Search

ekoshapu

Notes to Myself

Month

August 2017

भयानक दरोडा – A lesson in management

भयानक दरोडा

हॉंगकॉंगमध्ये एका बँकेवर दारोडा पडला.

‘सगळ्यांनी मुकाट्याने जमिनीवर आडवे पडून रहा.

लक्षात ठेवा पैसा सरकारचा आहे पण जीव तुमचा आहे.’

दरोडेखारांनी ओरडून सांगताच

सर्वजण मुकाट्याने जमिनीवर आडवे झाले.

*याला म्हणतात ‘माईंड चेन्जिंग कन्सेप्ट’*

( *Mind Changing Concept* ) म्हणजेच माणसांच्या

सर्वसाधारण विचारांमधे बदल घडवण्याची

किमया.

त्यातील एक महिला कर्मचारी ‘अश्लील’ पद्धतीने आडवी

पडली होती. एक दरोडेखोर तिला ओरडून

म्हणाला,

‘मॅडम! जरा सभ्यपणे वागा. हा

दरोडा आहे, बलात्कार नाही.’

*याला म्हणतात व्यावसायिक रहाणे*

( *Being professional* ). आपल्या कामावर लक्ष केंद्रीत करा.

दरोडा टाकल्यावर दरोडेखोर लूट घेऊन घरी आले.

त्यातला ज्युनिअर दरोडेखोर, *जो एम.बी.ए. होता*

तो 6 वी पर्यंत शिकलेल्या

सिनियर दरोडेखोराला म्हणाला., ‘चला

आता आपण पैसे मोजायला लागूया!’ त्यावर

सिनिअर दरोडेखोर म्हणाला, ‘वेडा आहेस की

काय? हे पैसे मोजायला कित्येक तास लागतील.

जरा धीर धर. रात्री टी. व्ही.

वरच्या बातम्या बघ. तुला आपोआपच कळेल की

आपण किती लाखांचा दरोडा घातला आहे ते.’

*याला अनुभव म्हणजेच*

*‘एक्सपिरिअन्स’*

( *Experience* ) असे म्हणतात.

हल्ली कागदी पदव्यांपेक्षा अनुभव जास्त

महत्वाचा झाला आहे.

दरोडेखोर बँकेतून निघून गेल्यावर बँक मॅनेजर

सुपरवायझरला म्हणाला, ‘ताबडतोब

पोलिसांना फोन कर!’

सुपरवायझर म्हणाला ,

‘थोडे थांबा साहेब! *आपण आधीच बँकेच्या 70 लाख* *डॉलर्सवर डल्ला मारला आहे. त्यात अजून 10 लाख डॉलर्सची भर घालूया व मग पोलिसांना बोलवूया!’*

*याला म्हणतात ‘लाटेबरोबर पोहणे’*

( *Swim with the tide* ). म्हणजेच संकटाचे रुपांतर संधीत करून

स्वतःचा स्वार्थ साधून घेणे.

सुपरवायझर म्हणाला, ‘जर दर महिन्यात असा

दरोडा पडला तर काय मजा येईल!’

*याला म्हणतात ‘प्रॉयॉरिटी बदलणे’*

( *Changing priority*).

कारण ‘पर्सनल

हॅपिनेस’ हा तुमच्या ‘जॉब’ पेक्षा जास्त महत्वाचा असतो.

दुस-या दिवशी टी. व्ही. वर बातमी झळकली

की *बँकेवर 100 लाख डॉलर्सचा दरोडा पडला*.

पण ही बातमी ऐकून दरोडेखोर मात्र हैराण झाले.

कारण त्यांनी आणलेली कॅश परत परत मोजली. पण ती फक्त 20 लाख डॉलर्सच निघाली.

*मग 80 लाख डॉलर्स कुठे गेले?*

*खरी मेख काय आहे ते सिनियर दरोडेखोराच्या बरोबर लक्षात आहे.*

तो वैतागून म्हणाला, ‘आपण

जीवावर उदार होऊन दरोडा टाकला पण.

आपल्याला फक्त 20 लाख डॉलर्सच मिळाले.

पण

त्या बँक मॅनेजरने मात्र काहीही न करता 80

लाख डॉलर्स लाटले.

*खरे आहे माणसाने शिकले पाहिजे.नुसतेच दरोडेखोर न* *होता ‘सुशिक्षित दरोडेखोर’ व्हायला पाहिजे,’*

*याला म्हणतात ‘ज्ञान’ म्हणजेच* *‘नॉलेज’*

( *Knowledge*) ज्याची किंमत

सोन्यापेक्षाही जास्त असते.

तुमचे सोने नाणे

लोक पळवून नेऊ शकतात पण तुमचे ‘नॉलेज’ कुणीच

पळवून नेऊ शकत नाही.

