Abuse of Freedom vs Freedom to Abuse

One of my favourite quotes has always been Voltaire’s, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to death your right to say it.” That one line, to me, is the fine line that separates true civilization from the laws of the jungle. That one, undeniable principle should be the bedrock of any system that aspires to be truly democratic.

Why, you might ask, am I worried? The very fact that I can sit in my armchair and comment on everything from the government to Google Maps proves, if proof is needed, that my right to free speech is being upheld. Right?

Wrong.

Freedom of speech these days comes with an asterisk next to it. Conditions apply. As long as what I say is not a threat either to national security, a blanket that covers everything unpopular with the ruling dispensation, or to local peace (covering everything under the rather broad ambit of ‘hurting the sentiments of the community’) – as adjudged not by qualified Solomons but by politicians and untrained keepers of the law – I am free to speak.

Ah, but unfettered speech is harmful, right? It needs to be curbed, na?

Let me take a step back here before I answer that question. Not as a retreat, but as an attempt to trace recent history back to the time when freedom meant something less... conditional. On a global level, that turning point was America bringing in the ‘draconian’ Patriot Act in 2001 – justified as it might have been in the backdrop of the 9/11 attacks, the Act still empowered officials to track and flag you as a possible enemy of the state on the basis of your thoughts, becoming the free world’s precedent for curbing your freedom on the pretext of assuring someone else's. 

There is an interesting remark that Manoj Bajpai’s character makes in Special Chabbis – “Saza jurm sochne ke liye nahin, jurm karne ke liye milti hai. Aur wo bhi, jab unke khilaaf sabooth ho.” You do not get punished for thinking of a crime, but for its execution – and even then, only with proof. It is perhaps telling that the movie was a throwback to the 80s and a world that seemed a lot safer for the law-abiding citizen – except, perhaps, in Punjab.

In India, the Shah Bano case and its handling by the then Congress government was perhaps the first instance of the central Government buckling under organized pressure from a particular community, setting back perhaps decades of progressive reforms towards equality in caste, creed and gender. Though this had very little to do with free speech, it set the precedent for what followed: the attacks on MF Hussain (1996) and the protests against the movies ‘Hey Ram’ (2000) and ‘the Da Vinci Code’ (2006).

I know that as a Hindu, any defence I make of the protest against Hussain’s painting will be viewed with coloured lenses. But I am only quoting a contemporary of Hussain’s by repeating the same question many Hindus had at the same time – would Hussain have dared to depict any of Islam’s or Christianity’s icons thus? Would he have faced as much vitriol from those communities if he had?

The later years provide the answer. 

The ‘Da Vinci Code’ was banned in many countries because it hurt the sentiments of Christians, but surprisingly, the Christian West, despite its protests, allowed it to be shown with only a disclaimer; the more diverse East was ironically the more restrictive, banning the movie outright in several countries and states and buckling under organized pressure. 

When a Danish paper published cartoons depicting the Prophet, Islamic sentiments were hurt. The protests turned violent in many places and degenerated into an us-vs-them mentality in many parts of the world, further isolating the communities and fostering the air of distrust and disrespect.

Where – and it is the benefit of hindsight to be so judgmental – the world went wrong was in giving in to these voices of emotion. The government should have ensured a level playing field to the two sides and left it at that, instead of silencing one voice on the pretext of avoiding violence. That is the fundamental problem when it comes to protectionist censorship – there will always be a bias, for the simple reason that it will be human beings operating that censorship.

It is perhaps symbolic of how much we have fallen when I receive a petition on Change.org against Shah Rukh Khan’s promotion of ‘fair skin.’ 

Really, that’s your concern right now? was my first thought. 

The second was more introspective and led to this article. What right do I have to dictate Shah Rukh Khan’s endorsements? Why should I intervene on decisions that are purely personal, either at the advertiser’s end or at the buyer’s? Who am I to presume that I should educate the rest of the world on the (non-)interrelationship between fairness and success in life?

And that is where we are now. We took the step from defending our sentiments to promoting our sentiments under the same disguise – and took that step back from being understanding creatures to those that thrive on strength and numbers. We lose our individual identities because that identity is carved into, and the property of, so many emotional communities at so many levels. We care not about other individuals but the communities that we are aligned with or against; we devolve our understanding back to stererotypes and prejudices.

