The philosophy behind his writing and his books is to share his experiences and learning

Category: Uncategorized

4 Reasons Why Politicians Are So Liberal With Lies

Posted on by DS_admin

We regularly come across politicians who lie or twist the truth. They lie on TV panels, they lie during rallies, they lie in interviews. And each time, they do it with confidence and conviction, however outlandish the claim.

Remember when Trump said Obama was the founder of ISIS or when Kejriwal said he feared Modi would kill him? Or when Mamata Banerjee darkly portended that a military coup was taking place when the Eastern Command of the Indian army was conducting a routine exercise? Some of us may remember how former US president Ronald Reagan lied that his government had not sold weapons to Iran to secure the release of hostages despite an embargo. The examples abound.

Lies are sometimes pursued for the higher objectives of the nation or a state or a set of followers.

The question is this: why are politicians to economical with the truth and so generous with lies?

Lying for personal advantage

Politicians use lying as a means to achieve their personal objectives. These could be to gain political mileage, to achieve some personal gain, win people over during elections or hide misdeeds. The objective is the selfish pursuit of a personal agenda.

There are many instances of leaders lying to enhance their standing before voters. For example, before the last Bihar elections, Lalu Prasad’s daughter Misa Bharti claimed she had been invited by Harvard to deliver a lecture, which was later denied by the university. Or let’s talk about AAP politician Jitender Singh Tomar—the former cabinet minister in the Delhi government lied about his law degree and later had to quit. Richard Nixon had to resign to avoid impeachment following his lies about trying to cover up the Watergate operation.

Such lies are typically for selfish reasons. And if the leader gets caught, he or she can end up with a ruined reputation and a finished career. Sometimes, though, an apology can help with damage control, as was the case with Bill Clinton, who lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky but later admitted to itand apologised.

Lying as a strategic tool

This is the case when a politician holds a position of power and uses lying as a tool for meeting strategic objectives. This tool comes in various iterations: deception, doublespeak, hypocrisy, concealment, selective honesty etc. They lie because it’s needed to achieve the objectives of the role. They won’t hesitate to distort or spin a fact because it’s what would serve the needs of their followers and larger constituents. Lies are pursued for the higher objectives of the nation or a state or a set of followers. They do it because that’s what is in the best interest. For example, with an objective to protect the image and security of the US, Dwight D Eisenhower, who was the President of US from 1953 till 1961, denied that the erstwhile USSR had shot down one of its spy planes. These lies are typically for unselfish reasons. Leaders are quite unapologetic as they are driven by a larger cause.

Lying for emotional appeal

We see an emergence of a culture wherein politicians appeal to the deep emotions of their constituents, but what they say is often disconnected from reality, policy and real life data.

This is, in fact, termed as a “post-truth” era. Oxford dictionary defines “post-truth” as relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

People lapped up Trump’s lies because they were aligned with their own fallacious beliefs. Many politicians are skilled at exploiting the ignorance of citizens.

What happens here is that politicians keep on repeating the same message and try to create a new reality. They intentionally distort facts in order to activate the deep-seated insecurities of the constituents. This was amply evident in the recently concluded US elections wherein Donald Trump was able to appeal to the insecurities of the voters around immigration, job-loss, falling wages, income stagnation, etc. Many of his proclamations have been established as lies. Yet, voters believed him and he went on to win the elections. Today with social media politicians are directly able to talk to citizens. And with so much information overload it becomes very difficult to establish the veracity of what is being said. Journalists and newspapers may conduct fact-checks, but this doesn’t always reach the citizens.

Seasoned politicians are well aware of the power of confirmation bias: people look for information that confirms what they already believe. Then there is the Semmelweis reflex, which is rejecting information that contradicts our established views of the world. For example Trump said during the campaign that employment rates are low and the economy is in the doldrums. However, the latest data shows that unemployment is the lowest it has been in nine yearsand that the economy is in robust shape. Yet people lapped up Trump’s lies because they were aligned with their own fallacious beliefs. Many politicians are skilled at exploiting the ignorance of citizens.

Lying out of habit

We are taught to tell “white lies” from childhood. We are taught to go into raptures over gifts we don’t actually like or to offer compliments we don’t really mean. These are “lies” taught for social lubrication. We are told they are “white lies” and don’t cause any harm—in fact, we are taught, they do good. The problem is that when this is ingrained at an early age, the child learns to lie. If one can get away with a “white lie”, then why not try a “real lie” to see if it just as easily believed? The problem grows from there and becomes a pattern, a habit. In a recent study, the researchers found that the sensitivity of the amygdala (in our brain) to dishonesty reduces over a period of time with repetition. It could be another reason why politicians could be prone to lying—they just grow more comfortable with it (and perhaps better at it) over time.

How Coffee—And Cafés—Improve Productivity At Work

Posted on by DS_admin

Disclaimer: I have not been hired by any coffee brand to extol the virtues of the beverage or of cafés—I’m only writing about what I observe and experience!

It’s so true that a lot can truly be achieved over coffee. But why? That’s the question I want to explore today. So many people have told me how coffee is an integral part of their lives; some go into proper raptures over the stuff. Others say they can give up anything, but not their coffee. And it’s not just the beverage itself; some folks get their kick out of being in a coffee shop and they do their best work there. In the middle of a tough day, what do people do to recover their mojo? Yup, a coffee break.

Research done by Tad T Bruyne of Tufts University has found caffeine consumption to have a positive impact on cognition.

Here I have looked to scientific research to find answers to coffee-related behaviour and how things get achieved around it.

That morning tonic

Many people cannot begin their day without a shot of coffee. They are addicted to that morning jolt to the system. So, what makes coffee such a potent drink? This is actually a physiological phenomenon wherein a shot of coffee makes the person more alert and less tired or drowsy. The caffeine travels to the brain and stops the production of receptors for the chemical adenosine that makes us feel drowsy. Caffeine also stimulates the production of adrenaline and gets one charged up and ready to jump headlong into the day. So now you know why you need that caffeine kick in the morning.

