GlobalGyan Blog

Freedom of Expression is being feverishly discussed and debated around the world, particularly in the context of the gruesome terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. In India, the discussion has taken the usual political connotations... and in all this freedom of expression, so much is being said that very little is being heard and understood. 

Here are some observations from my side... I am sharing these partly to clarify my own thoughts and partly in the hope that they will help some others in developing their point of view.

1. India does not really have FoE

While there is a lot of discussion around various people's tolerance levels for expression, FoE is not primarily about how each of us react to others' expression. FoE is foremost about how the state (government) treats expression by its citizens. Does it permit, nay encourage, individuals to express what they have in their minds? It appears that most countries / governments accept some form of restrictions on free speech, particularly around speech that harms or offends others. 

The issue in India is that the caveats on free speech give enough leeway to the government to act in a highly subjective manner:

These rights are limited so as not to affect:

• The integrity of India
• The security of the State
• Friendly relations with foreign States
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation or incitement to an offence

If there is one thing that must be debated, it is the First Amendment to the Constitution of India that added "reasonable restriction on freedom of speech" -- it has led to additions in the Indian Penal Code that ensure that true freedom of speech does not exist in India. Anything meaningful that you say will offend someone else and therefore, can give rise to a criminal offense.

The first amendment was brought about, soon after the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, because the then government was unable to silence a critical magazine. All subsequent governments have just enjoyed this cover without questioning it.

2. FoE is not a one-way street

It is amusing that most of us latch on to the FoE bandwagon when it suits us. If we believe in the absoluteness of this freedom, then we must be ready for its consequences. As I mentioned above, any meaningful opinion could offend somebody or the other. If I want to be able to express my views, I should be prepared that others may also say things that I might dislike. By the way, accepting FoE does not mean I have to agree with the content of what others say... this implies that I should be prepared for others to criticize me. 

Content creators like authors, painters, movie-makers, etc. seek absolute freedom to say what they want, however, they should then be ready to accept criticism, in whatever (legal) form it takes. If you are not ready to accept people protesting your content, calling you names or filing legal cases against you (not difficult, given point 1 above), then you should not exercise your freedom of expression. Strangely, journalists who believe in the God-given right to ask questions of anyone on any topic are the first to block others' freedom in asking questions or commenting on them. 

3. FoE is just an excuse 

Many folks asked if Charlie Hebdo should not have been so irreverent about Islam, particularly when they were aware of the violence threats. Why would you go and provoke somebody who has a different thought process / cultural background? 

To this, I will paraphrase something that I wrote during a Facebook discussion on the topic:

Take the "let's not provoke them since they don't like it" argument further ... those who are aggressive and violent will win; those who fear such violence will be silenced. Don't know how this will ever end well. 

Further, I don't think the jihadis really care about the cartoons or the "western" notion of FoE. They probably don't understand religion (else why would they kill other Muslims!?)... I think they just want to provoke everyone else into a "war"... Everytime something like this happens, a few people on the other side get pushed to an extreme, will call all Muslims names or make it tough for them; this provokes some of the moderate Muslims into extremism and creates a fresh source of recruits for the jihadis. It's just a power game... God / faith is just a potent fig-leaf. 

But the problem with becoming silent / withdrawing expression is that it doesn't matter, no? If the goal is to find some excuse for provocation, then it will be found, how much ever accommodating you are. If somebody wants to be aggrieved, they can bring anything up from anywhere / anytime.

In my earlier post, I shared how Uber, Ola and other similar service providers have the potential to disrupt the local travel market. I am a regular user of their services, as are many others with whom I engage online & offline. The benefits and potential are clear, yet some concerns persist. In particular, I worry that a western market approach to growth is being adopted by Uber/Ola. Let me explain.

In general, there are two major differences between developed markets like the US and emerging markets like India: one, weaker basic infrastructure, and two, insufficient skilled manpower. Infrastructure, in the context of Ola/Uber pertains not only to physical stuff like roads, public transit facilities, good quality taxis, etc. but also to related systems like traffic management, police and credit verification, licensing. By skills, I refer to trained drivers, customer service ethics, customer education, etc. When markets open up, like they did in the past decade in India, everyone goes after the gold rush... but, many hit the tripwires of inadequate infrastructure and skills. Telecom and financial services industries are good examples; other consumer services industries face similar risks.

Keeping the above in mind, here are a few suggestions for Ola/Uber; these are in two categories, the first are immediate fixes to improve customer experience and the second are to build sustainable businesses.