I am a dark-skinned, Tamil-speaking, MBA-holding, ex-software-engineer, a Hindu, a Brahmin and a resident of Bengaluru, Karnataka. But if I am to rise to every slight, imagined or otherwise, to any dark-skinned OR a Tamilian OR an MBA grad OR IT professional OR Hindus OR Brahmins OR Kannadigas OR Bangalore-ian, I won’t have time being who I am - an individual with my own opinions, and asking for the right to express them. I will only have time protesting against others’.

And then... the more I win, the more I lose.

Captaincy... oppa Clarkan style!

Two events in recent cricketing history compel me to draw their parallels to typical corporate circumstances.

One was the re-emergence of Dhoni as India's blue-eyed captain, the Midas of the Men in Blue whose faith in his players are being seen as prophetic with each passing day of the tour.

The other - perhaps more in the limelight for all the wrong reasons - the Australian captain Michael Clarke's tribulations on and off the field.

Personally, I have to admit that for the first time since the 1996 World Cup finals, I find myself willing to root for an Australian team (in their next challenge - the Ashes - and not for the current series!) And much of that has to do with Clarke's conduct on and off the field - a true example of the 'Halo' effect, perhaps. He's a refreshing change from those who excused excessive aggression (and spitting into one's hands) as a symbol of Aussie-ism, from those who would rather blame themselves or the pitch than the fact that they were as clueless in India as our team has been on their pitches. And of course, there's the small fact that he didn't 'Mankad' Dhawan's debut - a rare display of sportsmanship from a team that has long excused its absence without any shame.

And to top it off, he's actually handled the 'HomeworkGate' saga pretty... neatly.

Assuming, of course, that he was as sure about the decision as his coach Mickey Arthur, Clarke deserves to be patted on the back for arresting the slide in discipline. Whether it is 3 points or 30, irrespective of whether the coach needed it in Powerpoint, toilet paper or a ballet with Watson leading the pirouettes, there is nothing ambiguous about the fact that every member of the team was asked to ponder over their role in the larger scheme of things - and if anyone objects, it should be to the fact that the coach had to hand this out as an assignment, instead of the 'boys' dwelling on it 24x7 themselves, as they should have been at this juncture of a tour that is going very badly for them.

That the four failed to hand in such an assignment therefore smacks of an abject disregard of their responsibilities towards the team, and an attitude that is dismissive of their captain's/coach's inputs. None of the four are kids, each having spent close to a decade in the much-vaunted Australian sporting setup, and must surely have been indoctrinated on what it means to be part of a team. To excuse poor attitude citing personal excellence in other areas is a mistake that Ponting committed with Symonds - Clarke, at least, has sent out the right message not only to his current team-mates, but also to any other hopeful waiting for a chance at national duty.

Maybe I am imagining it, but the Australian players have shown much more application, put a heavier price on their wicket, for the first time in the series - despite Clarke's stumping off the first ball he faced. Perhaps that rush of blood itself was occasioned by the brickbats he was receiving from myopic former players who did not realize that they had always been kept in line off the glare of the media. People like Damien Martyn, who remains in my memory for claiming a bump-catch off Dravid and then arguing with Venkatraghavan (and going off scot-free in the days before BCCI started 'to flex its muscles') and Warne, whose uncertain (in)discipline was definitely one of the reasons he'd never asked to take the toss for the Green Caps, are not really the best advocates for knowing what's best for the team in the long run. Barring his one magical season during the inaugural IPL, Warne's never really been able to prove that his management style rocks. Clarke may still have to bat again in Mohali, and it will be easier for him to play knowing that he has nothing to answer for.

Clarke aside, it is an encouraging sign that there are finally other players putting up their hands to be counted. Cowan, Starc and Smith have helped Australia claim some legitimacy from this test and at lease ensure that India will have to approach Day 4 as an ODI to force a result in the rain-curtailed third test. To extend the popular joke these days, these three must have definitely done their 'homework.'