Coffee breaks to stimulate teams

Your team members have been neck deep in work and they feel saturated, their ideas have run out. So, what do they do? They take a coffee break. Once they are back, it seems that they have replenished their energy and drive. Why so?

Research done by Tad T Bruyne of Tufts University has found caffeine consumption to have a positive impact on cognition. It improves vigilance, mental alertness and gives a feeling of arousal. And of course, there’s the adrenaline factor I mentioned earlier as well—it affects our bodies by increasing heartbeat, increasing blood pressure and releasing sugar for extra energy. Caffeine acts as a stimulant. So the next time your team members want a coffee-break, go ahead and grant it. They may come back rejuvenated.

Why are some people more productive in coffee shops?

Those who work from home often report that when they feel unproductive they head over to a café to improve their performance. In fact, I too have experienced this: I was struggling with completing an important presentation for two days and finally decided to try my friend’s suggestion of working on it in a café. Surprise, surprise, the presentation that I was struggling with at home got done in a mere two hours.

Why does this happen? Psychology is at play here. According to a recent study, mental effort is contagious—which means that when you are with people who are working hard you tend to increase your own efforts. This probably happens because the subtle cues that one receives on posture or breathing from those around us. It sure makes sense to me. Many of us studied best for our exams when we were in a library rather than at home.

Note, however, that the coffee shop effect happens when the venue is one where people tend to congregate for work. If it’s full of people socialising, you might just get distracted.

Why organisations are adopting “coffee-shop culture”

In the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s, coffee shops in the UK were hotbeds for innovation and great new ideas. They brought in eminent people, inspired great ideas and made Britain the envy of the world. These coffee shops were thronged by intellectuals, merchants, scientists, playwrights and professionals. They were hubs of collaboration and cross-pollination of new ideas. The first shares were traded in a coffee house, the first marine insurance was sold in a coffee shop which later morphed into Lloyds of London, physicians used coffee houses as consulting rooms etc. As a matter of fact Newton even dissected a dolphin in a coffee shop!

Many global companies such as Google and Mars Drinks are creating coffee-shop-like workplaces that facilitate inspiring conversations, collaborations and innovations.

In today’s world we have multiple coffee chains and cafes that provide a great ambience to socialise, interact and collaborate. This is the dynamic that some organisations want to tap into at the workplace. They are creating stimulating workspaces with the comfort and relaxing vibe of a coffee shop but which also have ergonomic and technological standards of a world-class office for comfortable working. The workplace becomes like a magnet wherein employees like spending a lot of time, the smell of coffee and cookies enhancing their experience of work. The aim is to have a warm and cosy environment where people can work and collaborate in a relaxed manner. Many global companies such as Google and Mars Drinks are creating coffee-shop-like workplaces that facilitate inspiring conversations, collaborations and innovations.

A place to open up

As a boss next time you have to talk to your subordinates or team members on a pesky issue, take them to a coffee-shop. When you have a conversation in a coffee-shop you are in a non-threatening, informal and friendly environment. Employees find it easy to open up as they now don’t find their boss speaking from his usual pedestal. In a coffee shop all are sitting at the same level and no one is dominant. In such a context the employees find it safe to share what bothers them. In an office setting there is a bit of rigidity and a boss may unintentionally dominate the conversation out of habit. Also what happens is that with a cup of coffee to sip, the boss has no choice but to keep his mouth shut and listen to others!

So, the next time you want to have a conversation with your colleague or a subordinate wherein you want him or her to open up. Just tell them, come on let’s have a chat over coffee at the local café.

Do you have any more ideas around coffee? Do share with me!

4 Questions Indian Manufacturing Should Ask After The US Bedsheet Scandal

Posted on by DS_admin

As the India media got engrossed in demonetisation, the Tata boardroom battle and the US elections, a certain rather scandalous bit of news about a leading Indian textile company, against which class action suits are being filed in the US, seemed to have been largely ignored. This manufacturer had apparently supplied premium quality bedsheets to retailers such as Target and Wal-Mart—except that said sheets were actually made of low-grade cotton blends, not the Egyptian kind as promised. Earlier this year, investigators from Target probed the fibres of the bedsheets under a microscope and then tracked the global supply chain touching Minnesota, Cairo and Mumbai.

This incident shows brand India in a poor light at a time when the PM is pushing his “Make in India” campaign.

As reported in the media the company has agreed that the error has happened in their side and has hired Ernst & Young to re-examine its supply chain. This incident has clearly become a public relations challenge for the country’s textile industry and shows brand India in a poor light at a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is pushing his “Make in India” campaign.

The objective of this piece is also to not delve into the root causes that led to this specific scandal. However, I think it is an opportunity for Indian manufacturing to introspect and see if there are issues which could lead to this type of reputation-damaging problem.

1. Are strategic objectives creating behavioural dissonance?

Strategic objectives help an organisation to steer their course. They provide clarity on the prize ahead for organisational teams. They unite the organisation in a common purpose, challenge individuals and aid in planning for success. But these objectives when not carved well—especially when their impact is not thought through—can drive undesirable behaviours. Let me give you two examples:

The perils of contradictory objectives: Have a look at your strategic objectives and see if they are contradictory in nature. The first goal should be to avoid such contradictory goals. But when it is not possible to avoid, take care to see how they are being communicated to employees. The focus should be to ascertain if the contradictory goals could trigger behaviours that could negatively impact the larger interest of the organisation. Here’s an example: One of the reasons for the Volkswagen emissions scandal was that the CEO had set three contradictory goals: demonstrate energy efficiency, price competitiveness and environmental safety. The company had to pass the tough emission standards while making sure the prices did not go up or impact fuel efficiency. The result was that engineers came up with software that made cars emit less toxic fumes during test conditions.

Sharp targets which have to be achieved at all cost: Has the CEO set sharp targets without really thinking through the consequences? The famous example of this is the Ford Pinto scandal of 1970s. At the time, Ford president Lee Iacocca wanted his team to build a car weighing less than 2000 pounds and costing not more than US $2000 within 25 months. Given the pressure, the product was sent to the market with design faults. The engineers were aware of the defect which could be hazardous to human life yet decided to send it to the market as the cost-benefit analysis found it was cheaper to pay customers than correct the problem. It was a commercial success until Mother Jones magazine exposed how this car could cause a fire at the rear end and lead to human deaths.