Customer Experience Fixes

1. Fix your location tracking

A typical use case... I'm in a meeting and about 10-15 minutes before it ends, I go to the Ola app and order a cab. Since the app works quite well, it's a matter of a few seconds and I get it done without much distraction. However, in a couple of minutes, the driver calls because he wants to know where exactly I am and/or where I want to go. Obviously the phone is on silent and I have no way of answering the call. He calls a few times and often, does not move from his current location till I have called back and confirmed the pick-up. 

Even if I were not in a meeting, I may not want to have that conversation... the reason I am using a mobile app is because it is easy and super quick. Why would you spoil that with the follow-up call? The driver should reach the pick-up point based on the GPS / location from the app. Many drivers have complained to me that they don't get a clear location or a route map on the app. Similarly, the driver tracking on the customer app is often delayed or inaccurate... in my experience, Uber has the best, real-time tracking, Ola is accurate but not real-time and Meru has the worst location tracking.

This tweet from Bhatnaturally summarizes the problem:

Hi @Olacabs in your 'reason for cancellation' option in the app, please add 'Driver clueless about pick up location despite GPS' as option

— bhatnaturally  (@bhatnaturally) January 15, 2015

2. Penalize errant drivers

The other day, a cab showed up as being 5 minutes away - it was less than a kilometer from my place. I ordered it and went down immediately since I was in a hurry. Ten minutes later, there was no sign of him, so I called his mobile. He answered disinterestedly and said that he was in the queue to fill CNG, so it would take him 15-20 minutes to reach. I asked him why he was showing up online if he was not able to respond to a request... he kind of murmured that that's how it was, and asked me to cancel the booking! 

In order to increase the availability of the cabs, the service providers (Ola/Uber) give them a bonus for being online for a certain time daily or weekly... I believe Uber's incentive kicks in at 12 hours per day. Therefore, many of the drivers keep their apps turned on even when they are unavailable to respond to a request. They are willing to take the chance of turning away a customer in order to add to punch in more hours. Also, some drivers refuse to show up when they realize that the destination is not very attractive to them.

Such behavior by drivers defeats the core value proposition of convenience and availability. Not all service providers capture this information (e.g. reason for canceling a confirmed booking); even those that capture it, are they taking prompt action? If a driver refuses a ride - without a legitimate reason, he should perhaps be blacklisted for the day (or more)... 

Don't let your core value proposition be diluted.

3. Set an example on the roads

Sometime ago, I was in one of the cabs going to the airport at night. The driver's mobile phone rang and he looked at the screen to check who was calling. Just at that moment, the car ahead of him braked suddenly because an auto came in its way. Since my driver's eyes had moved away from the road, his reaction was a second late and the cab hit the car in front of it. Luckily, there wasn't much damage and we moved on, but there is no doubt that accidents are waiting to happen on the road if you lose focus.

While there has been much discussion on improving security / transparency through better verification of drivers, an equally important expectation from Ola/Uber is that they would follow safe traffic practices. No mobile phone while driving, following speed limits, obeying traffic lights, using a seat belt, using turn indicators while shifting lanes / turning... these have to become standard driving practice. If Ola/Uber cannot have better driving practices than the regular taxis, autos and buses, then what's the point?

Make safe driving a standard practice. Specifically seek customer feedback about it.

Building the Business

This is where Uber / Ola will have to customize their business model for Indian (and other similar markets) context. Yes, they are aggregators / marketing agents that are connecting drivers and commuters... but that is not sufficient. They need to consider investing significant resources towards capability development, even if it means moving (slightly) away from an asset-light model. All the private equity funding need not go in discounting fares / price wars... there is no brand creation due to lower prices. I have three different apps that I check every time I need a vehicle - price is no longer the choice factor; it is availability. And if there are two different cabs available at similar times, I choose the operator whose vehicles are cleaner, drivers appear to better behaved and GPS works better. If you want the customer to consistently choose you over the others (i.e. create competitive advantage), price is not going be the primary factor. Here are a few things that could help build a brand:

1. Invest in driver training

Over the last few months I have encountered at least a hundred different drivers in Mumbai and spoken with many of them. Apart from an  induction program that many of them had attended, there was no other training mentioned. Wouldn't the drivers be able to better represent your brand if they were trained in customer service, communication, driving skills, routes & places of interest, etc.? Take the latter item, for instance. Quite a few of the drivers (in Mumbai) that I met have migrated here because of the increasing demand - their knowledge of many suburbs and roads is quite weak. As a passenger, I shouldn't be expected to guide the driver to my destination. A few times when I got distracted on the phone, I would find that we were on the wrong road or flyover... 

