Voice of the Scholar

There is an oft-made observation in its two variants depending on which side you are talking to that academic research is far removed from Industry or that industry is far removed from academic research. And interestingly it's the academicians who recognize the gap, more than the industry does - perhaps understandably so coz of their observer and subject relationship where the latter is often not even aware of being observed.

Most academic research in strategic management is backward looking, especially the part which observes behavior of people or collections of people (say firms), looks for patterns and builds or contributes to theory around it. It's unlikely that those people or collections of people would look towards the same studies to draw upon which were built by observing them in the first place. It probably takes corporate (or political) blunders combined with I told you so from a research paper buried behind a payment gateway for solutions to emerge. Consultants are uniquely placed to advise the right course before blunders happen, but (a) they rarely have the right level, coverage and understanding of academic research, and (b) they are paid by individuals who actually know what they want to hear. And then there is politics, power and ego. There's also the view that leaders must go with their gut feel, be creative, experiment, and 'innovate'. And try crazy stuff at times - no euphemisms. Research based on generalizations from the past struggles to offer adequate inputs to such leaders, especially when they believe they know what they need to. On the positive side, a lot of good things have happened by people taking paths and approaches that weren't considered viable or wise before, or that were just not thought about. And which were later picked up by scholars to study and write more about.

While the conundrum is here to stay, academic research must look for other channels for sharing with wider world. If research papers can't be made free, as they too need a revenue model - and most of them are difficult to understand for non-PhD types anyway - authors must take personal initiative to disseminate their learnings from various platforms to audience that can benefit from the research work. They can use AI tools to simplify, summarize and customize. Certainly, the world will benefit if most of the academic community finds a voice that is both heard and understood.

Meeting John Kuruvilla

A lot of coincidences happened together to lead me to a chance meeting with John Kuruvilla. I was at IMT Nagpur for a weekend to deliver a few lectures on Blockchain Technology, a course that I was teaching as visiting faculty. We were both at the same guesthouse in the campus. I had finished my lecture and was thinking of taking some rest in my room as I wasn't feeling very well. I requested that the evening snacks and tea be delivered to my room. But the attendant served it in the common room of the guest house and requested that I had them there. Reluctantly, I went. And I met John and Lisa there. I thought at first that John was another visiting faculty. My mind started its routines to suppress the bout of introversion and to prepare me for some conversation with a stranger.

As I sat to have some pani puri, John introduced himself and Lisa, his wife. He called himself a "disruptor", that he had traveled all over India on his bike covering college campuses, discovered the potential of young India first-hand, but also deeply realized that he had to do more to help them. There were a few copies of "Simply Fly" lying by his side. It is the autobiography of Captain Gopinath - the founder of Air Deccan, the company which revolutionized commercial aviation in India and made it accessible to the Indian middle-class. I told him I had read that book many years back and had liked it. He said then I must know him coz he was mentioned in the book. I hardly remembered much from that book, except that it was extremely inspiring. With embarrassment I had to tell John I didn't quite remember the details as I had read it more than a decade ago.

As they were leaving from the room, John invited me to attend his session that was going to start in 30 mins. Reluctantly, I said yes, fighting my urge to take rest as I was tired and unwell. And I'm glad I went.

As I was getting ready for the session - wearing back the somewhat formal attire I got rid of after class, my phone brought me a little up to speed about John. I noticed that his LinkedIn profile was full of CXO positions. And I noticed his Air Deccan connection. In hindsight now, I feel may be he's so not used to being not recognized, much less to being totally not known to someone. But his humility was admirable. Except, and I say it as a joke, for the part where he called himself a "disruptor" - a term which along with its synonyms is getting too much abused by the so-called top voices of LinkedIn.

The session was in a large auditorium at IMT Nagpur, just a few minutes' walk from the guest house where we were staying. John welcomed me very warmly and requested that I sit in the front row, which the introverted me reluctantly obliged. The audience were mostly MBA students. The session was about finding one's calling. John gave glimpses of his own life to build his narrative.

He had an extremely successful career spanning three decades in various top corporates, which made him arrogant, he says. At the peak of this career, with heart full of pride and arrogance because of years of success and recognition, he suffered from a life-threatening condition. It took away a few years of his life, was painful and tough. It transformed his thinking, made him question the meaning of it all. His recovery was a blessing that he didn't want to waste. He travelled extensively, opened himself to newer experiences, experimented with various kinds of adventure and looked beyond his earlier limited vision. His most inspirational narrative was about his experience at crossing the Amazon rain forest, facing death from up close, yet being prepared more than 100% to fight it each time, and survive.