It's also an interesting question from a management's perspective - does the punishment fit the crime? In these days of zero-tolerance corporates and a looming/existing/emerging recession, one would be accurate in supposing that similar conduct in a professional organization would see you bouncing on your backside on the street faster than Clarke's latest innings (for posterity's sake, recording it here - st Dhoni b Jadeja 0(1) - third test @ Mohali) - and no one would have blinked. If this had happened in Australia, Glenn Maxwell might have at least escaped the ignominy of being the only member dropped, and that too when you had Phil Hughes (67 balls, 2 runs, 5 dismissals) as one of the chosen 11 - at least Clarke could have called on further resources from the Sheffield games, or at the very least, persuaded Punter Ponting for one more hurrah.

Which brings us back to the question - what's next for Clarke? As a batsman, he has nothing to prove; as a captain, however, he needs to prove a point. Not to the media, or to the rest of his country, but to the four 'boys' who have been sent a message. That they need the team more than the team needs them.

Captaincy... 'oppa Dhoni style!

One of my favorite scenes in the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' series is when Capt. Norrington's aide remarks to him, "That has to be the worst pirate I've ever seen." (for those of you who want to see it again - the Youtube clip) - a few minutes before he utters, equally automatically, "that has to be best pirate I've ever seen!"

Watching Captain MS Dhoni, on and off the field, evokes similar reactions. The man's decisions seems maddeningly counter-intuitive, making you go - why oh why oh why - until, sometime later, he somehow manages to just pull it off. A lot of examples abound of his successes and his failures, but when you hit a good streak, it's the former that people remember more easily (and the reverse holds true, as well!)

Case in point: Shikhar Dhawan's scintillating debut today (185* off 168 balls)

Why am I giving credit to Dhoni for selecting Dhawan when he was practically forced to do, given Sehwag's consistent struggle in the past few months?

Call me an optimist, but the way the newcomers - and the come-back'ers - have performed with an intensity and a hunger is a reflection of the leadership that they are operating under. It is indeed a struggle for any up-and-coming cricketer to break into the Indian team - just as it would be for any Tom, Dick and Harry to get into a world-class company - despite being the smartest fish in a smaller pond. At the same time, it is not unheard of for someone to be put on the fast-track on the basis of a couple of tearaway performances - nor unusual for that shining star to turn into a shooting star that fades away just as you catch sight of it. Too much, too soon...

Yet, when one is rewarded for perseverance over (just a few) performances, there is a hunger that makes you clutch each opportunity in a vise-like grip, not willing to slack off or even take the slightest chance of losing it all. Dhawan's innings - or Pujara's or Vijay's, from Hyderabad, or Harbhajan Singh's desperate dive to save a number-10 batsman's boundary even with a lead of 135+ runs - has been characterized by that hunger, of realizing that each and every aspect of their commitment was precious. Of remembering the promises (uttered and implied) that they would have made to their captain.

What has the captain offered in return?

If one goes by the usual reports in the media, preference for selection, despite the risk to the team's successes, on grounds of personal relationships.

There is another interpretation (not expressed as stridently, perhaps, as the obvious motive of favoritism) for Dhoni's persisting with out-of-form players - something that he himself has taken pains to drive home to a largely stubborn opinion-community - that players needed to know that they can make mistakes as long as they learn from it, that the cushion of continued faith in one's abilities is better than a sword hanging over your head if you want to bring out the best in someone. Kudos to the selectors and the rest of the management for falling in with this philosophy, a rare marriage of mixing ground realities with the responsibilities of ensuring a team's future. Thus, a battered Ashwin has fought back in this series. An almost-written-off Jadeja has rediscovered his mojo.

In a corporate world, we leave this too often to the immediate manager's responsibility - as if motivating an employee to go that extra step, to take that extra leap, is not the responsibility of anyone else within the organization. True, employees leave managers, not companies - but that does not absolve each and every cog of the leadership chain from having to feel responsible for the morale of their employees. 