Customer engagement or experience in this business has three major touch points - the booking app (automated), driver and billing (automated). The only possible opportunity for differentiation is in the human, driver interface. 

2. Complement the fleet

I get a sense that the Ola/Uber encourage a wide distribution of the cabs across major locations to ensure availability; however, at the end of the day, the vehicle owner/driver will try be located at obvious demand points. Hotelling's law would suggest that there would be a concentration of cabs in some locations during peak hours and none at other locations. Imagine the customer at this other location unable to find a cab for 15 or 20 minutes - that's not the experience you want to provide. At the same time, you cannot force the drivers to go to these other locations where they may nor may not find any customer. 

Therefore, an option for Ola/Uber could be to invest in their own complementary fleet of vehicles to fill the network gaps. Of course, they have to be careful not to cannibalize business from their partners, and use their vehicles as queue busters. In addition, these vehicles could be used for training and demonstration purposes. Another idea could be to have these as high-end vehicles that are occasionally sent to frequent customers as "free upgrades" (similar to the Uber India launch strategy of using Audis and Mercs). Once the network is stable, these vehicles can be moved to other upcoming locations.

3. Think about your enablers

The other day, I was in an Ola cab and at the destination, the driver tried to end the trip. The mobile signal was probably poor, and it took a couple of minutes for the trip summary to show up (zero bill because I had enough money in the pre-paid wallet). While two minutes may not be much, it is surely an irritant if you are running late or the cab is awkwardly parked on the road. [The Uber model of compulsorily using a wallet avoids this issue.] Similarly, another driver complained - at the end of the journey - that the mobile phone or network had failed en-route and therefore, he needed to estimate the fare using Google Maps route distance.

If you want to build a sustainable business, you have to think far beyond the contours of your current business scope. What could derail you? For instance, good quality mobile data networks are critical to Uber/Ola, as they are to several other new businesses. Without a data network, the measurement, billing and payment aspect of the drive would fall apart. Without good quality / efficient cars and roads, your cost structure could take a hit. I am not suggesting that Uber/Ola should become mobile operators or auto manufacturers, but they should surely work towards building alliances & capabilities to ensure that the supporting eco-system remains vibrant and competitive. 

I am confident that many of the teething issues that Ola/Uber/Meru face would soon be overcome... local transport / conveyance in the second half of this decade will be far superior to what we have ever experienced.

Do you have any other suggestions... please feel free to share them in your comments below.

During the last three months, I have almost stopped driving for intra-city (Mumbai) travel. In particular, I don't take my car out when I am alone and traveling for work-related meetings. Being driven helps me gain that extra 30-60 minutes to prepare for a meeting or to respond to missed calls / emails after a meeting. It also helps that I can save 10-15 minutes in not having to look for some place to park. And I have email invoices that I can use for expense reimbursement or management without having to keep tab.

Yes, I have discovered the benefits of Uber and OlaCabs. 

Not only do I have a chauffeured vehicle when I need it but I often spend less than if I used my own car. With the frequent discounts and offers (thanks to private equity funding!), I can get a car on demand at about Rs 15 per kilometre... my own car costs me Rs 12 to 15 / km for fuel, it would be much more. Things can't be better!

There is obviously some sort of a break-even point here, of owning a car and hiring a driver vs. using services like Ola/Uber. Consider a typical use case: drive 25km daily to office and back, plus 20km every weekend for shopping / entertainment... that's 630km per month. Fuel cost for a mid-size car would be Rs 5-7 per km but a driver's salary at Rs 6000-8000 adds Rs 9-12 per km. Therefore, the marginal cost of using a vehicle would be at least Rs 15 per km. So, even if you own a car, and you want to be driven, unless you use it for 700-1000km every month, it would make sense to use a Uber/Ola like service.

I have not done the supply-side economics yet... from my conversations with the car drivers, it appears that they (the vehicle owners) are making good money. In fact, many of them are buying new cars so that they can add to their Ola/Uber fleet. But I have a sense that they are currently being subsidized by the service providers (trip bonus, being online for 12 hours bonus, etc.) I wonder if this is sustainable. 

Some more thoughts on the disruption that we are observing in the transportation / automobile industry (note, I am not referring to a "taxi service" market here).