He came back from it all as a renewed self. I guess it's the depth and intensity of such experiences that enables one to see beyond the boundaries which we set for ourselves, that limit our goals and ambitions. John found his calling, and I won't try to put it in my words. However, the lesson as I understood was in exploration, learning and pushing boundaries. It shouldn't take us a near-death experience to realize the true purpose of the one life we've got and to discover and define for ourselves what is our true calling. It's still a search, and search can be long. One still has to keep looking with curiosity, enthusiasm and constant preparation. It's possible one is still on that path but needs to reach beyond a threshold to start seeing it more clearly as the goal of life or for things to take shape that way.

Towards the end of his presentation, John spoke about his stint at Air Deccan. He was one of the key figures behind the success of Air Deccan. As Chief Revenue Officer, he played a critical role in the success of the airline. He talked about novel ideas of the time pioneered by Air Deccan like making air travel more affordable by playing smart with the economics of the business, e.g., slashing rates and playing with pricing rather than sending ~40% vacant planes, selling tickets at petrol pumps, competing with the railways, etc.

I understand it was a team effort, and I also understand that a team sometimes takes the credit away from the individual for a path breaking idea, and I must say I also understand that an idea is nothing without its execution which is impossible without the team effort - and we come full circle - for whatever was the extent of the impact John was able to create at Air Deccan, I have great respect for him and especially the airline and what it was able to accomplish for India. My first flight was with Air Deccan. It made me, and many more like me, feel like even they are worthy of air travel. I think that was a big shift in our collective mindset, especially for the middle and upper middle-class population of India. It was a shift that went along with the economic strides that we made during those times and are still continuing to do.

I went to John after the session, shook his hand and said: "I am almost embarrassed I didn't know you".

Sharing is Caring

I was sitting in the park and watching kids as my daughter was playing. At first I was intrigued at how there was a method to all the madness - kids finding their turn at the swings, the slides and the merry-go-round, which is more popularly known as roundabout now. But then I noticed something - some kids got greater access than others, some kids were dominating, some kids settled for what they could find idle. But most often, once a kid had control on something, it was rare he/she gave it up just coz someone asked for it. Makes me wonder, is submissiveness innate in humans or an acquired quality? Is it part of grooming? In our effort to teach kids that they must share, we often push them hard to give away things too easily. And as an unintended consequence, some kids may in the process learn to abuse the principle and demand things too hard, and may even start crying foul when they are not handed over what they crave. And it's hard to argue with them as they are loud and argumentative.

We must realize, of course, that any such moral lesson is generally intended as a way to ensure that those at a disadvantage for whatever reason are not deprived of access. But when it's applied equally, there's a chance that the strong may feign weakness, take advantage of the privilege the situation entails, and augment his/her powers with it.

It's hard not to see how all of this applies even to adults. Perhaps we are just bigger versions of ourselves as kids, with a little more shame that the society instils in us and a greater ability to reason that comes through education and experience.

Should there be boundaries to "sharing is caring"? Perhaps we must define the principle better to embed elements of power, justice, fairness, civility and empathy. And find better ways to impart it to the little impressionable minds. What are your thoughts?

Trump mentions Time Horizons!

In his interview today by Maria Bartiromo on Fox News, Trump made an interesting comment about "time horizons" in the context of the increasing anxiety that the US economy is being pushed to a recession - "If you look at China, they have a 100 year perspective, we go by quarters." Now, I have been studying corporate short-termism for a while. It's generally viewed as disproportionately high focus on short-term outcomes, while putting long-term health of firm at stake. And in all organizations I have worked with, this has been a phenomenon I couldn't reconcile with. But then, the other extreme is excessive focus on long-term at the cost of short-term pain and chaos, which is also fundamentally flawed - because human lives are short, and so are firms' resources; they can't be stretched beyond a point in hope of a distant future while sustaining in the present becomes too challenging. Firms therefore need to achieve a balance of short-term and long-term so that they thrive in the present but are also building themselves for long-term competitiveness.