🔴

#WhatsApp #Forward

Advertisements

Mansoor Khan on “Third Curve”

If you were born in India in late 70’s or early 80’s and if you were a movie buff, you would remember two cult films – Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak (1988) and Jo Jeeta Wahi Sikander (1992). Both films were directed by Aamir Khan’s cousin and veteran film maker Nasir Hussain’s son – Mansoor Khan.

Mansoor Khan is not a usual film-maker even though he belongs to the illustrious film family – His father Nasir Husain produced so many superhit films; and his cousin Aamir Khan went on to rule film industry for 25 years!

Though Mansoor Khan directed 4 films – in addition to QSQT and JJWS, he directed Akele Hum Akele Tum (1995) and Josh (2000) and co-produced Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na (2008) – he vanished from the film industry after 2000 and settled in Coonoor, Tamil Nadu focusing on farming.

He is an IITan and also studied at Cornell and MIT before entering film industry. Mansor Khan wrote a book ‘The Third Curve’ in Oct 2013 which talks about world economy. He talks about unsustainable cities and false understanding of money by society in his book.

Here is an excellent talk by Mansoor Khan on “Third Curve”

“भाव” तसा देव… 

Ganapati Idols shop.JPG

भाव” तसा देव… 

 

स्थळ: शनिवार पेठ, पुणे

वेळ: दिवेलागणीची (संध्याकाळी ७)

विषय: गणेशोत्सवानिमित्त गणपतीची मूर्ती खरेदी

 

माझ्या मित्राला गणपतीची मूर्ती घ्यायची होती म्हणून मी त्याच्या बरोबर गेलो होतो.

एक ज्येष्ठ नागरीक दांम्पत्य एका गणपती मूर्ती विक्री केंद्रावर सुमारे २५ मिनिटे रेंगाळून गणपती मूर्ती न्याहाळत होते. म्हणजे “अहो” मूर्ती बघत होते, आणि “अगं” पूजा साहित्य घेत होत्या.

अहोंना काही केल्या एकही गणपती मूर्ती पसंत पडत नव्हती.

ह्या मूर्तीची बैठक योग्य नाही. ह्या मूर्तीचे अवयव प्रमाणबद्ध नाहीये,  हात बारीक आहेत.

हे सोवळं बरोबर नाही,  पितांबर पाहिजे… इत्यादी इत्यादी

 

गणपती दाखवणाराही वैतागला होता…

 

शेवटी एक मूर्ती अहोंना पसंत पडली…असं वाटलं…

अहो – अगं, ही मूर्ती पाहिली का? अगदी बरोब्बर आहे…मला वाटत हीच घेऊ

 

अगं नी ढुंकूनही पाहिलं नाही, नुसतं “हं” वर भागवलं.

 

अहो – कितीला आहे ही मूर्ती?

विक्रेता – ८०० रुपये

अहो – (धक्का बसल्याचे अजिबात न दाखवता) बघू जरा एकदा जवळून…

आणि मग मूर्ती परत एकदा जवळून बघितल्या सारखे करत “च्च” वगैरे नापसंती दाखवत म्हणाले “अगं, डोळे काहीतरी वेगळे वाटतात नाही का? भाव पाहिजे तसा नाहीये ह्या मूर्तीचा…म्हणजे बघितल्यावर कसं प्रसन्न वाटलं पाहिजे, तसं नाही वाटतं…चल आपण दुसरीकडे बघून येऊ”

दुकानदारानी सौम्य सात्विक शिवी घातली आणि पुटपुटला – “च्यायला, भाव पाहिजे तसा नाही ते ह्याला किंमत सांगितल्यावर समजले का… म्हणे प्रसन्न वाटत नाही. लोकांना देव प्रसन्न व्हावा असं वाटतं , आणि इथे ह्यांना प्रसन्न प्रसन्न वाटलं पाहिजे! कंजूष…आता घेईल १५०-२०० रुपयांची मूर्ती आणि म्हणेल “असाच भाव हवा होता, आता कसं प्रसन्न वाटतयं”…म्हणतात ना भाव तसा देव”

असं म्हणून त्यांनी अत्यंत रागाने आमच्याकडे पाहिले. बहुदा “हे दोघे पण तसलेच “भावि”क असणार” असा  त्याचा समज झाला असेल (खरं तर असं त्यानें ओळखले असेल!)

आता उगाच त्याचा रोष आपल्यावर नको, म्हणून मी आधीच सांगून टाकलं – “जरा चांगल्या मूर्ती दाखवा – ८०० ते १२०० रुपयांपर्यंत!”

विक्रेता खूष! मित्र… चेहऱ्यावर कोणत्याही भावाचा अभाव… त्याला काही समजायच्या आतच मी मोबाईल फोन वर बोलल्यासासारखं करून तिथून पसार झालो!