Behaviour Shift

The value of Uber or Ola is not just that they are taking share away from traditional metered taxis but also expanding the market. They are essentially getting more people to use a "taxi service". If you had a car, you were earlier not a likely customer for the taxi market. But as I (anecdotally) demonstrated above - and I hear many of my colleagues/friends reinforce the point - non-users are being brought into the "taxi market". The initial discounts helped - for a while I was using Ola & Uber at prices lower than the regular yellow cabs. Now, prices have gone up, yet I am so used to the convenience that I am willing to pay even Rs 20 per km for the service. 

Also, while auto manufacturers need not worry as yet about lost sales, I would wager that, in metro markets which are also seeing improvement in public transit facilities, some impact would be felt soon.

They two key drivers (pun unintended) for the growth of Ola/Uber are:

1. Convenience - The ease of service discovery, purchase and consumption is a clear draw. The mobile apps are extremely easy to use and the payment mechanisms (using a pre-paid wallet) are highly convenient. Being able to track your driver and ride makes the process transparent. The invoices sent to your email are detailed and efficient. 

2. Availability - The tip-off point for the new taxi services is their ready availability. A lot of local travel (except perhaps airport drops) is unplanned and subject to the vagaries of moving schedules. Earlier, the service providers required you to book a taxi at least an hour in advance and that restricted their appeal. Uber entered the Indian market with immediate availability and its competitors have followed suit. As the popularity of these services grows, more drivers are signing up, consequently, availability improves and therefore, more customers feel encouraged to use the service. There is a clear network effect at play here. 

There is another important factor at play here which relates to the business model of network aggregation. Uber/Ola are intermediaries that are enabling vehicle owners/drivers and commuters to discover and transact with each other. Their asset-light model has the ability to scale very fast (riding on others' capital investments); their focus remains on innovation and marketing.

Ben Thompson has this wonderful post at Stratecherry where he explains density and network effect as liquidity of the car service... he also uses this to describe why it might be a winner take all market. I am not sure if the Indian cities have reached that stage of maturity -- as long as there is scope for significant growth, I can see the opportunity for at least 2-3 players. My dipstick analysis reveals that most drivers are today exclusively working for a provider, except in the Prime (SUV/Innova) category where I have found a few drivers two-timing. Further, given the lack of existing (quality) infrastructure, Uber and others would need to (directly or indirectly) invest in adding more vehicles and drivers on the streets, thus preventing the creation of a virtual monopoly.

(By the way, these three factors -- Ease of Use, Density and Network Aggregation -- are applicable to many other industries. Financial services sector could surely learn a thing or two from them... given that the banking business is nothing but intermediating between savers / investors and borrowers / investees. The recent success of Lending Club provides an indication of the possible unraveling of the traditional banking models. It would be worthwhile thinking about other blue oceans that can be created by adopting these three factors.)

Even as Ola, Uber, Taxiforsure and others bring in huge investments in this space, they have a long way to go. They must not repeat the mistakes that many others have made in India before... chasing growth without creating infrastructure and skill foundations. In the follow-up post, I will share a few suggestions for Ola/Uber to improve customer experience and to build sustainable businesses.

As a corporate strategist, one of my biggest battles was to avoid the extremes of cynicism and idealism.

In every organization, you will find people who will put their hands up and say that nothing can be done. They will gladly recount all the problems and challenges but will not care to think about solutions. Moreover, they will work hard to dissuade anyone else who wishes to move forward. Often, they are charming and witty, with funny comments about the futility of doing anything. These guys are the most dangerous for any organisation, they suck all positive energy out of the system.

Not so dangerous, yet problematic for progress are the idealists. They are the dreamers who seek perfection everywhere. Every organisation has a few of them and they are surely needed. They set the bar high on what is needed to be achieved. Where these guys go wrong (sometimes) is their belief that things must change immediately and anything otherwise is worth nothing. Instead of using their dreams to set direction for the future, they mope about the present and find fault with everything / everyone. Or they come up with crazy solutions to shake everything up ("let's fire everybody" "let's sell that business").

Both the cynics and the idealists are elitists on their respective high-horses, disregarding the reality of the rest of the organization that wants to patiently move forward. The reality of every organization is between "nothing can be done" and "everything should be perfect". A good leader will be guided by the idealist's dreams and will weed out the cynicism.