Remember, values if not reinforced, decay over a period of time and hence need to be regularly brought to life.

Indian manufacturers have to be careful about not falling into a similar trap. Given the pressure to remain competitive, sometimes companies set targets to meet requirements of customers. For example, let’s say there is a demand from an international retailer to deliver a certain product at a certain price. While there is no harm in the target per-se, organisations need to ensure that a proper structure is followed to design a new product and no shortcuts are taken.

2. How often are the corporate values reinforced?

Most progressive manufacturing companies have values which they mention in their website, company brochures and even on their premises—these values take pride of place along with their vision and mission. There are two issues here. The question to ask is when the values were decided, and are they sufficient for allowing the organisation to wade through current challenges? For example, if the company competes in a market where customers expect an ecologically friendly product, then does it have “going green” as a corporate value?

The other issue is making sure that the values remain central to everything that the organisation does. Are they being lived by the leaders and the employees on a daily basis and do they guide all decisions and actions taken by them? This is easier said than done. The values cannot just be communicated once and forgotten. Their overarching importance has to be repeatedly communicated by leaders across various forums. It has to be ensured that systems, policies and practices align with these values. Remember, values if not reinforced, decay over a period of time and hence need to be regularly brought to life.

3. Is there a culture of silence in your company?

By culture of silence I mean instances when things are not right, yet people don’t speak up. There could be many reasons why employees do this. One reason could be because employees don’t find it safe to raise a flag if things are not as they should be. This could be because the organisation does not have a culture of openness and trust.

What pervades in the organisation is a “this is not my responsibility” mindset. Why bother about something that does not pertain to my area of work?

Employees find it too risky to bring out issues that could put them under the spotlight. They don’t want to get rebuked or challenged for something they are not responsible for. There could also be a fear of losing their job. What pervades in the organisation is a “this is not my responsibility” mindset. Why bother about something that does not pertain to my area of work? It could also be because when employees reported a problem, the bosses said things like, “Don’t come with problems but with solutions.” Don’t we remember the recalls of small cars made by General Motors in 2014 due to a faulty ignition, which shut off the engine during driving and prevented the airbags from inflating? Though the employees of GM knew about the problem for many years, the company decided to recall the cars only when GM was sued by a family for a death caused by the fault.

This is why it’s imperative for manufacturing companies to build a culture of trust and openness and drive an environment of accountability. If things are amiss, employees should not shy away from holding people accountable irrespective of their hierarchy or organisational standing.

4. Are “not acceptable” practices becoming “acceptable?”

Are practices which are normally not acceptable in your company becoming acceptable? This is something leaders need to be always careful of. This is called normalisation of deviance. This is a term coined by sociologist Diane Vaughan which refers to the practice where “deviance” from the norm or standards slowly gets institutionalised in the company. This happens when teams find it difficult to adhere to standards due to factors such as time pressure, resource constraint, limited budget etc. As a result, they accept the current sub-par standard as a benchmark. There may be a belief that the slip in standards is temporary, but often it becomes permanent. Your normal behaviour becomes what you have got accustomed to and not what the original standard was. The psychology behind this is that we humans have a naturally tendency to take short-cuts and deviate from established standards. If nothing bad happens we don’t mind repeating such behaviour and before we know it, it’s a new norm.

This is something that the CEO and top management should have zero tolerance of. They should come down heavily on actions and behaviours that may not lead to the best outcomes for the organisation. Remember, when there is a quality drop in the marketplace, it does not suddenly happen. It happens because someone someday compromised some standard somewhere which later became a norm. Hence, business leaders need to not only be on the watch-out but also identify potential deviances that may occur in the organisation and take proactive steps to arrest them.

4 Lessons In Change Leadership From Modi’s ‘Surgical Strike’ On Black Money

Posted on by DS_admin
Prime Minister Narendra Modi. (Photo by Mohd Zakir/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)

The recent surgical strike on black money is truly a bold move. Not surprising, industry doyens, economists and even the IMF have given Prime Minister Narendra Modi the thumbs-up. Beyond the benefits that it will bring to India, what’s interesting for me is that it provides great lessons on how to drive transformative change. These takeaways can be applied to any context and organisation, irrespective of whether you are in government, private sector, social sector, education or anywhere.

Perception matters as much as impact

One of Modi’s election promises was to remove corruption from India. One estimate, in fact, says that wealth from corruption comprises a fifth of India’s GDP. Since coming to power, the government has taken series of steps which led to ₹1 .25 lakh crore in black money coming out in open. Some of the steps taken so far include setting up of a SIT (special investigation team) to get back money stashed abroad by wealthy Indians, implementation of the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, renegotiation of tax treaties, Income Declaration Scheme etc.

Modi has made the experience of change very visceral for people — this exercise is not something they will forget.

While these were great steps, none of them seemed to register in the minds of the common people — the masses that make up the bulk of the nation. Not surprisingly, earlier this year, Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index found that India on a scale of 100 was perceived as scoring 38 in corruption in 2015, the same as the previous year. Clearly, while the government has not been hit by scams, the people thought that its promises to bring back black money were not coming to fruition.

However, this demonetisation scheme is a masterstroke for the government in terms of winning the perception game. With his “financial surgical strike”, Modi has positioned himself as someone who walks the talk.

Yes, citizens are enduring great inconvenience, but if you watch interviews with people on the street, you will see that most of them believe it’s a move in the right direction; a recent poll found that 82% of people were in favour of demonetisation. There seems to be a belief that this move will help to clean up the nation. Now what Modi has done is that he has made the experience of change very visceral for people. They are going through the pain but know that their ‘sacrifice” is for a good cause — this exercise is not something they will forget. Modi to them has become the messiah of black-money elimination. For them it does not matter how much black money will actually be obliterated but since they are experiencing it, feeling it, it will be etched in their mind.