अजून तरी मित्राचा फोन आला नाही… त्यामुळे आता मला “प्रसन्न” वाटतंय! बहुतेक त्याने ८०० रुपये वाली मूर्ती घेतली असणार… थोडक्यात ह्या वर्षी त्याच्याकडे  प्रसाद म्हणून माव्याच्या मोदका ऐवजी खडीसाखर असणार!

 

Peter Drucker said…

Peter Drucker said:

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast”

culture-eats-strategy-for-breakfast

Corporate-culture-vs-strategy

Going “viral”

When I was a kid, “viral” referred to a type of infection/disease/health issue. Something caused due to a “virus”.

However, in last few years since the advent of Social Media, “viral” has a new meaning. Today, “going viral” refers to the sharing of something — often a video or a website link — via email or social media outlets, such as Facebook and Twitter, which picks up exponentially!

It can be explained by a combination of concepts in psychology such as Social Proof, or Heard mentality,  or another concept in Economics called Bandwagon effect

Most popular example of this was a Korean song called “Gangnam style” which went viral on YouTube and has so far got 2.95 Billion views! If you check multiple versions of the song it would have got well over 5 Billion views!

Closer to home, you might remember the song “Kolavari Di” song sung by Dhanush. This song went viral few years ago and it has so far received 128 Million hits! Not bad!

When something goes viral in social media, more people watch it, or follow it just because it has gone “viral”. It creates a Flywheel Effect and the trend further grows momentum. Nobody knows what is that tipping point or that flash which makes something viral. There are Digital Marketing companies which try to make something go “viral” – through hashtag or simulated hits, links etc.

But why am I saying all this now? Well, my blog was never read by more than a few hits (maybe 2-3) per day – most likely new people everyday, since nobody would (willingly) revisit my blog to read 🙂

And a couple of days back I posted something on “Infosys” – related to tussle between Narayana Murthy and Vishal Sikka. The blog quoted Peter Drucker’s line: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast everyday”.

I don’t know why but suddenly the blog post saw a manifold jump in hits yesterday. Instead of 2-3 views per day it suddenly shot up to 63 or so! I don’t know why…I thought it was probably some random event. However, today when I woke up, I got following alerts from WordPress:

Viral_Alert2Viral_Alert

So I looked up the analytics page and found that for the second consecutive day, the same blog post had received 80+ hits! (130 as I write this post…)

Viral_Blog1Viral_Blog

The Infosys article alone got 70 hits! Clearly the post (and thus the blog) has gone “viral” – compared to its “abysmal” levels earlier…and the flywheel effect is evident, since the trend sustained for the second day.

I am not claiming that the article was good or deserved the hits/views it got. I was just amused by the “Going viral” trend as it happened with me.

Now that I have got your eyeballs, I better churn out some more posts to keep you engaged! Some motivation to clear some of my long pending drafts/blog ideas…

 

Thought for The Day

The saddest aspect of life now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.

—Isaac Asimov

श्री. शि. द. फडणीस /S.D. Phadnis

These cartoons are by famous Indian cartoonist S.D.Phadnis.

Awesome work…he doesn’t use caption or speech bubble. His illustration are good enough.

सुप्रसिद्ध व्यंगचित्रकार (किंवा अर्कचित्रकार) श्री. शि. द. फडणीस यांची काही चित्रे

Culture eats strategy for breakfast everyday – decoding Murthy-Sikka battle

If you were operating at or connected to the senior levels in the technology industry, the news of Sikka’s exit from Infosys would neither be shocking nor unexpected. It was a question of when – not whether – Sikka would be out of Infosys. So what went wrong ?

The History

When Sikka took charge, Infosys was in doldrums. Once an industry bellwether, Infosys stood still as industry peers like HCL and TCS grew quicker and delivered better returns. Its efforts at moving up the value chain through Infosys 3.0 came a cropper. Murthy’s second stint as CEO under those tumultuous conditions was a largely forgettable one The only positive event were Murthy’s efforts to bring in a new CEO.

The CEO search

The Infosys board envisaged what it needed in a new CEO: a successful technology executive with a global perspective and proven track record. Sikka’s academic success and credentials at SAP looked impressive: additionally, he seemed to have the depth of strategic skills and the right vision for an organization Infosys’ size. He took charge as the first non-founder CEO in 2014. All good? Not quite. Two areas simmered in the background right from beginning:

1. The very first clue comes from Infosys’s tagline: “Powered by Intellect, Driven by Values”. While Sikka’s Stanford PhD and SAP HANA success ensured his intellect stood out, his values’ fitment is unlikely to have ticked all boxes. Sikka was a global executive schooled in liberal values – diametrically opposite to te values of a traditional Infosys. Sikka’s masterful strategic skills and intelligence were an unlikely replacement for his mismatch of cultural values, especially for the top job at an organization that prided itself precisely on these very values,.