As we look around in India, ahead of the national elections, I see a lot of people undecided about what to do. As I wrote earlier, exercising the NOTA (till such time as it counts as a "vote") is a cop-out towards one of these two elitist extremes.

Let us all have fiercely ambitious dreams of what we want India to be like but let not cynicism or idealism cause us to separate ourselves from the reality of today.

A few weeks ago, I requested my Facebook friends to help me in drafting a manifesto of expectations. I wrote:

I am planning to write an economic manifesto (demand) from the next government. I would like to use that to evaluate/choose the national party that comes closest to what I care about. Obviously, it will be an economic right manifesto, and my sympathies are very clear. But I want to do this objectively so that it can help other like-minded (or undecided) people make their choice. If you'd like to collaborate on this, please let me know.

Many of us have already made up our minds about which party to vote for, but there are quite a few who appear (based on their public pronouncements at least) undecided. For the former group, this manifesto would be a way of putting pressure on the chosen party to take cognizance of our demands. For the latter group, this may be a way to evaluate the various options available. 

As I warned at the outset, this is an economically right manifesto. Also, please note that this is not a fully-baked document (some points have more detail than the others) and reflects the views of a few people who helped me in this effort. You are free to pick and choose topics from the below as your manifesto, or add new topics. Please share your feedback in the comments below so that I can update this post with more content.

Manifesto 2014

• Prohibit uncapped spending on any account.

• Force the government to establish a priority order for expenses in the budget

• Prohibit fraudulent accounting by the government and force it to adhere to GAAP

• Ensure that government servant's salaries are costed correctly, including the full cost of pensions, accommodation and other perks. 

• Ensure that no government servant earns more than the median wage in the private sector for a similar function on a total comp basis. Offer government servants all cash packages (with monetized perks).

• Remove “Socialist” from the Preamble.

• Repeal the First Amendment regarding restrictions to freedom of speech. The only restriction should be regarding any incitement to violence and threat to national security (which should get covered under normal criminal codes)

• Provide validity to same-gender relationships and marriages. (may not require Constitutional amendment and just a change in CPC) 

• Introduce a Uniform Civil Code

• Treat all individuals equally before the law and not as members of groups

• Scrap the Directive Principles of State Policy

• Propose a realistic road-map (as envisaged by the founding fathers) towards ending of all reservations in Government education and jobs. No new reservations (particularly in private sector education or employment) to be introduced.

One of the question that I have heard on Twitter and elsewhere is regarding the importance of a stable government. It is quite clear that no political party or formation appears to be strong enough pan-India to expect a clear majority. In fact, in the last 30 years, it was only in 1984 on the back of a Congress sympathy wave that any single party had obtained a clear majority (INC: 404). The only other time somebody got close enough was in 1991 (INC: 244), again due to another sympathy wave. 

If a party/pre-poll alliance has 200-240 seats, they might hope to stitch together the support of a few other regional parties to get to the 272 majority mark. Any alliance that appears close enough will try and seek to inch closer - the request would be for a majority mandate in the name of stability. For the other groups that are unlikely to form a government by themselves, the strategy would be to gain as many seats as possible to prevent a stable majority government. In this election, as per most opinion polls and general perception, the BJP-led NDA is in the first category; the INC-led UPA, the rag-tag Third Front and the dark horse, AAP are in the latter group. 

For me, and most people I know, the debate was earlier simply between the UPA and the NDA. Now, after the Delhi elections, AAP has emerged as an option in several urban constituencies. There are broadly four types of people:

1. Clearly support UPA: Tough for me to articulate why, so let me share what the CEO of a media company has written on his Twitter bio: "A Congress supporter, primarily because of its right-of-center economic beliefs, its secular credentials, and the stature of its senior most leaders".

2. Clearly support NDA: Fond memories of 1999-2004 NDA rule; Enamoured by Modi and his Gujarat story; Economic right-wing/free market liberal; possibly an Internet Hindu / Right-winger

3. Clearly support AAP: Can't stand the INC or the BJP (the old world politics); want to participate in changing the face of Indian politics; economic right-of-center beliefs; anti-corruption

4. Undecided / Search for Perfection: Best described by this tweet: "i like the idea of kejriwal not the person, the idea of modi not the person. dont like the idea of rahul but like the person. now what to do"

(Note: these categories are not necessarily exhaustive nor are these descriptions universal of all such supporters... please feel free to suggest changes.)

In this post, I am not going to discuss the relative pros and cons of each of these formations. But the key question is this... should we seek to vote in a government that will remain stable for the next five years, or not? Irrespective of which party that is.