What leaders driving organisational change should learn is that together with real impact, it’s important to make sure an impact is felt in the mind as well. People shouldn’t just “know” things have changed, they should “feel” it and believe it.

Know when NOT to get stakeholder buy-in

In a change effort, it is key that stakeholders buy into what is getting deployed to make sure they participate in the effort and support it. Without this there could be resistance which delays and even derails the process. However, there are instances when specific actions need to be taken and one has to go all alone. For reasons ranging from the need for confidentiality to the sensitive nature of a matter to security issues, these steps are taken because it’s the right thing to do for a larger objective. This is based on the leader’s convictions and he or she makes the decision unilaterally or in consultation with close confidants.

When trying to do something transformational be ready to put your neck on the line. You can’t be in a comfort zone and drive change.

This is exactly what Narendra Modi did. His larger objective was to make a corruption-free India, which is something he has spoken about publicly often. However, in the matter of demonetisation, secrecy was necessary (only a handful of people knew about it) so that black money hoarders wouldn’t have advance warning to launder their assets or get rid of them.

The learning for change leaders is that there could be instances in a transformation effort when a leader has to go it all alone without getting buy-in. This is sometimes required for the success of a larger mission.

People’s actions change when they know they’re being watched

During a nine-year study at Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant in the 1930s, researcher Elton Mayo found that employees’ productivity improved when they knew they were being observed. This was called Hawthorne Effect and has been replicated in other contexts as well. For example, in 2011, when researchers of Carnegie Mellon University sent weekly postcards to customers of an electric company, informing them that their consumption was being watched, it resulted in a reduction of electricity use by consumers. There were also allegations in the US media about the Obama administration applying this technique to keep surveillance on government employees.

I believe something similar will happen here. After the demonetisation scheme, citizens will be aware of the heightened monitoring by tax authorities; this will change the behaviour of tax defaulters and the like who will be more likely to declare their money going forward. While the problem of black money may not be completely eliminated, there will be an improvement due to the change in many people’s behaviour.

The takeaway for those wanting to drive a change in behaviour is to tell the subjects that they are under scrutiny.

Be ready to take major risks

When trying to do something transformational, be ready to put your neck in the line. You can’t be in a comfort zone and drive change. This is what Narendra Modi has done. Taking a decision such as the current demonetisation is not easy — there’s major disruption and it can backfire in a big way if normalcy is not restored soon. If the cash is not replenished soon, the common person might have to endure substantial hardship; matters might be even worse in villages where banking penetration is weak. Also, the trader community that deals mostly in cash might suffer huge losses and might turn on the BJP that it has traditionally supported. And then of course there are protests in the Opposition, which could impact the functioning of Parliament. But Narendra Modi is a fearless leader who is driven by conviction. He knew he has to weed out corruption for the greater good of the nation even if it means alienating a few supporters.

The takeaway for change leaders is that you have to be prepared to become unpopular while you’re driving a transformation in the organisation. Ultimately, your actions actions need to be driven by the larger objective of the change effort.

You’re Wrong If You Think Donald Trump Is ‘Authentic’

Posted on by DS_admin
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump greets supporters along with his wife Melania and family during his election night rally in Manhattan, New York, U.S., November 9, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar

Before the US elections many writers talked about the “authenticity” of Donald Trump. They averred that while he may not be politically correct, at least he spoke his mind. A poll also found that a vast majority of Republican voters felt he “says what he believes” rather than “what people want to hear.” Authenticity, in fact, became Trump’s major selling point. Marketing mavens have written of how authenticity helped build the Donald Trump brand. Even Melania Trump told Anderson Cooper in an interview that her husband was “real” and “raw” i.e. authentic.

Having observed Donald Trump over the last 18 months, when he was on TV 24×7, I wondered if he was really as authentic as he was being made out to be. He has been a successful real-estate magnate who has built a diverse business conglomerate and global brand around his name. As of October 2016, Forbes estimated his net-worth to be about $3.7 billion. Though he has had his share of failures, there is no doubt about his overall success in building his small family business into a global conglomerate.

What a leader needs to be successful is not “authenticity” but “self-regulation.” He needs to adapt his behaviour so that it is “contextually relevant”.

For such an achievement, you need execution ability, drive for results and an understanding of context. “Authenticity” figures low on the list. The larger question is: can a leader be authentic and successful at the same time? My contention is that no, it’s not possible. Let me explain my position step by step.

What is authenticity?

According to vocabulary.com the word “authenticity” means the quality of being genuine or real. When you are authentic, you feel as you do. You are true to yourself. It means irrespective of circumstances a leader does exactly what he feels is right.

Can a leader afford to be authentic?

Let’s assume you are the CEO of a struggling company and you have a presentation to the analyst. What do you do? You still put on a great exterior and do the analysts meet. You don’t show your pain. Or let’s say a business leader has just got to know about a major setback in a technology project which is very important for the organisation. It’s so happened that the project leader and a couple of other key people have decided to leave the organisation. The business leader is completely devastated and broken. Yet, in the next one hour he has to address a group of new recruits. What does he do? He keeps his feelings hidden and goes ahead and addresses this team without really showing them how he is feeling inside.

So what a leader or anyone in a workplace needs to be successful is not “authenticity” but “self-regulation.” He needs to adapt his behaviour so that it is “contextually relevant”. The role he is playing becomes more important than what he is feeling. He needs to behave keeping in mind what’s needed and good for those around. This requires him to quickly adapt to the situations and do what is right for the moment.

President Donald Trump is likely to behave very differently from presidential nominee Donald Trump… the responsibility of the role will make him do the right things.

As Jeffrey Pfeffer, author of the excellent book Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time, and an authority on the subject says: “Leaders need to be true to what the situation demands and what the people around them want and need.” For some this may appear to be changing one’s colours like a chameleon. But the fact is that if you don’t adapt to the requirement of the context, you will be irrelevant. This is not an issue of morality, but an issue of relevance. Remember, we live in the real life. Don’t believe those people who tell you that a leader needs to be authentic at all times. It just doesn’t work that way. You have to be self-regulated and do what is relevant to the context irrespective of how you feel. The prime driver is doing what is in the best interest of the team and organisation.