A friend of mine recently complained that his company was finding it difficult to service even the most basic commitments to its customers and its employees - yet, when he put in his papers, he was wined and dined by the CEO at a posh hotel in Bangalore, a call was put through to his manager to clear every single bill of his and he was offered a raise on the spot. On the face of it, one would call it smart people management from the CEO to keep from losing one of his top revenue generators. Yet, peeling the surface, you realize that these promises, toothless and perhaps insincere out of the CEO's inability to hold to them, were nothing more than a cosmetic adherence to a common management philosophy that believes in muting the symptoms, not curing them.

For a company to transform from a transactional existence to a truly great place to work in, there has to be a sensitization that each and every person who impacts the internal stakeholders is as critical to the success as the ones who face the external stakeholders. A checker in the finance team has to do his work as diligently as the sales rep whose bills he is auditing. The guy in the warehouse has to realize that there is a downside to sending the wrong components, even if it means that his dispatch metrics are less than optimal. 

And that is where the sub-captains step in. To ensure that in the midst of carrying on his/her division's goals, you do not lose track of the big picture that you are painting. 

And that is where the management - mid-, top-, bottom-, whatchamacallit-levels - need to ensure that the silos dissolve and that you do not create an unhealthily competitive atmosphere between people who have to be in synergy. In a lot of sales-driven companies, the traditional style of checks-and-balances has been to let the individual divisions fight it out. (Marketing vs sales, sales vs service, service vs branding, branding vs finance, etc) - that needs to change. When you spend millions of dollars on setting up a unified IT architecture, and yet fail to see the significance of gelling your divisions together in mind more than silicon, it makes you one of the worst captains ever. If you prefer internal competitiveness to competing efficiently against your competitors, you've already lost the market before you've set foot in it. That's the shortest route to mediocrity, to the footnotes of history as a company that just could not hack it.

On the other hand, if you truly believe in employee motivation, stop wasting time on trying to motivate them with empty pep-talks and outsourced mind-altering (or -numbing, depending on the outcome) seminars. It might soothe the corporate conscience and give you the chance to chuck out a few "he's just not a team player, doesn't have the right attitude" types, but you've still not understood what is pricking your employees. And understanding that is the first step to being a great place to work in.

Internal competitiveness, like stomach acid, can be corrosive if that is what the organizational culture degenerates to. So can a Stalinistic attitude to mistakes. If you've hired an employee believing in his/her potential, then you have an obligation to realize that potential - and make them feel more comfortable than if they had jumped into the midst of malnourished sharks - as a mark of respect to the time and effort that has gone into that recruitment. 

Take a leaf out of Dhoni's book. Make your employees hunger for your success. And then make sure they know they have your faith in getting it.

Facing an interview... from the other side

Note: Certain details mentioned in this passage may or may not bear resemblances or references to characters real or imagined, living or dead, facts, exaggerations and simply figments of imagination. So there!

Me: So what makes you think our company is the next place you want to work for?

Candidate: Erm.. I want to get into the education sector, Sir. It is the happening field these days and... well, it IS education. Noble field and all that...

Me: So are you looking to become a teacher?

Candidate: Oh, no. No way... teachers just teach from books. I will <insert job description here> by teaching the <insert client profiles> from my knowledge... 

Me: Let me grant that... but the question still remains. Why us?

Candidate: You are associated with <insert name of big parent organization>. So that brand is here...

Me: Have you gone through our company website?

Candidate: Erm... no, sir. Actually, I did not get any time to do it. (A pause, then the eager smile of an honors-grade student) Could you tell me more about the company, sir?

And, just so that you have the right context, this is a candidate who's had four days to spend five minutes online to go through the company's website.

Sitting across a job-seeking candidate is both an awesome rush and a sobering crush. You don't want to reject a suitable candidate just because you did not like his clothes, demeanour or political leanings - and yet, you know you could, as easily as snapping your fingers. Your actions this day might determine the candidate's future, a future that might or might not involve you as well; in any number of ways, you alter that candidate's psyche all those interviews you sat for altered yours. Confidence is made or broken on both sides of the table, sometimes together, other times sadistically opposite.