There is definite truth to what Trump said. Research has established that excessive financialization and shareholder focus have made American firms more and more short-term oriented, and it has been partially responsible for many industries within US losing their competitiveness over the past several decades. Aside from the above statement, it is hard to infer anything concrete on Trump's temporal orientations though, which can sound either way based on which statement or move you analyze. I think one way to view politics is as an art which is meant to achieve a balanced temporal agenda, assuming the politicians are well meaning. Art has various manifestations though, some of which have abilities to push boundaries.

"You can’t turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between"
- Francis Underwood

Short-Termism - Focus on Today at the cost of Tomorrow

"Strategies don't come out of a formally planned process. Most strategies tend to emerge, as people solve little problems and learn things. They come out as some little thought that grows into a major shift into how companies see the world." - Henry Mintzberg

The above emergent perspective on strategy is in contrast to the other popular view from Porter that considers strategy as a more deliberate exercise. The reality must be somewhere in between as the former recognizes the forces managers have to factor while the latter recognizes their element of choice.

After working with many firms for close to two decades, and now putting it all together to feed into my research work, one phenomenon that has intrigued me the most is short-termism. It's only recently, as I have been going through academic literature especially in the areas of Strategic Management, Economics and Finance, that I could map my observations of a phenomenon pertaining to managerial behavior to a well-defined academic construct.

Short-termism is defined as excessive focus and prioritization of short-term interests at the cost of long-term. Since firms' strategic position is a function of managerial choices and decisions, most scholars use the term managerial short-termism. It has been widely studied from various angles e.g. shareholder pressure, markets & signaling effects, organizational & social influences, incentives, competition, information asymmetry, bounded rationality, etc. While the degree of short-termism varies across types of firms and the larger context they operate in - some firms are more short-term than others - the existence of short-termism has been well-established empirically. An optimum level of short-termism and thus the positive sides of short-termism have also been investigated and recognized.

While there's that academic side which I am uncovering with immense curiosity, at the same time as I sit to do my job every day, I see short-term tendencies in most things leaders do in our companies. I have closely observed short-term behavior patterns and tendencies in the IT companies that I have worked for, and they are almost always driven right from the top and in the process get enmeshed in organizational cultures. And it gets extremely concerning when the actions jeopardize the companies in mid to long term. For example, making aggressive risky and difficult to deliver commitments to clients, even contractually signing up for those and agreeing to hard penalties - just to close deals, especially large ones - coz there's pressure from shareholders that's transferred top down all the way to sales and delivery teams on the ground. And if you monitor market reactions to such announcements - large deal closures or number of large deals signed - you would think the pressure is real and the immediate outcome is worth the short-term thinking.

You may look at it as leaders taking leap of faith, that somehow the company will make it work and manage to deliver what they're committing today. It can be called risk taking; but then, there is a significant difference between being quixotic and taking calculated risks based on thorough evaluation of all underlying parameters and extent of possibilities realistically. In other words, these are two extremes even within risk taking.

One may argue - what are customers thinking! how do they end up buying into unrealistic stories? The answer to that is two fold, in my view. Firstly, technology, the efficiencies it can bring and possibilities it can present are difficult to predict, and have often thrown pleasant surprises. Therefore, a strong case can be made that it's a dark tunnel worth walking into, coz in the past light has often appeared from unpredictable directions. So both customers and service vendors make those bets. And that's where the second factor becomes important - the fundamental capabilities of firms to tap into emerging possibilities, incorporate them into their businesses and bring value for themselves and their customers. Companies rarely are on the same plane in all aspects - capabilities, maturity, vision, values, readiness and agility. Therefore, when opportunities present themselves to a company, depending on their nature and that of the company itself, the value derived can vary across firms.

For example, automation has been a buzzword for over a decade now. Extent of automation has become a benchmark, which forces IT service providers to commit to those benchmarks. However, various companies sit on various points on the automation spectrum, where some companies have almost perfected automated service delivery while many just promise it but still do it manually to a great extent by putting more people to save time and appear fast enough. The limitations, which make it difficult to automate, may be both from the customer side and the service provider side. Same is the case with Generative AI now. There's lot of talk by everybody, but very few may really be in position to bring it in any material sense right now. And the gap in their ability to do so will broaden with time, although the benchmarks for efficient services leveraging generative AI will be set for everyone to try and meet.