As I alluded to in my previous post, and described in greater detail earlier, five years can do a lot of good or damage to a country. Just a few years ago, India was the darling of global investors; all of us were taking 8-9% GDP growth rates as given and there was talk of double digit growth. We are now at half those levels. For a poor country like India, rapid growth is the only way to increase per-capita income levels. The question is simple: at a time when global and Indian investors are shying away from the Indian markets, domestic demand (our greatest strength) has slowed and demographics (our other so-called strength) could become a liability, can the country afford 1-3 years more of uncertainty?

One view, held mostly by Type 3 and 4 above, would say, Yes, it doesn't really matter. In the long run, what are a few years more. We cannot let the corruption-tainted UPA come back to power and surely don't want a divisive Modi-led government. I paraphrase the ending of this 2011 Outlook article: Nevertheless, India can survive poor governance for the next few years but what it cannot survive is [insert your cause/concern]. Even if the promise of high (..) growth is accepted at its face value, it is simply not worth risking the [inexperience / corruption / dictatorship / polarization]. 

The other view would say that it is already too late. Undoing the poor governance of the previous five years will take a few years of decisive action and it will take more than five years to recover lost ground. These views come from people who should know a thing or two about India's economic situation. The Economic Times wrote a few months ago: 

"In India, a potential additional source of uncertainty is the coming general election,'' said (Raghuram) Rajan in his foreword to the latest Financial Stability Report. "A stable new government would be positive for the economy." 

The same article goes on to say: 

"The negative outlook indicates that we may lower the rating to 'speculative' grade next year if the government that takes office after the general election does not appear capable of reversing India's low economic growth,'' Standard & Poor's, a rating company, said on November 7, reiterating its negative outlook.  

Referencing John Gruber's post on Working Backwards to the Technology.

This is a wonderful story about the core of Apple / Jobs' philosophy. The post quotes from a 1997 video of Steve Jobs, soon after he returned to Apple and started to change its strategy:

Jobs:

What about OpenDoc? What about it? [Audience laughs.] It’s dead, right? Let me say something that’s sort of generic. I know some of you spent a lot of time working on stuff that we put a bullet in the head of. I apologize. I feel your pain. But Apple suffered for several years from lousy engineering management. I have to say it. And there were people that were going off in 18 different directions doing arguably interesting things in each one of them. Good engineers — lousy management. And what happened was you look at the farm that’s been created with all these different animals going in different directions and it doesn’t add up. The total is less than the sum of the parts.

And so we had to decide, what are the fundamental directions we’re going in? And what makes sense and what doesn’t? And there were a bunch of things that didn’t. And microcosmically they might have made sense; macrocosmically they made no sense. And you know, the hardest thing is… you think about focusing, right? You think, “Well, focusing is saying yes”. No, focusing is about saying no. Focusing is about saying no. And you’ve got to say no, no, no. When you say no, you piss off people.

Everyone who wants to understand strategy should know this. Focus (or choices) is really about saying No. Particularly when there are so many things that one can possibly do (or one is already doing). Even at the cost of pissing off some people.

And if you click on the link at the end of that post, you will come up with this Apple video. Almost every company has a vision, mission, values statements typed out on posters and screen-savers, but unfortunately, their employees or other stakeholders don't know what it means. But this video, in 90 seconds, tells all of us what Apple stands for.

General elections are expected to be announced within a couple of days. In the next 6-10 weeks over 700 million people in India will have to make up their minds about whom to vote as their representative to the Lok Sabha. That decision would surely impact India for the next five years (unless, God forbid, we end up with a situation that calls for a re-election even earlier; more on this later) and possibly set the direction for several years after that. We know how much havoc can be created in just five years, so we surely cannot afford another such five years. 

Over the course of a few posts, I would like to share some thoughts on the decision problem facing us. Those of you who engage with me on Twitter or Facebook probably know where my vote is headed, but nothing is written in stone. I hope that this process of discussion will also help me either confirm my choice or make a new one. It is always good to keep an open mind, even if you are extremely committed to a philosophy / ideology. The process of inquiry can only help: if there's no change, it will reinforce your commitment; if there's a change required, it will convince you to make the shift.

The first debate / issue / question: Do I vote for my MP or do I vote for a party at the national level? 

