the restrictions on using insulting language (unless it is specifically personal) in its Public Order Act.

Given how the US laws treat free speech, it is quite clear that freedom of expression is severely, and vaguely, restricted in India, because of the First Amendment (how ironic!) to its Constitution.

Just take another recent issue around the Censor Board... while its official name is the Central Board for Film Certification, it actually acts as a guardian of morality and a state-enabled filter for speech. Isn't it strange that a nation of such complexity, diversity and size has allowed a few people, sometimes with no appropriate qualification, to determine what movie content is officially available to be watched. Unfortunately, not only has it been taken for granted that censorship will exist, the new chief of CBFC wants to extend this policing to other forms of content. Incidentally, the US does not actually have a censor board equivalent... the closest they have is the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which is a private trade body and administers the MPAA Ratings that are voluntary for film-makers to use.

Finally (for this post), I want to share this post by Nitin Pai which provides great clarity on the liberal nationalist position on free speech. Here's a portion that I found very interesting:

How much merit is there to the movement for a complete libertarian state where speech is truly free? Is it even possible?

There cannot be a complete libertarian state, as that is an oxymoron. A state involves a social contract where some liberties are traded away for the privilege of enjoying the rest of them. So we give up the right to violence to the state, so that we may enjoy the right to life, property, free speech and so on. 

A figure of merit, therefore, is how few of our liberties do we need to give up in order to enjoy the rest. North Koreans give up 90% of their liberties to enjoy the remaining 10%. North Americans give up 10% of their liberties to enjoy the 90%. I think India should aim to move towards the North American standard, rather than the North Korean standard.

As usual, I am learning more on this topic... please feel free to share your views and suggestions.