This can make or break companies, or can bring fundamental shifts if there is an adequately strong long-term drive. For the latter, a company would need to consciously insulate itself from the pressures demanding short-term outcomes (go private? sell a story?). But that's possible only if there is willingness to do so. Shrinking average CEO tenure further exacerbates the tendency to show quick results and make a quick buck. But there are numbers on both sides of an average. And hence, there are companies which evolve, grow stronger for longer term - at least have extended phases of that - and then there are many who drown in their own pool of commitments and expectations.

The answer really depends on what's our question. Are we arguing that the fundamental responsibility of a firm is to sustain itself for long-term? Or is it to work for its stakeholders? Or to deliver the greatest value to customers in the market it operates with the resources it has access to? Or is it to create a workplace for people to collaborate, contribute and earn respectable livelihoods? Or something else? Perhaps a lot else. I think all of these are true to various degrees, which also vary based on countless factors. It's also a philosophical question. It's also a matter of personal opinion and will rarely garner clear consensus. But each question can be further qualified with a temporal color. When?

I would therefore see this phenomenon as a key contributor to the evolutionary process of a business, as it thrives in an environment of competition, customers, vendors, shareholders, employees, etc. all making their own moves and counter moves while the firm itself makes its strategic choices as it tries to answer the above questions for itself and put up its fight in the arena.

What's your take on short-termism?

ChatGPT and the like - an interesting era has begun!

My previous post with thoughts on "Artificial Dumbing" - the phrase totally coined by me - was pretty much in the words of ChatGPT! It is amazing how it expands blocks of ideas into such wonderfully articulated pieces of writing which largely resonate with what you think and want to communicate if you express yourself well enough to the tool. I hear a lot else is possible with Generative AI based tools already (check this out). And I am curious. Looking forward to try them all, at least the free ones.

What I have experienced through extensively using ChatGPT of late, is that the low hanging fruit of direct productivity improvements is something everyone must immediately tap into. It's primarily in terms of quick generation of specific content, including code, which would be as precise as the context and details provided by the requester. So, if you know what you want to achieve, just type your requirement as clearly as possible, basically whatever is in your mind and whatever you would tell yourself that you needed to do. And ChatGPT might give you a better output in a few seconds than what you might in a few hours. There are constraints on the type of input it takes and the type of output you can derive out of it. But then, you can be creative and push the boundaries to some extent. Also, the way the current ChatGPT works, you can use it to augment you, may be even do majority of the work for you, but there will be gaps and you have to fill those so that the output is complete, coherent and meaningful.

A powerful feature of ChatGPT is its conversational format, and working through multiple threads which behave like separate conversations. For example, if I am working on creating a report on a specific topic, with a many sub-topics, side-topics and nuances to deal with, I can first carry on a conversation with the tool like I would with an expert; exchange ideas, views and feedback, and through this process get to a point where, like a human, rather like a friend or colleague conversing with me, or perhaps even better than any of them in a way we wouldn't want to acknowledge, the tool actually understands my views and intentions which need to come in the report. Now with the framework already set, I would now ask the tool to give me the content as I desire, with the structure I want, with the nuances I want, with the messaging I intend and with the tone I desire. And even after that, if there are slight deviations, I can tell the tool to make necessary fixes, add or remove stuff I don't want, change the tone if I'd like, even change the person - pretend to be me or someone, and regenerate the content. I can make these tweaks multiple times, and even ask for many versions by regenerating responses, just for the heck of it sometimes. It won't take too many iterations to get what you need. It's not only a huge time saver, but also gives you the quality that you may not be able to deliver yourself in 100 times the time it took. And that is one aspect that both enthralls and worries me.

The reason it worries me, is that if tools like Generative AI become fully integrated into our lives, especially from our childhood, but also in later years, we will diminish, or not fully develop our abilities to imagine, create, express, articulate, write, draw and develop from scratch - something that is so unique to human minds and bodies, as we would have tools to do better job more effectively. The tools still have limitations, at least so far and for the near future, in being not capable of surpassing all human ability - what they call singularity - and are only capable of what they can copy / learn from, which is the entire body of human creation so far. Which means that there would still be value to things we can imagine or create beyond what anyone has ever done, and there are really no boundaries to that if history is anything to go by. But then, if we are out of practice with the basic level, aren't we generally dumbing down our faculties? How can we run for iron-man if we rarely jog or get into water or cycle?