As a parliamentary democracy (following the British model), the system is that we should choose the best person to represent us at our constituency and the chosen MPs will essentially select the government / executive. Unlike the American presidential system, we do not vote for a Prime Minister or a national winning party. This is an issue that has vexed me the most. At a national level, I might support a party but when I look at their (or their ally's) candidate in my constituency, I am loathe to vote for such a person because of his/her record. I might find some other person on the ballot sheet more appealing as my MP; what should I do?

The idea of a representative democracy, unfortunately, was severely impacted by the 1985 52nd Constitutional Amendment, also known as the Anti-defection Law (see here for a good overview / analysis of the law; pdf). On all essential matters, an MP is just a representative of his/her party, with limited scope for truly representing the constituency. Therefore, when we vote for a candidate, we are actually voting for that candidate's party. Till this law is amended in some form giving MPs greater freedom in the creation of a government or the passage of laws, your vote is for a party.

So, I am going to choose a party that I support at the national level and will vote for that party's candidate in my constituency, irrespective of who he/she is. One, I hope that the party I choose will nominate a candidate that I will not mind supporting (the onus is now on that party). Two, the choice of the candidate has greater local impact in municipal and state elections; the direct impact of an MP on real micro issues is quite limited, I suspect.

PS. I wish I had (formally) studied more about politics, governance, the Constitution, etc. but I haven't... my knowledge is based on my limited, spare time readings and discussions I observe on Twitter. I am treating these blog posts as part of my learning process and look forward to comments from those who know better. 

Recently I realized that the number of Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) has grown to 13 from about 6 at the turn of the century. And there have been discussions about creating more IIMs, one for every state (that will take the count to 29). I was at an IIM last week chatting with some faculty members and we felt that the biggest constraint (amongst several) in creating these new IIMs will be the absence of good quality faculty.

The number of management PhDs being awarded every year must be rather small, a few dozen I suspect, with probably just a dozen or so coming from the original, more established IIMs. So how do you staff all these new institutes, how do you attract good teachers to move to non-metro / smaller town locations across the country (where the new IIMs are likely to be set up)?

It would be unreasonable to believe that you could suddenly attract many young MBAs to take up a regular PhD program, particularly with its 4-6 year cycle time. At the same time, you cannot teach an MBA program with mostly (corporate) guest faculty who have not received any academic teaching skills. The middle ground could be as follows:

The (first 6) IIMs should create a new 1-year faculty development program aimed at professionals with at least 10 years managerial work experience. Like the Post-graduate Diploma (instead of MBA) that they offer at the graduate level, this could be called the Doctoral Diploma or something similar. This 1-year full time program could consist of a quick overview of the MBA program (like a 3-month management development program), learning and teaching skills (including case teaching methodology), basics of research methodology, a few electives in the chosen area of specialization and an internship (teaching an MBA elective as an under-study). 

Would many professionals be interested in such a program? I don't know for sure but it can be easily tested. It is anecdotal, but there are already many who are teaching on a part-time basis and may be willing to explore full-time teaching positions. Also, even those that are teaching as visiting / guest faculty could benefit significantly from such a program. 

Also, the Government (or the UGC or the IIMs, whoever makes those rules) should treat this Diploma as an entry-level equivalent of a PhD; subsequent promotions / raises should anyway be based on teaching, research and consulting performance.

The best researchers and academicians may still come from the (Indian & overseas) PhDs but this approach will ensure that we have adequate, good quality people standing up to teach the thousands of students who will be signing up at these new IIMs.

More thoughts about the management education space, as I spend more time understanding it, soon.

Over the last few months, several friends and colleagues have asked me for tips on becoming an independent consultant, a euphemism for being unemployed :) Many others have asked me how one can prepare for the life beyond a regular job. It made sense to share my thought process while it is still fresh in my mind, and not coloured by the eventual outcome of the decision.

In my experience, there are three major steps. (Please note that these may be relevant if you are turning towards entrepreneurship too, but I wouldn't know for sure. My thoughts are about the process of moving from corporate employment to being self-employed.)

1. Financial Planning

One of the certainties of having a job is the pay-check at the end of each month. Over time, as the salary increases, your monthly earning is easily much more than what you need to spend. But you stop caring. Of course, many of us plan for the future and make investments / retiral funds, etc. However, the reality is that you don't know how much money you need. You earn X and as long as you are spending / investing less than X, you are OK. (By the way, when I say "you", I am referring to all the earning members of your family; depending on the composition of the earning, some of the below may not be relevant to you.)