As a matter of fact there are jobs which explicitly demand this skill. For example, think about customer-facing roles such as a front office executive in a hotel, bank branch or hospital. Whatever their mood or thought, they are required to behave keeping the customer’s needs in mind. Are they being inauthentic? Yes, perhaps they are, but that’s what they must do to perform their job well.

The “inauthenticity” of Donald Trump

Now let’s come back to Trump.

My take is that President-elect Donald Trump — like many other successful leaders — is not authentic. He will do things that make him successful in his mission. His rhetoric during the elections was aimed at grabbing the attention of the audience and then sustaining their engagement. He had sensed the underlying mood of the electorate who felt unheard and were majorly peeved with job loss, terrorism, illegal immigration, corruption and the establishment in Washington. In response, he peddled the message of “Make America Great Again” with calls such as “Build the Wall”, “Drain the Swamp”, “Lock Her Up”, “Ban Muslims from entering the US”, “Replace Obamacare”, etc. etc. Some of his messages were in bad taste and focused on polarising the nation, but they were the means to an end — garnering public support.

Remember, he is a person who does not like losing and he’s unlikely to risk disturbing America’s position in the world.

Will he do all that he mentioned during the campaign? I have my doubts. I believe he will finally do what is best for the country and what makes him successful as a President. Remember, he is a person who does not like losing and he’s unlikely to risk disturbing America’s position in the world. I think his focus will shift from polarising to uniting the nation. President Donald Trump is likely to behave very differently from presidential nominee Donald Trump. He is an intelligent man and the responsibility of the role will make him do the right things.

We already see a different Trump. He is already talking about keeping parts of Obamacare and the much reviled Mexico wall may never be a reality (as Trump supporter and former house speaker Newt Gingrich mentioned a few days back, the wall could have just been a “campaign device“). Trump’s graciousness about Obama upon meeting him surprised many — he called him a “good man“, which was quite a turnaround from the sheer vitriol of just months earlier.

This is just the beginning. At the end of the day, Trump will do what makes him successful as a President. He is not authentic and cannot afford to be authentic. Do you still believe he is authentic?

7 Reasons Why Donald Trump And Narendra Modi Should Not Be Compared

Posted on by DS_admin

There have been reports in the media highlighting how Donald Trump and Narendra Modi have similar traits, ideologies and ascents to power (see, for example, here and here). To me, this looks like a gross oversimplification. My view is that they are two different leaders who came to power under different contexts. Both of them are leaders of two great democracies who were brought to power by the people. But Donald Trump can never be Narendra Modi. It’s like comparing oranges with tangerines. They are so different. Let me tell you why.

1. Modi’s humble beginnings vs. Trump’s silver spoon

Narendra Modi was born into a family which struggled to make ends meet. His father was a tea vendor and a young Modi often helped him after school—it was a hard life. He was a diligent student who loved reading and debating. He wanted to study in a well known Sainik school in Jamnagar but his mother could not afford it. Everything that PM Modi achieved in his early days was through hard work and nothing was delivered to him on his plate. Donald Trump, on the other hand, was born to wealthy father who was a real estate developer. He went to the well known Kew-Forest School in Queens at New York and later to the New York Military Academy when his father decided he needed a remedy for his behavioural issues.

Since Modi has been a part of a marginalized section of the society he can understand their pain. This is something President Trump can never achieve.

While young Modi spent his early days in small single storey house (approximately 40 feet by 12 feet) , Donald Trump spent his childhood in a lavish two-story Tudor Revival home While young Narendra spent his childhood grappling with scarcity, little Don pretty much got whatever he wanted.

Since Modi has been a part of a marginalized section of the society he can understand and feel their pain. This is something President Trump can never achieve. He may talk about the pains of less fortunate people but I’m not sure whether he has any idea of what it is really like.

2. Simple living vs. high rolling

When you go through Narendra Modi’s life, you realize he had ascetic tendencies. He was hugely influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. As a matter of fact he even wanted to join the Ramakrishna order but was turned away thrice. Modi has always lived simply and that hasn’t changed even since he came into power. Trump is just the opposite. He has always led the high life and associated with glitz and glamour.

3. Impeccable personal conduct vs. unbecoming hi-jinks

Narendra Modi an impeccable track record as far as his character is concerned. Even his harshest critics can’t point fingers at his integrity and the values that he stands for. What else do you expect from someone who has led a life on Vivekananda’s teachings? One cannot say the same about Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood tape and accusations of sexual misconduct from women. The obnoxious rhetoric used by Trump during election rallies was highly offensive and while Modi was hard-hitting during elections, he never stooped to slandering entire groups of people.

4. Prior experience in government vs. no experience

Before Modi got elected as Prime Minister, he served as the Chief Minister of Gujarat from October 2001 till May 2014. As a Chief Minister, he played a major role in governance, transforming the state and making it an investment magnet. Trump on the other hand is a successful real-estate magnate but he has had no experience in government.

5. Promising hope vs. peddling fear

Narendra Modi got elected to power by talking about his vision of “Acchhe Din” or good days. This signified hope and optimism. On the other hand, Donald Trump did talk about “Make America Great Again” but it was based on stoking people’s fear around jobs, immigration, terrorism, trade and the failures of the establishment in Washington.

6. Aspirational brand vs. out-of-reach brand

As I see it Brand Modi stands for the impossible being made possible, humility, change and transformation. He inspires people across social strata. For millions of children who are born in under-privileged families, he serves as a role model of what merit and hard work can achieve. If the son of a tea vendor can become PM, anyone in the nation can. While Trump may have tried to project himself as a “change agent”, he has all his life represented glamour, showmanship, wealth and arrogance. His life trajectory has nothing in common with that of most Americans. While his voters may think he has the power to lead change, I doubt how much they can hope to emulate a tycoon who has led a charmed and glamorous life.