2. Sikka’s due diligence about the role of Infosys’ powerful and domineering founders presented an important potential fault line. There is a likelihood that Sikka mistook his experience in the West – where executive freedom is nearly guaranteed – as a benchmark for what to expect at Infosys. Little did he understand the true meaning of Murthy’s line “Infosys is my middle child”: Sikka, like others, might have laughed it off as parting words from a genius – not as literal words from a very possessive strong personality.

In the battle of nature vs nurture, Infosys founders expected Sikka to get nurtured by existing values whereas Sikka expected his nature to turn Infosys around. That dichotomy – as time would tell – made all the difference.

However, difference in such subtle yet vital areas rarely manifest themselves overnight: they build up overtime and blow over soon.

Enter Sikka

Sikka scored some early successes:

1. Sikka loosened the office dress code, promoted 500 employees, gave away iphones, strengthened grassroot communication and did everything to engage employees.

2. Sikka next wooed the investor fraternity and the stock markets by presenting a grand and aggressive vision of a $20 billion organization by 2020. For an organization known to under-promise and over-deliver, this was a cultural shock. The tall talk raised expectations drastically and while that enthused the stock markets in the short run, the expectations – as we now know – made it difficult for Sikka to live upto them.

3. Last, for a conservative organization known to harp on its brand but never known to pay top-of-the-line salaries, Sikka raised the salaries of his top reports to unheard-of levels.

Seen from the perspective of Infosys’ founders, these initial “successes” were not success at all: they were cultural failures, disturbing enough to lead to uneasy relationship with Sikka, but yet not alarming enough to cause a blast.

Meanwhile, Sikka brought an army of top people from SAP to change the culture and help him transition Infosys from a lumbering elephant to nimble cheetah. Unfortunately, Sikka misjudged what it would take to bring about a cultural change: if a culture of a 30 year old, hundred-thousand employee traditional organization could be changed with a handful of imported top-managers, Drucker’s powerful line “Culture eats strategy for breakfast everyday” would not have stood the test of line.

The challenges

All of the above would still have sustained but for a few areas where Sikka and the board crossed Murthy’s red line.

1. Awarding CFO Ravi Bansal a huge severance pay package raised question marks on corporate governance. Infosys prided itself on its disclosure standards. The board’s decision of not disclosing the contents of reports from an external law firm – especially when all was deemed “fine” – gave an already disenchanted founders’ team a stick to beat Sikka and the board with.

2. Within months of the Bansal episode, the board raised Sikka’s already high salary by 55%. The stick in the disturbed founders’ hands now got a poison tipping and became a lot more potent with Murthy incessantly and publicly lynching the board.

3. After some initial success, Sikka’s turnaround strategy missed its target by an embarrassing $5 billion: finally in June 2017, the board scrapped the $20 billion target.

For an organization that consistently beat investor expectations for years, this was a strategic Freudian slip and the Infosys stock – and Sikka – lost support of some of the vital institutional investors.

And for Sikka – long dismissed as a cultural misfit – who had strategic results as the last armory in his toolkit, a slipup in strategy, positioned his rhetoric as “all bark, no bite”. This was the last straw on the camel’s back.

The Exit

With a frustrated founding team led by combative Murthy, allegations of corporate governance, a failed turnaround strategy questioning the very competence of Sikka and missing investor support, Sikka had nothing to fall back on and nothing to look forward to – except a good nights sleep and the much needed peace of mind. Exiting Infosys provided him precisely those benefits – and Sikka cut his losses.

There are some really valuable lessons:

1. With the infamous Tata episode still fresh in memory, Indian founders and family business heads would do well to rethink if they really want to let go in the true sense when they hang up their boots. If all they want is to remote-control a strategically minded executive – who is tasked with the responsibilities of a CEO without the requisite authority, they should stop searching the market and instead stick to the comforts of loyal insider.

You can have loyalty or results – rarely both.

2. For prospective CEO choosing a top job at any organization – specially with powerful founders or families, it is well worth developing a thorough understanding of the cultural factors and sensitivities involved. Raw Intelligence is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to succeed – emotional intelligence provides the much-needed sufficiency. And that involves recognizing stakeholders interest before picking up the top job.

There is no point in diving in deep oceans and complaining about sharks.

The forces of nature are so strong that in the battle of nature vs nurture, nature often wins hands down. As Sikka learns that lesson and walks into the sunset, he would do well to recall Peter Drucker’s golden lines that Cyrus Mistry at TATA group learnt equally painfully:

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast everyday”.

Source: WhatsApp Forwards and long-time Infoscions

Economics by a professor – Brilliant and yet so Simple

Economics by a professor – Brilliant and yet so Simple

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is

somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

(Received as a forward on WhatsApp)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