During my B-school days, there was this junior we were interviewing at 4 AM for a club post. 4 AM, and all of us were barely registering a word. Within a few minutes, the candidate who had walked so eagerly through the doors was as apathetic as we were; with each lifeless reply to each lifeless question, the die was rapidly being cast. Thankfully, as we were walking out, someone took a call to give the fellow another chance at a more earthly hour the next day - and the guy walked away in less time than the previous night, this time a unanimous choice for induction.

Just as the candidate grows with each sitting, so too does the interviewer. While the play-by-ear attitude may still persist, the questions become more incisive and the approach more multi-faceted. The candidates, even the normally placid ones, start getting flustered faster. You find yourself already moving to the next question even as the previous answer is being uttered. The indicators to watch out for, the generic statements that every candidate hopes will be left unchallenged, the cliches and the escapisms... they fall into focus faster and more easily, until it is almost too easily.

That's when the doubts start creeping back in - and you start (or have to start) asking yourself if you are doing enough justice to the time both sides have invested into the meeting. You get so caught up in planning the next question you are not paying any attention to the current answer. Assumptions turn into decisions... and decisions into witch-hunts. Any chance of the candidate surprising you with an insight or an observation is washed away under the pressure of your short-term prejudice.

At the same time, that possibility diminishes the moment the candidate tells you that he/she has not even glanced at the company website. Isn't there something Freudian - or Jungian - or even suicidal about a candidate who, before appearing for an interview that's supposedly crucial to his/her future, does not bother to find out more about the organization he/she is getting into? Wouldn't this be the same approach to work, a haphazard don't-care/what-next outlook that's harmful in the short-term and devastating in the long-term?

For as brilliant as you are, as quick-thinking and personable as you are, lack of interest always gets out. Companies don't always hire those who have a sated hunger for success - rather, they look for the ones still hungry for success. The more the failure, the starker that hunger... and the more driven that candidate. 

You don't choose someone for liking a job and faring badly. You choose someone for wanting that job.

Badly.

The Other Side of the Coin - The PQRS of Redressal

If you accept the four 'rights' for a complainant, then perhaps the PQRS of redressal (catchy title - check, bullets - check, simple once you've read it - check, absurdly familiar to someone else you repeat this to - check) might also be worth spending some time on. 

Disclaimer: No theorists were mangled, misquoted or otherwise publicized in creating the material for this approach. 

P for Process and Possession

• Process: Keep the process as simple and clear-cut for your stakeholders as possible. The simpler and more direct the process, the better - if I have to push ten buttons for ten different menu choices in an IVRS when I am already displeased, or if I have to find my way through a convoluted system of reportees and authorities to air my grievance, you make an already bad situation worse. In the first case, I get frustrated to the point I do not give you the chance to even hear me out. In the second case, I am sharing my side of the story, unopposed, to every keg in the wheel before I get to the right person - which means that even internally, your image takes a hit. Imagine an employee who wants to complain about discrimination in the workplace. A single, aimless/fruitless iteration through a single department will yield you three more employees who will start to think they are also being discriminated against.
• Possession: Once you have the complaint before you, take ownership of the issue. Nothing can be more infuriating to a complainant than to see the complaint being orphaned. In back-end service organizations, the easiest tickets are often bastardized with multiple claimants - or in sales, where people vie for the easiest/least troublesome accounts/complaints - and at the end, you have someone who's stuck with complaints he does not want to handle. It is important that the issues be owned by someone who actually wants to see a resolution - and if that is not you, then the complaint shouldn't have come to you in the first place.

Q for Quest and Questioning

• Quest: Once a complaint has been received, the effort to resolve it should resemble a quest. A passionate, committed, no-stone-left-unturned approach that requires end-to-end ownership and the ability to view the picture at all levels. It is akin to strategy, where your destination is as important as your starting point, for the simple reason that your destination then forms the starting point for the next round. A customer might be willing to accept failure if he knows that sincere efforts were expended, but if nothing went in... then nothing comes out.
• Questioning: Common fallacies in issue resolution are the anchoring and recency effects. Anchoring is when you accept the complainant's version and proceed on that basis - and the complaint might just as well be a CYA (cover your a$$) measure as a genuine grievance. It's in fact a lose-lose situation - on a genuine complaint, if you fail to explore all alternatives, you may not realize what actually went wrong or where your system failed; if you operate on an erroneous foundation, you end up wronging someone else. Remember all those times you went crying to your mother about how Shyam, your next-door neighbour, pushed you down... after you'd kicked him in the shin, called him names and let the air out of his cycle?
  Recency is when you keep getting swayed by every new piece of information or opinion you come across. This is usually a medical condition found in people who hold leadership positions without having done anything to deserve being there. Like politicians and your next boss.