7. A global statesman vs. a loose cannon

Thanks to Narendra Modi’s art of leadership and influence, India has a seat on the global high table. Given Trump’s statements about Muslims, China, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, NATO etc, global leaders are looking at him cautiously. They want to see whether he will tone down his rhetoric or carry on in the same reckless way. Clearly, he has to do a lot to be a leader of the free world.

Do you still believe Donald Trump and Narendra Modi are similar? It’s for you to decide.

3 Tactics That Helped Donald Trump Win Hearts And Influence People

Posted on by DS_admin

The US election is finally over, and Donald Trump is going to lead the world’s most powerful nation beginning 2017. While a close fight was expected, his win stunned many people—but the signs were there all along. Trump had successfully tapped into the emotions of blue collar workers who felt that the American dream had faded for them and that there was no one to hear their voice in Washington. To them, this “outsider” was the only one who was willing to address concerns around terrorism, trade and immigration.

He kept on repeating his message again and again, playing on the fears of the people even as he promised to solve their problems.

Here, I want to focus not on Trump’s particular messages to the people but on the tactics he used to communicate with and influence voters. In my analysis I found that Trump used three primary strategies to persuade voters—these strategies are also relevant in business and other contexts.

The fear factor

Fear can be a big motivator. And this is what Donald Trump used very well. He tried to appeal to the fears of the voters. Now, let’s not forget that fear is an adaptive emotional response to situations of threat and it motivates us to act in three basic ways—to fight or take flight. When this is not possible at the individual level people look for direction and guidance, for someone who can fight for them. This is exactly what happened in Donald Trump campaign.

His message primarily revolved around the economy, falling wages, income stagnation, politicians not being able to get things done, corrupt federal government, things being broken in Washington, other countries taking the US for granted, and so on. And he positioned himself as a person who could take up cudgels and get things done for the people. He kept on repeating his message again and again, playing on the fears of the people even as he promised to solve their problems.

Interestingly, he did not adopt most leaders’ stance that America is a great superpower, instead openly admitting that the country has been on the decline. This resonated with the voters who felt disfranchised and wanted to be a part of his clarion call of “Make America Great Again.”

Fear, uncertainty and doubt are effective tools to influence people. Similar tactics were also used by Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 US Presidential elections, where he drove home the point that electing Barry Goldwater would raise the risk of nuclear war. The strategy worked and Lyndon Johnson went on to win the elections. So if you want to persuade people, fear can be an effective tool. However, if those influenced don’t see the promised change, they will be quickly disillusioned. So what Donald Trump will have to do is to make sure at least few of his promises are met in the next few months.

Direct communication

A lot has been written about Team Hillary’s use of surrogates—powerful figures that can help influence other people. Surrogates not only endorse the candidate and her/his ideas, they also act as message-bearers and influencers who work to ensure that their constituents are brought on board. They add credibility and also get their own supporters to support the cause.

Donald Trump was able to attract a large audience on his own steam. Unlike Hillary, he hardly used surrogates and he was the principal message-bearer.

Hillary Clinton used two types of surrogates—powerful people and celebrities. The former included names such as Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren etc. The celebrities included Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, Stevie Wonder etc. The former conveyed her message while the latter helped to get eye-balls. Remember, surrogates are also used when the candidate is not able to draw an adequate audience by herself or himself.

In the recently concluded election one thing was very obvious. Donald Trump was able to attract a large audience on his own steam. His rallies always drew crowds and when he spoke, people listened. No doubt, his experience as a reality TV star helped him to incorporate plenty of entertainment value into his one-man act. Unlike Hillary, he hardly used surrogates and he was the principal message-bearer. The only people who campaigned on his behalf were his family members.

Fact is, there is no substitute to the candidate conveying message all by himself. Trump did this very well. He was very passionate about his message which he kept on repeating in all his events. When he did not use the teleprompter he did meander but the message was the same. He also came across as someone who spoke from his heart, who spoke about change. People could connect with him directly.

Hillary Clinton’s messages were largely status-quoist and appeared a bit bland. She lacked the spontaneity and “sincerity” that Trump exuded. Her team seems to have realized this, and thus tried to channel the charisma of others such as Obama and Bill Clinton. The takeaway here is two-fold. First, the leader’s stature should be such that s/he can attract people all by her/himself. Second, the message should be passionately conveyed by the leader her/himself. Remember, surrogates cannot replace the leader who they represent.

Purpose matters more than packaging

People are willing to overlook the rough edges if there is a larger message which resonates with them. This is what happened in this election. There were so many unfavourable reports about Donald Trump, such as his vulgar outpourings on the Access Hollywood tape, and then women coming out and speaking up against him. But voters were willing to overlook it as he came across as a leader who could solve their problems. He aligned with their larger purpose. So powerful was his message that people either doubted the allegations of sexual harassment against him or said that it did not so matter so much in the long run since he could address bigger issues pertaining to the nation.

Rough edges make a leader more human and people are able to relate better.

The other fact that we should not forget is that rough edges make a leader more human and people are able to relate better. While I am in no way condoning Trump’s behaviour, the acceptance of his flaws by the people show that a leader need not try to be “perfect.” If anything, imperfections make them more real and relatable.

3 Leadership Lessons From Tata’s Boardroom Coup Against Cyrus Mistry

Posted on by DS_admin

Anyone who reads/watches the news is aware of how Cyrus Mistry was made to resign by the board as chairman of Tata Sons. The dramatic ouster created headlines—the Tata group is one of the most respected companies of India and this sudden change has surprised many. No one had expected the tenure of Cyrus Mistry to be so short-lived and there’s been no official communication from the Tatas on the reasons for the firing although speculations are taking up plenty of newspaper inches. However, the objective of this piece is not to look for reasons but share a few leadership lessons that any executive needs to keep in mind while navigating corporate terrain.

Leadership is a political process

As one has understood from media reports, one of the reasons why Cyrus Mistry had to go was because he was not able to galvanize the support board, Tata Trust and other key stakeholders on what he was trying to do. For example it was reported that Cyrus Mistry had not kept the board informed about certain acquisitions.