The day you become self-employed, the X vanishes. Now you have an income stream that could vary considerably month to month. The approach now has to be, what is the Y that I must earn every month in order to live a decent life. For that, you have to first define what "decent life" entails... what are your unavoidable expenses, E1 (e.g. society maintenance, electricity, school fees, groceries, phone bills, insurance premiums, etc.), what are your basic lifestyle expenses, E2 (e.g. eating out / movies once in a while, fuel and driver expenses, new handset once in x months, clothes & accessory shopping, replacement of consumer durables, repairs & maintenance, etc.) and finally, what are your luxury lifestyle expenses, E3 (e.g. family vacations, new gadgets, new jewelry, saving more for future, etc.). Believe me, getting to an estimate of these numbers is not easy since most people don't track their expenses at this level. Once you have an estimate of E1, E2 & E3 (all converted to a monthly equivalent), you can decide where to draw the base-line. I would believe that E1+E2 (net of what other members of your family earn) would be the minimum line and E1+E2+E3 is the earning goal.

As I said earlier, some months, particularly in the initial months may not get you E1+E2, maybe not even E1. So you have to be prepared for it, with liquid funds available to take care of the short-fall. Also, in order to ensure that E1 is not a humongous scary figure, the following assets should have been already paid for: the house you live in and the car that you drive. With the big ticket items out of the way, you should have liquid / near-liquid funds equivalent to at least 18 months of E1+E2. That will give you the freedom to experiment with your new career/life without worrying about basic necessities. The 18 month funda is simple... 12 months to experiment without any tension and 6 months to find a new job, if you eventually decide to give up.

The biggest learning of this exercise is that you will now be able to earn what you need rather than spend what you earn.

2. Make a Positive Change

Self-employment is not a solution for a job gone wrong. Don't take a negative decision to quit your job out of frustration and think that being self-employed will give you joy. Not only will your monthly pay-check vanish, but also many other things that you take for granted will go with your job. As I wrote in my earlier post, the biggest issue will be to answer the question, "What do you do?" Try explaining to your grandmother or the nosy neighbor why you don't go to office any longer. You were used to people listening to you when you spoke as the 'so&so' of this big company; now, you represent yourself and it is a very different thing. Being self-employed will also mean a whole bunch of new administrative things that you never worried about earlier. Get yourself registered for service tax and professional tax; raise invoices; collect your dues; pay service tax and advance tax quarterly; track all your business expenses and create your P&L... the list goes on! 

The only reason to still go through with it is because you care about what you are doing. The passion to do something different should drive you to make the change and will help you through the uncertainties and challenges of carrying it on. So, make a positive change.

Another thing: if you have to ever give up your new endeavor and go back to your job, it would help that you didn't hate it in the first place!

3. Test Market your Passion

It is one thing to believe that you like something and another to live your life doing it. One way to know for sure is to of course, do it. But that need not be the only way. Why not test it out, if possible? How would it feel when you actually pursue the new career idea? And more importantly, would others (say, your prospective customers) accept you in that role? In my case, I got several opportunities to test out my interest in teaching, both within my corporate environment as well as outside, in the academic world. 

Since it was "teaching" (seen as a 'noble' activity), I was able to do it while keeping my day job but it may not be possible for you to moonlight as a consultant. An alternative test would be to write out your "pitch" - why should anyone engage you? If you want to be a strategy consultant, make your brochure or pitch presentation. Ask your friends if they would engage you (instead of say, a consulting firm) for any project? Would you, objectively, engage yourself for your current employer?! Writing out your value prop and perhaps, your business plan, will help you clarify your thoughts and build confidence about what you are about to embark on. You may, in this process, even identify your early / anchor clients and start focusing on the first income stream.

The other benefit of doing this, in case you decide to progress, is that you have already begun your preparation for your next avatar, and can get off the ground running. (Note, you have to ensure that you are not violating any rules / codes of your current employment - as mentioned above, you want to leave your job on a positive note!)

Those are my three preparatory steps towards making the transition from corporate to self employment. You would have noticed that I put the financial planning up front, even above the passion bit. In that sense, it is different from becoming an entrepreneur. Becoming self-employed, I have felt, is just another form of career progression (towards Maslow's self-actualization level); it's mostly a low-risk move and at the same time, it isn't aimed at very high returns or wealth creation. Also, to be professionally self-employed, one needs to have built some credibility and a good network that can only come with time. 

Hope this helps; I would be happy to hear from others who have taken or are contemplating similar moves. It is still early days for me and I am eager to learn more.