R for Refine and Reserve

• Refine: From the catchall approach above, there will come a time when you will need to hunker down and isolate the issues immediately relevant. A sexual harassment suit brought against a senior employee usually starts with the caveat of 'guilty until proven innocent' (mainly because the legal risks are too great for an organization to suppose otherwise), interviewing other employees who may have faced the same situation, determining if this was a one-off incident or a part of a pattern of abuse, the reasons for the same... You need to pour everything into a funnel and then use filters to get rid of the noise around the issue.
• Reserve: Refining the crude gets you the starting point for recovery. At the same time, just as you don't cross a road without looking in both directions (even - or should I say especially - on one-way streets in India), you still cannot afford to jump the gun and run naked through the streets shouting Eureka (granted, I am probably overdoing it with the metaphors just a little bit here!) Hold your judgement and try to validate it with other indicators if possible. Remember Muphy's law.

S for Solve and Sanitize

• Solve: Finally, address the concerns of the complainant and provide a solution that satisfies the actual aggrieved party. Whoever that is. The whole effort is wasted if the beneficiaries of your judgement do not become beneficiaries of its execution. If I find out that my employee over-billed my client - who complained - and I still defend him or choose to stay quiet on the issue, that client is going to take his business somewhere else next time.
• Sanitize: The benefit of redressing a complaint is that it allows you to plug weak spots in your own value delivery system. Whether it's an employee, a customer or a shareholder who's been wronged, it's in my best interests to sanitize the system so that the same issue does not crop up again - or, if it did, there is a faster route to resolution.
  Why would it be beneficial? Obviously, so that I will not have to spend my time and efforts on the same thing all over again. And perhaps not so obviously, I might be at the receiving end myself some time in future. 

So there you have it - the PQRS of complaint redressal. It tells you nothing you already didn't know, especially the order of the alphabets (I had originally intended this to be SPQR, with different expansions, but decided it might have been too confusing for some). Will it help you in retaining your customers, your employees, your shareholders or your spouse? Maybe... but it should certainly go a long way towards making you sound wise and managerial. 

Which, as Keats once wrote, 

... - that is all 

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

The Four Rights for a Complainant

Disclaimer: In the manner of evergreen management traditions, my theory should have a catchy title (check), consist of bulletable points (check), must sound absurdly easy once explained (check) and must seem obvious to everyone else when you repeat it (check). You need either an MBA degree or common sense to understand why I would write something like this. 

Ever since that beloved guardian of the morals of our institute, Cyberoam, managed to block that guy who was always sneaking out of the campus without permission - Proxifier - and bringing in all sorts of unwanted junk like blogs, youtube videos, advertisements that we have rarely been exposed to (given that the most popular television set on campus - in the canteen - has been switched off for weeks now because they don't give channels without being paid for the service), antivirus updates, recreational sites... (I mean, how immoral can you get?) I've felt the frustration among the student community grow.

The funny thing about the issue has been the reaction from the crowd. Instead of complaining to the authorities, the bulk have chosen to air their frustrations on the Google groups - where you only meet more frustrated 'end-users', not the service providers who have the best chance to provide some much-needed 'service recovery.' On the streets, in the canteen, before and after the exams, the common refrain has been, "Oh <enter favorite expletive here>, Cyberoam's blocked all the sites again. Wonder what's left for us to browse? What's the point of having internet if you can't download anything? And to think of the thousands we pay for this so-called service..."

What struck me was the odds of the complainants actually taking it to the faculty in question, instead of beating the issue to a death amongst us. How many of us actually know who holds charge now? How many of us bothered to find out?

That led me to the four 'rights' for a complainant - things you have to keep in mind if you should have any hope of getting a solution. 