A CEO’s job is just not about vision, strategy and execution. It is also about being able to carry all relevant stakeholders along. Business executives often don’t realize leadership is a political process. I often come across business leaders who tell me that they hate politics. They do this because they have poor understanding of what politics really means—for them being political is a taboo and something which can defile an organization. Here’s the thing: being politically savvy does not mean backstabbing someone or using treacherous means to get to an end. Political astuteness is about being aware of all of all your stakeholders and having a sense of “who is with you” and “who is not with you” as you embark on your effort to achieve your organizational objectives. This is not easy stuff and requires deep observation, solid networks and an understanding of what people are saying and not saying.

As a leader climbs up the organizational ladder, sending and responding to signals becomes very critical. This is not a onetime exercise but something that a leader should do for every new initiative. A leader should know not just how to manage those in their team but also those above them. Leaders should make the effort to identify those who do not support them and then try to get them on board. Leaders should know how to influence and persuade to move their agenda forward.

If you do not like networking and are not good at understanding and relating to people then success in the workplace will be a mirage for you. Remember, political competence is a sine qua non for organizational growth and success. Those who tell you to “be authentic” and “just do what your heart says” are ill-informed. Organizations are social engines where success depends on how effectively you are able to influence and manage those who matter.

Know when it’s time to bid farewell

A senior lawyer who advised the Tatas confirmed that both Ratan Tata and Harvard Business School dean and Tata board member Nitin Nohria tried to persuade Mistry to quit, but he did not heed to the request. The point here is that when two leaders of this stature tell you to quit, you should not think twice. However painful it may be it’s better to call it a day. And once you are shown the door, you should exit gracefully.

In this case, Cyrus Mistry tried to wash dirty linen in public and even mentioned that he was a lame duck chairman. The question that comes in one’s mind is that if this was true and he felt like a lame-duck chairman, why did he not raise the matter during the four years in which he led the company? To mention it now makes him look like a weak leader and someone who lacked the courage to confront difficult issues upfront.

A key element of leadership is having the courage to take on the thorniest issues head on and resolve them. Once you are asked to go, don’t show your emotions publicly. It just makes you look like a bad loser. Remember, for an accomplished leader like Mr. Mistry, life does not come to an end with this change. He should just accept it and focus on his other ventures and take them to success. Remember, people have short memories and this too will be forgotten.

Never be complacent

However successful you have been in the past, you can never rest on your laurels. Every day is a new day and a corporate executive has to constantly work towards their relevance for tomorrow. I am not saying that Cyrus Mistry was complacent but if a chairman whose family has more than 18% stake is asked to go, anything is possible. Remember, in 1985 Steve Jobs got fired by the company he had founded because of his uneasy relationship with John Sculley. Or how Vikram Pandit had to make a sudden exit from Citigroup in 2012, despite steering the bank through a difficult phase and paid back $45 billion of federal lifeline. Or the way CO-CEO of Deutsche Bank Anshu Jain had to leave despite being a star performer as an investment banker.

Point is that a company can be ruthless regardless of how well a leader has performed in the past. Like it or not, organizations are transactional in nature. An individual’s future tenure does not depend on past successes but on how relevant they will be in the future.

4 Reasons Why The Tata Sons ‘Crisis’ Will Blow Over Soon—And Even Win Praise

Posted on by DS_admin

So much is being written about the latest saga at Tata Sons—the unceremonious firing of chairman Cyrus Pallonji Mistry and his subsequent allegations. Given the standing that the organization has in India and the world, the attention this has garnered is unsurprising. However, I strongly disagree with those who say it will impact brand Tata. I also take strong objections to those who are saying that the ouster was Machiavellian.

No one is spared if their performance does not meet expectations. For investors this is an indication that whoever leads the Tata Group will be held accountable.

Let’s look at this matter objectively, keeping emotions out. Cyrus Mistry had lost the confidence of the board and he had to go. Any change creates heat, followed by noise. This is what is currently happening. Let me give you four reasons why this issue will blow over soon

The doyen is back in the saddle

Getting back Mr Ratan Tata in the saddle has been a masterstroke by the board of Tata Sons. Mr Tata has the stature and vision to steer this conglomerate. He is respected not just by the employees of Tata Sons and fellow industry leaders but by Indians and the world at large. In his 21 years as the chairman of Tata Sons, the market cap increased from ₹8000 crore in1991 to over ₹4.62 lakh crores in December 2012. He is the person who broke the satraps of the Tata Group—Russi Mody, Darbari Seth, Ajit Kerkar—in the 1990s. He grew the company by acquiring a host of companies such as VSNL, Corus, Jaguar Land Rover, Daewoo Motors, NatSteel and The Pierre. It’s very easy to question some of these decisions in hindsight. But when these decisions were taken they were lauded by the media and industry watchers.

He has been the biggest custodian of Tata values, as was so aptly evident during the Singur crisis. The Tata Group cannot be more fortunate than to have him back. In the few months that he is there he will make sure all worries and fears are allayed in the minds of investors, employees and industry watchers. To make this happen he has already started meeting with institutional investors of Tata Group such as LIC, New India Assurance etc. On the employee front, he is the best person to get things back on the rails as he knows the DNA of the firm and has a personal connect with leaders across the organization. Because of his long association with the group and impeccable accomplishments, he still brings in huge confidence among all stakeholders.

Accountability at the highest level

It’s not common for a person whose family has more than 18% stake in the company being removed from the position of chairman. We still don’t know the exact reason for the exit of Cyrus Mistry. One thing is very clear, though: he had lost the confidence of the board of directors. The board held him accountable and felt he was not the right person to steer the company forward. Remember, Cyrus Mistry is a well known business leader in his own right. But the board had the courage to fire him. This shows the culture of accountability even at the highest level. So what if one is a chairman and has a majority stake? If he is not the right person for the future, he will have to quit the ship.

To many consumers of Tata products the current changes don’t really matter. For them the brand signifies “trust” and “quality.”

While some people have been questioning the corporate governance at Tatas, my response to them is that the board has eminent members who don’t mind demonstrating exemplary leadership. No one is spared if their performance or behaviour does not meet the required expectations. For investors this is one of the best indications that whoever leads the Tata Group will be held accountable.