Or am I looking at it all wrong? The time we save by using tools for mundane tasks can indeed be devoted to pursue goals of higher order. But the tools we are looking at have abilities beyond the mundane, and if we set boundaries to where they play a role, I think we'd be trying to suppress the impact of one of our greatest inventions. And something so great will always find its way around the stupidity / rigidity of humans, eventually.

There's another possibility. Human endeavor has always found newer areas and greater challenges. The invention of the wheel and everything that enabled us to move faster ever since, has possibly made us poor runners as a whole since we are less dependent on that skill for survival. Running has become a sport to compete in, with others interested, wanting, skilled and trained at running - it's become a form of entertainment that way. For many it's for fitness. But we certainly don't need to run from an angry tiger to save our lives or cover long distances on foot. The analogy is compelling but the key difference with AI is that we are playing with mental faculties now, and that's fairly recent. May be a few centuries later, we'll look back at this moment as a pivot in human civilization that totally transformed our lives, made us live longer, healthier and happier. Or may be we'll see this as the dark period that destroyed everything we stood for.

We must therefore develop this carefully, but definitely.

How do you think we must shape this? Can we, beyond a point? Where do we draw a line, to be safe? And should we?

I am tempted to ask ChatGPT for an answer...

Unveiling the Shadow Side of Corporate Decision-Making: The Era of "Artificial Dumbing"

In the age of rapid technological advancements and the pursuit of artificial intelligence, a contrasting phenomenon has emerged within the corporate world — one that can be described as "artificial dumbing" - a term I coined and which I think captures what's eating productivity of humans very deeply. This concept refers to deliberate non-intelligent actions taken by corporate executives that serve their personal interests, often at the expense of rational choices and genuine insights. From sales and strategy to delivery and beyond, artificial dumbing casts a shadow on the decision-making landscape. Let us delve deeper into this intriguing and concerning aspect of corporate behavior.

The Prevalence of Artificial Dumbing:
Artificial dumbing pervades various domains within corporate functions, where self-serving motivations can eclipse rational thinking. In sales, executives might resort to manipulative tactics and short-term gains, sacrificing long-term customer relationships. In presales, decisions may be driven by personal biases rather than objective evaluation, hindering the pursuit of optimal solutions. Even in strategy formulation, misguided ambitions and the desire for personal glory can lead to shortsighted plans detached from reality. This trend poses significant challenges to the pursuit of genuine progress and ethical business practices.

The Factors Behind Artificial Dumbing:
Several factors contribute to the propagation of artificial dumbing in corporate decision-making. The pressures of competition, quarterly targets, and the relentless pursuit of individual success create an environment that incentivizes short-term thinking and self-preservation. In addition, organizational structures and hierarchies sometimes prioritize individual achievements over collective wisdom, promoting a culture that rewards personal gain over the common good. Moreover, the abundance of information in today's interconnected world can lead to selective data interpretation, enabling executives to cherry-pick facts that align with their preconceived notions or personal interests.

Consequences and Implications:
The consequences of artificial dumbing can be far-reaching. It erodes trust within organizations, stifles innovation, and limits sustainable growth. Employees who witness such behavior may become disillusioned, and the overall corporate culture may suffer as a result. Moreover, the collective intelligence and potential of organizations remain untapped when decision-making is clouded by self-serving agendas. Ultimately, the negative repercussions extend beyond the corporate realm, impacting stakeholders, customers, and society at large.

Combatting Artificial Dumbing:
Addressing artificial dumbing requires a multi-faceted approach. Organizations should foster a culture of integrity, transparency, and collaboration, emphasizing the importance of long-term success over short-term gains. Encouraging diverse perspectives and empowering employees to challenge flawed decisions can help counteract personal biases. Furthermore, fostering a learning environment that values evidence-based decision-making and critical thinking can help dismantle the allure of artificial dumbing. Leaders must set the example by prioritizing ethical conduct and promoting a collective mindset focused on sustainable progress rather than self-interest.

Conclusion:
Artificial dumbing represents a concerning trend in corporate decision-making, where self-serving actions take precedence over intelligent choices and authentic insights. Recognizing and combating this phenomenon is vital for organizations to foster a culture of ethical decision-making, innovation, and long-term success. By challenging personal biases, fostering collaboration, and prioritizing collective intelligence, businesses can overcome the allure of artificial dumbing and embrace the transformative power of genuine intelligence in their pursuit of a better future.