• Right Tone: Taking an aggressive stance, especially from the very beginning, eliminates all chances of a conciliatory/negotiated solution - instead, it puts everyone in the role of an antagonist to everyone else. The right tone should convey the appropriate mix of genuine need, (un)due respect (without, however, the chamchagiri that politicians espouse), politeness and respect for the other side for taking time off their jobs to listen to you. If sincerity means that you would rather call the guy a duck-headed quack, be prepared to trade off that satisfaction for getting things done.
  
• Right Person: The whole effort of complaining is lost if the person I am complaining to cannot do anything about it. Just as I can't affect the CWG fiasco by talking to my roomie, or even the Director of this institute - or, to draw another parallel, just as the porter on the platform can't make Indian Railways safer - your complaint needs to reach the right ears of the right person. Timing is critical here, as is the environment in which you find the person.
  
• Right Words: You go up to your boss, tell him very politely - even respectfully - that you have a problem with one of your teammates. And then you screw it all up with, "He's refusing to fill in for me while I go on a holiday with my wife next week when the client's visiting." Enough said.
  
• Right Time: Unless you've just woken after being in a coma for the past year or so, you must be aware of the fuss over the preparations (or lack thereof) for the CWGames. Why is such a fuss being made now? Because we had less than two months (when the media furore kicked off in style), the monsoon loomed ominously and the Page 3 celebrities were not doing anything scandalous. Similarly, if you have a problem, make a noise about it when you are most likely to be heard, when the message can strike home with the full import that you think it deserves. At the same time, make sure your target is in the right mood to give you a favorable hearing.

In other words, complain in the right tone to the right person with the right words at the right time.

At the very least, you'll have the satisfaction of being efficient, if not effective.

Addendum to Genesis 1:1

And no, I have no intention of writing a book on my experiences at a premier B-school in India. In fact, I am not even going to write about my kindergarten - although I have been told I touched quite a lot of lives then.

(Pulling others' hair, tripping people, fighting, boring the kid to my left to a stupor, boring the kid to my right to a stupor, getting my teacher to learn Tamil simply because I refused to learn anything else... yup. Definitely satisfying.)

Genesis 1:1

Finally, I give in to a long-subdued impulse to (re)start blogging again. This time around, it's going to be a lot of tech/managerial stuff, instead of the literary works I am so famous for. (Hey, somebody's gotta say I am famous!) Ramsutra's gonna be ram's sutra all the way, except for a few detours here and there if the scenery warrants it.

Now what am I going to put in here that you won't find at any other source anywhere else in the world?

Simple.

Ramsutra. (Now if that doesn't sound conceited and convince you to go to another page, my positioning has worked. That's sutra #1: no one will take you seriously if you won't)

What's Ramsutra? (The first P of marketing, for the uninitiated or MBAs)

Ramsutra will consist of my take on most things that interest me - putting up a unified comm network here at IMT Nagpur, learning new technologies, the challenge of developing something you know nothing about, business tactics and strategies, reviews, behavior, actions, motivations (wow! the list is getting bigger), managerial concepts and application, teaching, learning, and a few more things that I will remember the next time I take a shower.

What's the price for an entire session of Ramsutra? (The second P - pricing)

Except for time you might wish you had spent doing something else, nothing much. Although I would definitely pitch in if you want me to absorb some of your excess financial liquidity.

Where do I find Ramsutra? (The third P being Place, I couldn't think of anything else appropriate)

Duh! Here... or at http://ramsutra.blogspot.com, which is the same address all over again.

How am I promoting my blog? (You guessed it! The fourth P - promotion)

Other than hoping that some idiosyncratic CEO takes notice of my Sutras, hires me as the successor to head his billion-dollar empire and actually retires (even after knowing how hardly I work) as planned... in which event I would hire a PR publicist to gather hits on this site. Maybe even set up a twitter account...

For the present, though, I console myself that the pearls of wisdom I leave here will find their way into the 13Ks (or any of the other alphabets that are still available at the time) of strategy/marketing/finance/operations/hr/ob/etc. that someone else will take credit for.

That about concludes it, unless you are curious about the title.

Why Ramsutra?

'Cos Ramasutra wasn't available.