The strong leadership of Tata companies

The companies within Tata Group are run by extremely accomplished CEOs. Many of the CEOs are industry stalwarts and will quickly come around to this change. Yes, there are companies which may not be doing well but let’s not forget these CEOs have the mettle to turn these businesses around. With Ratan Tata back at the helm, they may get an additional impetus to chart a new course.

Brand power

To many consumers of Tata products the current changes don’t really matter. For them the brand signifies “trust” and “quality.” While some consumers know about this event because of the media coverage, many are probably unaware. They will continue to buy these products. For many of them a product from the Tata stable signifies a rising and self-reliant India. Tata as a brand has got ingrained in consumers’ minds over the years and will not erode so easily. Many of steps taken by the Tatas—such as the handling of the Singur crisis and how the employees were take care off after the terrorist attack on Taj Hotel—have further cemented their stature in the eyes of people.

The Tata management is quite conscious about their impeccable reputation and are avoiding washing dirty linen in public despite the outgoing CEO’s observations making industry headlines.

I strongly believe that the Tata Group as an institution is too solid to get impacted by the removal of Cyrus Mistry. Within a few months things will settle down and the incident will be forgotten. Let’s not forget brand Tata has survived many upheavals. This too will pass. A couple of years down the line, observers will extol the virtues of this move and how the board had the heft to make this correction at the highest level of the organization.

4 Communication Lessons From Hillary Clinton In The First US Presidential Debate

Posted on by DS_admin

The first presidential debate on 26 September was widely watched all over the world, with more than 80 million viewers tuning in from the US alone. I was in Dubai on that day and made sure I woke up at 4am to watch Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton slug it out. Whatever the opinion poll numbers and whatever Donald Trump may proclaim, one thing was clear: Hillary Clinton won the debate. If I could sum it up in one sentence, it was the victory of the prepared over the unprepared. The billionaire real estate mogul and reality TV star known for his snappy repartees seemed to have been taken off guard. This is despite the fact that Hillary Clinton had more than one Achilles heel (the private e-mail system, Benghazi etc)—Trump could not trip her over these because he was not prepared.

If I could sum it up in one sentence, it was the victory of the prepared over the unprepared.

The Hofstra event provided some great lessons on communication in a high-voltage, high stakes environment where making sure outcomes are in your favour does matter. These can happen in various contexts, for example board presentations, job interviews, discussions with union leaders, sales presentations, business reviews, conversations with difficult colleagues etc.

When we are in such situations, it might be useful to draw communication lessons from the first presidential debate.

Wear your calm

However stressful the situation may be, never let it show on your face. Both Trump and Clinton were performing under pressure in an event that could influence undecided voters. However, Hillary made sure she didn’t let the stress affect her demeanour. She smiled often and was never visibly rattled by Trump’s attacks.

On the other hand, Trump looked taken aback when Hillary went for the jugular. One could see a range of emotions on his face—anger, aggravation, irritation, agitation. His facial gymnastics, in fact, were downright amusing to watch. While his supporters would say that this reflects his genuineness and openness, most voters want a President who is balanced and not unsettled easily by challenges and confrontations.

So, how does one achieve a calm demeanour before a high-stakes communication event? This is a mind game and has to be achieved through practice. Just before the event, it helps to close one’s eyes, take a deep breath, shun all distractions and gather focus before getting into the discussion.

Prepare for all likely questions

Just because one has expertise in a certain area does not mean that preparation is not needed. Trump seems to have not realized this. Since he was a successful reality TV star and zoomed his way through the primaries, he thought he would be able to respond to questions with ease. However, he clearly did not come across as prepared as Hillary. She had ready answers that she used at various places. For example, when Trump mentioned her being away from campaign trail, she said she was preparing for the debate. She also said: “You know what else I did? I prepared to be President.” Again, when there were questions from Trump about stamina she mentioned that he should not talk about it until he’s tried to maintain the kind of busy schedule that she did as Secretary of State.

Donald Trump said 34 false things, while Hillary Clinton just made four incorrect claims… he thought he could bullshit his way through the debate.

Contrary to this Trump seem to be taken aback by Hillary’s mention about Alicia Machado. He also did not have a convincing response for queries about his tax returns or his temperament. As a matter of fact Donald Trump said 34 false things, while Hillary Clinton just made four incorrect claims. This also indicates that Trump was not prepared and thought he could bullshit his way through the debate.

However familiar one may be with one’s content it always helps to prepare. My recommendation is to make an inventory of all topics that could come up for discussion and prepare a list of likely questions and their answers.

Achilles’ heels: Don’t get provoked

Donald Trump took every bait thrown by Hillary Clinton and went on the defensive. He spent quite a bit of time responding to questions such as his support for the Iraq war or his father’s business or his tax returns. Hillary, however, was a far more slippery fish. For example, when Trump attached her on the email saga, she was brief and said she was taking responsibility for the mistake. Trump could not get any more mileage from the matter.

Remember, each one of us has an Achilles heel or two. But the art of communication is making sure one does not get wrapped in lengthy discussions around them.

Talk like the person that you are expected to be

It’s important that in any communication you talk in a way that fits the role you’re supposed to be playing. This was a presidential debate and Hillary made it a point to sound presidential. For example, when there was a conversation about the US standing for allies, Trump said he would stand for those who pay the US. Here Hillary sounded presidential when she said:

“Let me start by saying words matter. Words matter when you run for president, and they really matter when you are president. We have mutual defence treaties, and we will honour them. It is essential that America’s word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and some worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I’ve talked with a number of them. But I want to, on behalf of myself and, I think on behalf of a majority of the American people say that, you know, our word is good. It’s also important that we look at the entire globe situation.”

During the entire debate Hillary Clinton appeared more presidential than Donald Trump. So if you are CEO addressing a press conference or board meeting, demonstrate the all the required confidence that one expects of the role you’re in, even if there are uncomfortable questions.

Let's
Connect

#

Mobile No.

+91 8939723810
#

E-mail ID

query@proliferator.net